Well you'd love what's going on in Australia at the moment. A fool Muslim woman gets on a go-kart wearing her hijab. It gets caught in a wheel and she dies Isadora Duncan style. Needless to say the family will be suing because no one stopped her from riding. A few weeks later a Muslim woman succesfully sues an amusement park for discrimination for refusing to allow her to go on slides with a hijab... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can't have private businesses interfering in Muslims' rights to claim perpetual victimhood.

As a private business owner, why should you not be able to say "adults only", or "men only", "kilts required" or even "adults only admitted when accompanied by screaming children"? If the clients don't like the rules, they are free to take their patronage elsewhere.

These rules reduce the variety of businesses available to consumers, and place an undue burdens on business owners. Businesses are, in the end, private establishments.

Bottom line, property rights trump personal pleasure.

They may have pleased to dine there.

But that does not trump the restaurant owner's right to decide the rules on his property.

What bradley13 and Robert said, plus:

These Neo-Nazis should be so glad that they were not in a restaurant that's actually located in Germany. Over here, it's a crime to wear Nazi symbols in public.

Ask this question do you want to see me a short white pasty slightly fat man in a shirt and tie in his 30s screaming that I should be let into the hottest HipHop bar in LA or New York. Of course not - most blacks would not want my cracker ass in their places. i do not fit.

As to discrimination and business always makes me think of first is what happened with some gay bars in Australia. They wanted to get permission to discriminate because they kept getting hens night parties and drunk single woman groups coming to the place of business. Now these places where not the real big dance places there where more upbeat places closer. It was just some people felt they wanted something unique so they will go bother some gay people. Me I support the discrimination against straight people. That's why if I am a strip club and I see a whole bunch a guys making out, I would a sure as hell want them gone.

http://www.news.com.au/gay-pub-can-bar-heterosexual-drinkers/story-e6frfkp9-1111113624346

I think it started with JFK and his Greater Hous­ton Min­is­te­r­ial Asso­ci­a­tion address back in 1960:
"I believe in a pres­i­dent whose reli­gious views are his own pri­vate affair." So we now have to believe in shopkeepers and diner-owners who's beliefs are their own private affair. They can privately hate their customers, but who they are to discontinue the service?

The obvious concern is that this provision of the CRA is now primarily employed to undermine the right to private association. The meanings of 'public' and 'accommodation' have been stretched to enable the state to enjoin and dictate the membership of private assemblies. Aside from the more famous cases, like the boyscouts and religious charitable groups, there are attempts to use it to engineer the membership of corporate boards, and civic groups. The latter trend is a specific concern because it erodes representative government.

I've found that this question is a good filter for determining true Liberals from Progressives (i.e. fascists ). Liberals will recognize the need for restraint, Progressives don't.

I say if you're not government-run, you should get to decide who you serve. Which means yes, luj, I think businesses should be able to refuse me service because I married a hispanic.

The restaurant is within their right to throw them out. The insurance company fucker the bunny here. The second you settle you open the flood gates. Yeah it would have cost time and money but had they fought I believe they would have won. It would have likely cost the insurance company more money than settling but would have set a good precedent and saved them and us lost of money in the future.

I will support the protection of hate speech for the simple reason that the first amendment was not put in to protect "I can haz cheezburger". It was put in to protect unpopular speech since popular speech lacks any need for such protection.

Any private establishment should (must) be able to refuse service to anyone. Otherwise it stops being a private establishment. Now it gets kind of dicey since many private establishments has used public seed money. This is flagrantly rampant in California.

I think the business took to cheapest way out, but I wish they would have fought it. Just another example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and the private citizens affected accepting it. Sad.

It's OK for eateries to say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" right?

What's the difference?

Especially since those who wear shirts but not shoes are likely posing a threat only to themselves? Seems to me that shoes, with their treads, are more likely to transport deadly bacteria than bare feet. Yet, the owners of the eatery still get to make the rules.

