If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Oklahoma restaurant won't serve 'freaks,' 'f*ggots,' the disabled and welfare recipients. . . For the last 44 years   (rawstory.com) divider line 725
    More: Asinine, welfare recipients, KFOR, welfare  
•       •       •

17718 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:29 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



725 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 05:31:48 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.


See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?
 
2014-02-07 05:32:37 PM  

QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.


rebloggingdonk.com
 
2014-02-07 05:33:43 PM  

jso2897: No.


Followed by

jso2897: You are free to reject it, and abjure society's protections.

aka

jso2897: Yes.


As I said earlier

Dancin_In_Anson: I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.


You want this man to serve anyone and everyone that wants to peaceably come in, plunk down  their money and get a burger and a beer and if he refuses, he will "abjure society's protections" as you put it or "face official sanction" as I put it.

I on the other hand would simply refuse to darken his doorstep and attempt make hay off of his narrow mind. He's turning away a lot of business and he won't be around forever. You see the pile of shiat, I see the nugget of corn.
 
2014-02-07 05:33:52 PM  
I'm still curious how many of the people flipping out over this would be happy to serve the racist asshole if he walked into their business.
 
2014-02-07 05:34:34 PM  

sendtodave: scottydoesntknow: sendtodave: Scratch that other post, thanks for the answer.

Of course. I try to answer everybody (I went to lunch when you posted).

Again, he should follow our law.

Yes. Wherever you are, you follow the laws of that country. I wouldn't expect him to follow that law if he were in China, anymore than I would expect an Asian guy to follow a law in China while living here.

Going on and on about what a backwards piece of shiat he is, how he should die, blah blah, for being a racist is kinda silly.

Sure I'll agree with you on that. But it's the internet, hyperbole and exaggeration are par for the course. Granted I would not shed a single tear if this guy dropped dead of a heart-attack tomorrow. It would just be one less racist on this earth.

The world would be better without racists.

Pretty empty, too.

/still judging...


Everyone judges. The silliest thing a human being can call another is "judgmental" - we all are, and that's not a bad thing. Without judgment, we would be clever, dangerous apes, and little more.
And you are probably right about racism - especially if you include all the different and analogous manifestation of bigotry and xenophobia and intolerance in general.
But the idea is to move in a direction. If we had ever said "we can't get to where we want to be today, so let's stop trying" we would still be living in caves and sacrificing virgins to our gods.
We can always be better - fairer, more generous, more kind, more intelligent - the capacity for human improvement is potentially endless.
But we will never get "there".
 
2014-02-07 05:34:37 PM  

scottydoesntknow: QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.

[gifrific.com image 152x184]


I very rarely actually laugh out loud while reading Fark but .... this is a special moment.
 
2014-02-07 05:35:03 PM  

sendtodave: TechnicolorYawn: Based on one comment on this thread that really offended me,
I'm going to assume everyone on here is just like that responder and exit the thread forever.

/bye

Way to stereotype!


So, you were able to figure out my sarcasm,
and you got my point, too.  nice.
 
2014-02-07 05:35:29 PM  
 
2014-02-07 05:37:54 PM  

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.

See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?


I don't recall learning about that in school.

It was usually separate water fountains, lunch counter sit ins, Rosa Parks, Alabama march, MLK shot, CRA, done.  and not we have fixed racism.

No, really, thinking back, the reason for the CRA was basically only separate water fountains and Rosa Parks.

So, I'm going to go with ignorance.
 
2014-02-07 05:38:56 PM  
oh wow, apparently this has been happening for a while now.   Even better?  He's a politician....

http://www.news9.com/story/9764682/enid-business-owner-catches-heat-f o r-discrimination">http://www.news9.com/story/9764682/enid-business-ow ner-catches-heat-fo r-discrimination
 
2014-02-07 05:40:57 PM  

El_Perro: See ciberido's post about the Green Book. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome." This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between. A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility. Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?


What year is this? You think that by ignoring this BACF at the end of a  road in Enid, Oklahoma that entire swaths of this country will step back almost 3 generations? It ain't gonna happen.

I live in a dry county*. I guess that means a resurrection of the 18th amendment is possible!


*not for much longer if I have anything to say about it!
 
2014-02-07 05:44:16 PM  

FlashHarry: terry crews


I just had to GIS for him... oh my...

Oh my.
 
