So, a Jewish restaurant owner should be forced by law to serve a Neo-Nazi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rothbard
  • Start date Start date
R

rothbard

Guest
If a group of neo-nazi skinheads with "Kill All Kikes" walked into a nice small Jewish restaurant in New York City, the owner should be forced by law to serve these faggots? What about a white man in a full KKK outfit walking into a black-owned 'southern comfort' style restaurant? Should the black owner be forced by law to serve the KKK patron?
 
as long as they had the same opportunity to choose to be a neo-nazi as black people choose to be black
 
Ah, so what about homosexuals? I guess since they had the same choice before puberty, they can be discriminated against under that logic?
 
That comparison isn't valid or relevant to Civil Rights legislation in this country. Businesses don't have the 'right' by law to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics.


A Neo-Nazi or KKK member has a certain 'culture' that is unappealing to the majority of society.
 
Actually it does if you think about it.

You can CHOOSE to be a member of the KKK or not (look at Democratic Senator Robert Byrd).

You can also choose your religion, color (see Michael Jackson), sex (see just about any homosexual after gender reassignment surgery), etc.
 
Yes. Perhaps the patrons should be forced to change their attire to meet the dress code. But yes, the owner should be forced to serve them as they do any other customer.

Then again, this is a poor comparison to not serving blacks or Asians or whites or women or gays or retarded people or handicapped people or whatever since you don't choose to be any of those whereas you do choose to be a member of the boy scouts or the ACLU or the KKK or whatever.
 
Good point. Just because you have a choice in certain things doesn't mean a business can discriminate against your choices.
 
Perhaps you don't choose to be a homosexual, but surely you choose to act like a homosexual in public. So, if you can't discriminate against a homosexual because of his actions, you can't discriminate against a neo-nazi for his either.

I really don't understand how anyone could think that a neo-nazi has a right to force someone to trade with them.
 
Why is Sen. Robert Byrd your example for a KKK member, instead of, say, David Duke (R), former Louisiana State Congressional Member?
 
Duke left the KKK in 1980. Byrd left them in the 50s (I think). Regardless, why point out Duke instead of Byrd? Why does it matter at all?


oh and he's a partisan anyway, that's why


And P.S. Duke was also a member of the Democratic Party.
 
I know Duke's history well. But it seems that DE is quick to point out the skeletons in the (D) closet as opposed to the ones in the (R) closet, especially when issues of race relations and the party's respective position on them come up.

I saw Mr. Duke in a restaurant in Mandeville not too terribly long ago. Judging by the appearance and apparel of his dining companions, I'd hazard a guess that while he's not an "offical" member of the KKK, he's still heavily involved in white supremacy activities.

Unless, of course, he was trying to counsel some skinhead kids in the wrongs of their actions.
 
Back
Top