Posted by all3 on 3/5/2021 8:53:00 PM (view original):
No, I do not think the Government should intervene. Word of mouth and social media will kill that business quick enough. Isn't that a more fitting result?

That was about the answer I expected.

Yes, many people would not go there because of that, but many people would probably go out of their way to frequent the place because of that. There are more racists in this country then people seem to think.

There are many people alive today who rioted in response to integration. If you were 18 in 1965, you're 74 today. Just something to think about :)

I wonder who those people vote for?

Posted by all3 on 3/5/2021 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 3/4/2021 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Now I think we're talking apples and oranges. I agree 100% that any private business should be able to ban anyone , especially if they refuse to adhere to known business rules. I just don't want the Government getting involved to say where businesses can or can't draw the line.

You’re inadvertently advocating for Jim Crow here.

And you're purposely being a moron.
Why not try actually answering the question someone asks, if you're going to try to argue them? Who gets to decide where the law if drawn and why is it them who gets to decide? Should we maybe have a couple hundred referendums on every ballot to decide such issues?

I answered what you said.

the Supreme Court decides, btw.

So you want every case of perceived racism, sexism, ageism or any other ism based on something birth-related, to go to the Supreme Court? If so, that's your opinion, and your entitled to it, just want to clarify. If so, how about refusing to serve men with facial hair, since they're born with it, or maybe refusing those who are barefoot or even naked? People are born without shoes and clothes.