2014-02-07 05:44:35 PM  

jso2897: Everyone judges. The silliest thing a human being can call another is "judgmental" - we all are, and that's not a bad thing. Without judgment, we would be clever, dangerous apes, and little more.
And you are probably right about racism - especially if you include all the different and analogous manifestation of bigotry and xenophobia and intolerance in general.
But the idea is to move in a direction. If we had ever said "we can't get to where we want to be today, so let's stop trying" we would still be living in caves and sacrificing virgins to our gods.
We can always be better - fairer, more generous, more kind, more intelligent - the capacity for human improvement is potentially endless.
But we will never get "there".


Ah, but see?  I guess that's the whole point.  We can't claim that we know what the right direction is.  We shouldn't  say we are better than others when they don't even subscribe to our rules.

Some bigot would likely say we are going in the wrong direction.  What proves them wrong?

Society?  Well, it's wrong in our society.  But we didn't even all agree that it's wrong!

And other societies?  Some bigoted societies would say we are wrong, and racism is fine.  How do we know that they aren't right, at least for them?  Maybe harming a minority group benefits the majority society there more than helping them would, for example.

Really, until we claim moral absolutism, and say that liberal views are the right views.

Ah, something like that, anyway.  Day is done, I need drink.
 
2014-02-07 05:47:31 PM  
Another example is China laughing at the "Universal Deceleration of Human Rights."

Because the very idea of human rights is a Western thing.  Why should China be bound by weird foreign ideas "rights?"

Do we have the moral authority to say that they are wrong?  if so, why?
 
2014-02-07 05:48:12 PM  

ciberido: QU!RK1019: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome.

Your presence here proves otherwise.

[rebloggingdonk.com image 500x250]


Because he is actually welcome here and he wants to go where he is not welcome???
 
2014-02-07 05:48:44 PM  

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, I for one do want to go where I am not welcome. Your mileage may vary.

See ciberido's post about the Green Book.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome."  This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between.  A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility.  Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?


You are correct in many respects, but I would offer one caveat here, and that is that this restaurant owner and his ilk are quickly becoming living anachronisms. There would be nothing newsworthy about this guy in 1962. The world is moving on from these people such that his rankings about his little backwater shiathole greasy spoon can get such attention and generate a lot of condemnation. Even this thread has reached a count in the hundreds with no one really defending the man's views or actions, just how we should handle them. Even if we don't agree on whether the state should intervene or if societal shunning and public condemnation is enough, no one here seems to be sticking up for this guy's hate.
 
2014-02-07 05:49:24 PM  

James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: Bane of Broone: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: DROxINxTHExWIND: James10952001: PanicMan: Mattyb710: I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community.  The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.


But you can penalize bigots for discrimination.

Yep, you absolutely can. It's called "not patronizing their business". In other words, don't go there and don't give them your money. You even have the option of not helping them out, should they ever wind up in a position of need.


If I live in that town he's already TAKING my money every time the street lights on that block light a path to his restaurant's door. Every time the police come to his restaurant to respond to a call about a disorderly patron. Every time he dumps his greasy trap into the groundwater supply...

No one is demanding that he stay in business and serve cripples. He's more than welcome to pack his shiat up and take it to Sochi or some other place where those veiws are tolerated by the people who pay for the lights on his street.

If the people who pay for lights on his street don't patronize his business, his business will cease to exist and the problem is solved. It's not as if it's located in the middle of San Francisco with all the customers commuting in from backward redneck places.


Look I think he sounds like a real piece if shiat too, but that's his right. It's only a problem if he starts instigating harm to others.

No it's not. Stop ignoring laws because of your personal beliefs.

I'm not ignoring laws, I just refuse to give a shiat and get bent out of shape about this guy. Go there and if he refuses to serve you illegally then you can ma ...


Why are you even on the internet, nevermind a news aggregate discussion site, if your answer is to ignore the actual stories and avoid discussing them because they don't personally affect you?

Oh right, to troll.


I'm still curious how many of the people flipping out over this would be happy to serve the racist asshole if he walked into their business.

Happens all the time.  You still need to figure out this "civil rights law" thing and the difference between opinion and discrimination.  Apparently standing at a distance and shrugging your shoulders as if you're above it all isn't working.
 
2014-02-07 05:50:34 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: No.

Followed by jso2897: You are free to reject it, and abjure society's protections. aka jso2897: Yes.

As I said earlier Dancin_In_Anson: I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.

You want this man to serve anyone and everyone that wants to peaceably come in, plunk down  their money and get a burger and a beer and if he refuses, he will "abjure society's protections" as you put it or "face official sanction" as I put it.

I on the other hand would simply refuse to darken his doorstep and attempt make hay off of his narrow mind. He's turning away a lot of business and he won't be around forever. You see the pile of shiat, I see the nugget of corn.


I don't care how you feel about this, and beyond correcting the erroneous statement that this guy has a right to discriminate - which he does not, I've got no dog in the fight.
I'm not asking you to do anything about it, or even care. I don't think you're a bad person for taking that position - I just think you're wrong. I don't think the passive attitude fixes this - we tried that back in the early sixties, and it didn't work.
Just as some men will not stop raping women until you jail them, some men will not stop violating civil rights until they are made subject to civil law. That's sad, but it's reality.
Either way, though, I don't take it as a personal offense from you. There are things other farkers do, of which I may disapprove, but simply holding opinions I find disagreeable isn't among them.
 
2014-02-07 05:52:39 PM  
The town's website doesn't list this restaurant on there at all.  I wonder if that's a recent change.

http://www.visitenid.org/visitors/restaurants/uniquely-enid/m.dining di rectory/80/showAll
 
2014-02-07 05:52:46 PM  

James10952001: It's something that has nothing to do with me and doesn't affect me. Nobody will change that guy's mind, any more than someone will turn you into a racist right winger. He's old, he'll die and be replace by younger folks who will likely have different views.


I'm pretty sure that's what they said in the 1870s.  And, for a long enough stretch of history, it's probably true.  But, a century after emancipation, we were still lynching blacks, and there are tens of thousands of students going to school  *TODAY*, as in right now in the year 2014, in de-facto white-only segregation academies in the south.

Without LBJ and the Civil Rights Act, Jim Crow would still be standing in many places.  The Rand Paul theory that this crap would have died on its own (for free-market and march-of-progress reasons) fails to account for the fact that it  did happen, and lasted for a century+.
 
2014-02-07 05:53:00 PM  

give me doughnuts: suburbanguy: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.


What's the criteria? Is it geography? Is it historical? What sets your dividing lines?

If you want to go with the strictly geographical, then you'll have to use the geopraphical center of the contiguous US. That puts almost all of Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California in the southern half of the country, as well as all of Arizona and New Mexico.
If you want historical (meaning the Confederacy), then your own map is incorrect as it includes Missouri and Kentucky (neither of which seceded), and does include West Virginia (which only came into being by their refusal to go along with secession).

Incidentally, the center of the contiguous states in only six minutes of latitude north of the Mason-Dixon line.


Geographically, I think we're considered part of the Midwest, actually. But I still consider Oklahoma part of the South--but not deep south, because you actually have to go father south than Oklahoma City to hit Texas-style derp (like, close to the Texas border). Oklahoma City and the surrounding area is actually pretty liberal--despite the jackhole in the article and our dipshiat governor and legislature. And despite Jim Lankford, but we try to pretend he doesn't exist (I'm voting for the gay Republican paramedic running against him because that's the closest thing to a libertarian Oklahoma allows on the ballot).
 
2014-02-07 05:53:50 PM  

James10952001: I'm still curious how many of the people flipping out over this would be happy to serve the racist asshole if he walked into their business.


If he walked in, I wouldn't refuse him service based on his skin color, sexual orientation, employment status, or any other thing I think I could tell "just by looking at him."

Now, if he started causing trouble, I would exercise my right to refuse him service.

Does that clear it up for you?
 
2014-02-07 05:56:57 PM  

orangehat: The town's website doesn't list this restaurant on there at all.  I wonder if that's a recent change.

http://www.visitenid.org/visitors/restaurants/uniquely-enid/m.dining di rectory/80/showAll


He'd probably have to pay the town Chamber of Commerce, or at least be nice to them and, I don't know, maybe not be an asshole to half the town.
 
2014-02-07 06:00:24 PM  

sendtodave: jso2897: Everyone judges. The silliest thing a human being can call another is "judgmental" - we all are, and that's not a bad thing. Without judgment, we would be clever, dangerous apes, and little more.
And you are probably right about racism - especially if you include all the different and analogous manifestation of bigotry and xenophobia and intolerance in general.
But the idea is to move in a direction. If we had ever said "we can't get to where we want to be today, so let's stop trying" we would still be living in caves and sacrificing virgins to our gods.
We can always be better - fairer, more generous, more kind, more intelligent - the capacity for human improvement is potentially endless.
But we will never get "there".

Ah, but see?  I guess that's the whole point.  We can't claim that we know what the right direction is.  We shouldn't  say we are better than others when they don't even subscribe to our rules.

Some bigot would likely say we are going in the wrong direction.  What proves them wrong?

Society?  Well, it's wrong in our society.  But we didn't even all agree that it's wrong!

And other societies?  Some bigoted societies would say we are wrong, and racism is fine.  How do we know that they aren't right, at least for them?  Maybe harming a minority group benefits the majority society there more than helping them would, for example.

Really, until we claim moral absolutism, and say that liberal views are the right views.

Ah, something like that, anyway.  Day is done, I need drink.


Well, I can't claim moral absolutism - but then, that's kind of a red herring. The argument that there is no objective basis for morality is an old, tired argument that was deconstructed  and disposed of even before the Existentialists finally pretty much did it in back in the 50s. Marcuse and the other hyper radicals attempted to float relativism again in the sixties, but Charlie Manson pretty much exploded that line of conjecture. There are objective bases for morality - and simply saying that they aren't doesn't even work in middle school debating class, let alone the real world.
Frankly, relativism is a child's argument, and I feel mildly insulted that another adult would subject me to it.
The person who does not understand that it is intrinsically more ethical to treat others as one would wish to be treated suffer from a personality defect, not a philosophical confusion.
 
2014-02-07 06:02:39 PM  
I have a hard time believing that this guy actually believes any of this.

I think more likely is that this is a deliberate marketing strategy, a Fox News/Glenn Beck-style beacon to those who hold taboo beliefs.  He gets articles like this published, then the human garbage that actual believe this stuff are able to express those beliefs in a way they don't have to take ANY responsibility for by patronizing his business.

It's still a shame, though, how morally degenerate a lot of parts of our country have become.  There are just so many people in this country, mostly religious people, mostly conservatives and mostly in the south, that just weren't raised right.
 
2014-02-07 06:03:23 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Bane of Broone: MBooda: suburbanguy: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: give me doughnuts: Bane of Broone: And people wonder why the South is ridiculed.


When did Oklahoma become part of "the South"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

From that article:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 566x365]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.

South, West, what the fark do you guys care?  Anything south or west of the Christie end of the GW Bridge is Banjo Country as far as you're concerned.  Admit it.

[dialectblog.com image 800x495]

You couldn't use a map from the last Presidential election?

Here ya go:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 555x352]


So by the last election map, does that mean that eastern WA and 2/3 of OR are also 'the South' because they didn't vote for Obama? What a retarded metric. Newsflash: dislike of a certain party's candidate does not qualify as a regional descriptor.
 
2014-02-07 06:03:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: El_Perro: See ciberido's post about the Green Book. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were large swaths of the country "where [black people were] not welcome." This made travelling extraordinarily difficult, because even if people were welcome at their points of departure and arrival, there may not be anywhere to stop (for food, gas, or even auto repair) in between. A significant purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to ease/lift this de facto restriction on mobility. Again, are people (read: you) so f*cking ignorant of American history that you didn't know this, or are you willfully ignoring the past?

What year is this? You think that by ignoring this BACF at the end of a  road in Enid, Oklahoma that entire swaths of this country will step back almost 3 generations? It ain't gonna happen.

I live in a dry county*. I guess that means a resurrection of the 18th amendment is possible!


*not for much longer if I have anything to say about it!


no, of course the country wouldn't step back 3 generations. But, the changes that have taken place over those 3 generations didn't just happen. They happened in part (I would argue in large part) because legislation like the CRA--and the forceful application of that legislation--sent an unequivocal message that this kind of discrimination is not acceptable, and not accepted, here.
 
2014-02-07 06:04:23 PM  
The most expedient solution to the south problem would be for northerners and westerners to demand that all non-racist (and non-homophobic, etc....) people come and move to the proper states.  For those that are too poor, there should be a sponsorship program.  This will in turn, drive the southern sympathizers in the north and west to the south.  Once this is accomplished vote on tax reforms so that states get back the same percentage that they put in.  Everybody know that the backwards south puts in less money than they get back.  This will then starve them out.  Once this starts happening, and their babies are dieing of starvation, the north and west can slowly start taking back states one by one.  Finally purging the country of the vile south.  Give them the paradise they want, but force them to live (or die) in it.

Anything less shows a lack of commitment to the cause.
 
2014-02-07 06:10:29 PM  

AmbassadorBooze: The most expedient solution to the south problem would be for northerners and westerners to demand that all non-racist (and non-homophobic, etc....) people come and move to the proper states.  For those that are too poor, there should be a sponsorship program.  This will in turn, drive the southern sympathizers in the north and west to the south.  Once this is accomplished vote on tax reforms so that states get back the same percentage that they put in.  Everybody know that the backwards south puts in less money than they get back.  This will then starve them out.  Once this starts happening, and their babies are dieing of starvation, the north and west can slowly start taking back states one by one.  Finally purging the country of the vile south.  Give them the paradise they want, but force them to live (or die) in it.

Anything less shows a lack of commitment to the cause.


Oklahoma is the South now?
 
2014-02-07 06:11:46 PM  

El_Perro: no, of course the country wouldn't step back 3 generations. But, the changes that have taken place over those 3 generations didn't just happen. They happened in part (I would argue in large part) because legislation like the CRA--and the forceful application of that legislation--sent an unequivocal message that this kind of discrimination is not acceptable, and not accepted, here.


And you know what happens when forceful application of legislation happens?!
img547.imageshack.us


People who have no problem with a black man sitting at a lunch counter get really nervous. They are looking around for someone or some group that they can join so they don't feel alone and vulnerable. This in turn will lead to death, destruction and a whole lot of stupidness. Change though the barrel of a gun never works well.
 
2014-02-07 06:12:02 PM  
As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?
 
2014-02-07 06:15:55 PM  
If the money is still green what kind of business man gives a fark what the hand passing it to him looks like?
 
2014-02-07 06:16:33 PM  

jso2897: sendtodave: jso2897: Everyone judges. The silliest thing a human being can call another is "judgmental" - we all are, and that's not a bad thing. Without judgment, we would be clever, dangerous apes, and little more.
And you are probably right about racism - especially if you include all the different and analogous manifestation of bigotry and xenophobia and intolerance in general.
But the idea is to move in a direction. If we had ever said "we can't get to where we want to be today, so let's stop trying" we would still be living in caves and sacrificing virgins to our gods.
We can always be better - fairer, more generous, more kind, more intelligent - the capacity for human improvement is potentially endless.
But we will never get "there".

Ah, but see?  I guess that's the whole point.  We can't claim that we know what the right direction is.  We shouldn't  say we are better than others when they don't even subscribe to our rules.

Some bigot would likely say we are going in the wrong direction.  What proves them wrong?

Society?  Well, it's wrong in our society.  But we didn't even all agree that it's wrong!

And other societies?  Some bigoted societies would say we are wrong, and racism is fine.  How do we know that they aren't right, at least for them?  Maybe harming a minority group benefits the majority society there more than helping them would, for example.

Really, until we claim moral absolutism, and say that liberal views are the right views.

Ah, something like that, anyway.  Day is done, I need drink.

Well, I can't claim moral absolutism - but then, that's kind of a red herring. The argument that there is no objective basis for morality is an old, tired argument that was deconstructed  and disposed of even before the Existentialists finally pretty much did it in back in the 50s. Marcuse and the other hyper radicals attempted to float relativism again in the sixties, but Charlie Manson pretty much exploded that line of conjecture. There are objective bases for morality - and simply saying that they aren't doesn't even work in middle school debating class, let alone the real world.
Frankly, relativism is a child's argument, and I feel mildly insulted that another adult would subject me to it.
The person who does not understand that it is intrinsically more ethical to treat others as one would wish to be treated suffer from a personality defect, not a philosophical confusion.


Well, that childish argument is the official argument of the prc, and just about everyone I met there.

You treat family well. You have little reason to treat others well. And non Chinese? We aren't even really considered real people, basically. We are "foreign people." Totally outside their concept of "us."

So I'm of two minds. Judge their whole culture, my wife's culture, as morally bankrupt, or I can say that every group has it's own way of looking at things, and we can't judge, since we are outsiders.

Even shiatheel OK racists. They have their own culture in the south, atavistic culture. Laws to mitigate that are fine. Judging their culture is a bit different.

Both options suck for me.

Anyway. If moral relativism is a silly idea, then there are billions of people who are "evil."
 
2014-02-07 06:16:48 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?


I don't know where this idea ever came from, but no, you do not have a "right to refuse service to anyone".  If that were true, no restaurants would voluntarily undergo the effort and expense of installing wheelchair ramps.
 
2014-02-07 06:19:10 PM  
Should have read "an often racist culture"
 
2014-02-07 06:19:42 PM  

Sgt Otter: Magorn: Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt"  "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "


 I almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea

There's a few photos around 1:50 in the video.

A sit-in by a bunch of wounded and disabled veterans from Fort Sill should be good for some lulz.


I'd like to see a gay, black, disabled, retired veteran go there.
 
2014-02-07 06:19:48 PM  

ciberido: Yes, sadly, there is.  Mostly cloaked in "states rights," err, I mean, "private property" guise.


Or maybe because they actually know the law.
 
2014-02-07 06:20:07 PM  

Nabb1: AmbassadorBooze: The most expedient solution to the south problem would be for northerners and westerners to demand that all non-racist (and non-homophobic, etc....) people come and move to the proper states.  For those that are too poor, there should be a sponsorship program.  This will in turn, drive the southern sympathizers in the north and west to the south.  Once this is accomplished vote on tax reforms so that states get back the same percentage that they put in.  Everybody know that the backwards south puts in less money than they get back.  This will then starve them out.  Once this starts happening, and their babies are dieing of starvation, the north and west can slowly start taking back states one by one.  Finally purging the country of the vile south.  Give them the paradise they want, but force them to live (or die) in it.

Anything less shows a lack of commitment to the cause.

Oklahoma is the South now?


According to whatever bickering has been going on in this thread about what is south and what isn't.  I don't know what the actual "south" is, just like to me the west means California, Oregon, Washington, but others include such not west states like Colorado.

However crazy my plan is, it just might work.  Or fail, but at least it would be a try at something, instead of another 60 years of bickering.  Or we take half measures, it really doesnt matter to me, I am a happy person doing what I do where I do it.
 
2014-02-07 06:20:41 PM  

QU!RK1019: James10952001: I'm still curious how many of the people flipping out over this would be happy to serve the racist asshole if he walked into their business.

If he walked in, I wouldn't refuse him service based on his skin color, sexual orientation, employment status, or any other thing I think I could tell "just by looking at him."

Now, if he started causing trouble, I would exercise my right to refuse him service.

Does that clear it up for you?


What if he were acting politely but wearing a tshirt that says what his sign says, or something equally offensive?
 
2014-02-07 06:21:46 PM  
To clarify, they STRONGLY believe that we have no right to judge them, as outsiders. Which would be moral relativism, right?
 
2014-02-07 06:22:16 PM  
Guys a dick but it is sorta his right.

I'd attend a sit it (or around, not actually in his place) for the lulz
 
2014-02-07 06:22:59 PM  

James10952001: I've also heard that it looks the nicest in your rearview mirror.


I'd be willing to say that much more soundly about Kansas or Oregon.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:40 PM  

udhq: Bit'O'Gristle: As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?

I don't know where this idea ever came from, but no, you do not have a "right to refuse service to anyone".  If that were true, no restaurants would voluntarily undergo the effort and expense of installing wheelchair ramps.


I see signs in a lot of restaurants stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, and this is in a very liberal suburb of Seattle, so that's likely where any confusion comes from. They don't specify any specific classes of people. I always figured it was so if someone is a dick they can be asked to leave.
 
2014-02-07 06:29:04 PM  

Baloo Uriza: James10952001: I've also heard that it looks the nicest in your rearview mirror.

I'd be willing to say that much more soundly about Kansas or Oregon.


I'm from Portland originally and have always found Oregon to be a nice place in general. Never been anywhere near Kansas and don't see much similarity there.
 
2014-02-07 06:31:29 PM  

Mouren: Guys a dick but it is sorta his right.

I'd attend a sit it (or around, not actually in his place) for the lulz


Also as a preemptive comment the right to refuse exceptions only apply to "race, color, religion or place of origin". Does not explicitly apply to gays, which is the pertinent part of the story for me.

Sure there's precedent for arbitrary rules being unlawful but I doubt the judges in OK would care enough to enforce it.
 
2014-02-07 06:37:37 PM  

Mouren: Mouren: Guys a dick but it is sorta his right.

I'd attend a sit it (or around, not actually in his place) for the lulz

Also as a preemptive comment the right to refuse exceptions only apply to "race, color, religion or place of origin". Does not explicitly apply to gays, which is the pertinent part of the story for me.

Sure there's precedent for arbitrary rules being unlawful but I doubt the judges in OK would care enough to enforce it.


FTFA:  "The restaurant's official t-shirt makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups."


Pretty sure "n-word" is a color, muslim is a religion, and immigrants are considered minority groups.  So yeah, let's not pretend what this guy is doing is legal or minor.  He's enforcing the Archie Bunker spectrum in direct violation of the law.

Amazing that this thread was trolled into 7 pages already.
 
2014-02-07 06:37:51 PM  

James10952001: udhq: Bit'O'Gristle: As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?

I don't know where this idea ever came from, but no, you do not have a "right to refuse service to anyone".  If that were true, no restaurants would voluntarily undergo the effort and expense of installing wheelchair ramps.

I see signs in a lot of restaurants stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, and this is in a very liberal suburb of Seattle, so that's likely where any confusion comes from. They don't specify any specific classes of people. I always figured it was so if someone is a dick they can be asked to leave.


Yeah, that's like those "not responsible for theft" signs in parking garages or the EULA clauses that state you waive your right to sue; they're of ZERO legal merit, and they're only there to make you think you have no recourse.

If you could just post a sign to exempt yourself from any law you wanted to, why wouldn't everyone be doing that?
 
2014-02-07 06:39:35 PM  

ciberido: El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: He will only be forced to serve those he has no reasonable, lawful cause to refuse.

WHY THE FARK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SERVED BY THIS ASSHOLE?

Because if this asshole has the right to refuse serve me based on my race, ethnicity, disability, etc., then any asshole has the right to refuse to serve me based on my race, ethnicity, disability, etc.  And if any asshole has the right to do so, then EVERY business owner in a given area has the right to do so.  That would leave members of the discriminated-against class with few/no options for food, gas, etc. (e.g., those things classified as "public accomodations") when travelling to (or through) areas where all/most business owners discriminated.  That, in turn, effectively limits the ability of the discriminated-against class to travel to or through such areas.

This is not some sort of baseless slippery slope argument - it is the history of the Civil Rights Act.  Are people this f*cking ignorant of American history?

Another Farker in another thread on this general topic mentioned The Negro Motorist Green Book.  I think it was one of the lesbian wedding cake threads.


Great link. Now excuse me while I wander aimlessly into wikipedia.
 
2014-02-07 06:40:51 PM  

jshine: elkraf: About the last thing I would want to do is eat next to a cripple.

[static4.wikia.nocookie.net image 314x431]

/ Cheryl?  Is that you?


1) It's Cherlene now.
2) He said cripple, not dwarf.
 
2014-02-07 06:46:03 PM  

udhq: James10952001: udhq: Bit'O'Gristle: As much as this guy is an asshole, and he is, its his farking restaurant. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. Granted, he's still an asshole. Did i mention that he's an asshole?

I don't know where this idea ever came from, but no, you do not have a "right to refuse service to anyone".  If that were true, no restaurants would voluntarily undergo the effort and expense of installing wheelchair ramps.

I see signs in a lot of restaurants stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, and this is in a very liberal suburb of Seattle, so that's likely where any confusion comes from. They don't specify any specific classes of people. I always figured it was so if someone is a dick they can be asked to leave.

Yeah, that's like those "not responsible for theft" signs in parking garages or the EULA clauses that state you waive your right to sue; they're of ZERO legal merit, and they're only there to make you think you have no recourse.

If you could just post a sign to exempt yourself from any law you wanted to, why wouldn't everyone be doing that?



No business can ever post a readable sign that has every law, situation or rule on it.  Yet people will still try to pull the "I don't see a sign" move when they want to get away with something.  For this reason businesses will post general signs such as "right to refuse" with the implied understanding that protected categories will NOT be discriminated against simply based on those categories.

The warning is there to facilitate the process of removing someone who is screwing with the business in some way, not as a declaration that they are above any applicable laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 725 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report