In the mid-1990s, Miss Manners did a PBS special called "Miss Manners and Company" (I do wish I could find it) which consisted heavily of skits in which rude people couldn't begin to grasp that THEY were the ones at fault. One that I remember was a quarrel between a barefoot(?) teen girl and a shop owner who wouldn't let her in. She tried to make the argument I mentioned in the second paragraph, convinced HE was the unreasonable one.

If you can't even kick someone off your property that you don't want there, then property rights mean nothing at all. The restaurant owner shouldn't even have to give a reason.

"One that I remember was a quarrel between a barefoot(?) teen girl and a shop owner who wouldn't let her in."

Hmm, where I come from it's common to see people young and old walk barefoot in the shops.

I always like those signs posted at the front of a business: "The Management reserves the right to refuse service."

Agree with what vlad said. Only difference being that because its California, I don't think they would have won. Perhaps someplace else, but not Cali.

And what Chunks was talking about in Australia is just scary. I can't imagine many business owners sleep well at night, considering they now have to take responsibility for everyone's decisions when it turns out badly.

Only difference being that because its California, I don't think they would have won.

I'm not so sure. I think they would have won in the end I just see it costing much more. If they could get the civil case heard in front of a black and/or Jewish jury it would likely end in their favor. However I'm not sure if California permits juries for civil litigation. If California keeps the race fresh and in the deck they can't bitch about it being used.

So, the mall in downtown Rochester that wouldn't admit folks with hoods and gang colors was wrong? Of course I want to shop in the middle of a gang war, who wouldn't?

Some day the sheeple will begin to impeach these idiot judges by the dozen. Until then, kiss your life, liberty and property goodbye.

The comments about restaurants remind me of dogs. Here, it is quite common to see someone in a nice restaurant enjoying their meal, with their dog dozing under the table.

I find this a nice tradition; FWIW I have never seen an ill-behaved dog in a restaurant.

In the USA, AFAIK this is illegal everywhere, supposedly because of hygiene. The government must protect everyone from death by dog poisoning...

I'm a former Boy Scout and Scout leader. I have some skin in this game, I think. I firmly support Rand Paul and the right (implicit? explicit?) to private association.

Intent plays a big role here. These people were obviously (IMHO) doing this to be provocative, as opposed to, say, someone with a congenital issue that they can't control. That SHOULD play a part, but it usually doesn't.

The ACLU does do a good job of playing both sides of the field, and for that I have to give the credit. They defended Rush Limbaugh because they knew that if the government got away with illegally siezing his medical records, they could try it next time on someone with whose opinions they agree, and wouldn't be able to say "Hey, wait a minute, NOW it's wrong".

The argument is that if one restaurant can bar Nazis becuase the owner disagree with their opinions, they could bar Democrats or something tomorrow for the same reason. The problem is, in many cases step "B" is not rational, and the odds of it actually happening are slim to none. It's the same specious tactic used when people claim "If we say gays can marry, next people will want to marry dogs or furniture".

"you know that I don't think the restaurant owners can or should be forced to censor the Nazis' expression of their views ("

Nobody was censoring anybody in this case.

>>I say if you're not government-run, you should get to decide who you serve. Which means yes, luj, I think businesses should be able to refuse me service because I married a hispanic.

I'd kick up a shitfit even if you wouldn't, momof4.

Especially if I had no way of knowing this obnoxious policy was in place before I booked a table.

Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

I wonder if I would be disinvited to an Obama fundraiser if I was wearing a "fuck Obama" t-shirt?

It's OK for eateries to say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" right?

But what about pants? Do I have to wear pants?

Another similar situation in Cali, where adjacent homeowners had a dispute. One homeowner had installed solar panels on the roof. The neighbour had trees that grew and shaded the solar panels.

The tree-lovers were forced to cut down 2 of their 8 trees.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331551,00.html

I'm waiting for neighbouring windmill owners to sue each other for using up some of the kinetic energy in the air...

Let me get this straight. We have to tolerate and accommodate actual, self-proclaimed Nazis and their rights. On the other hand, when a state pledges to uphold a Federal already on the books, we call those people "Nazis" and loudly proclaim our opposition to them? Really?

Who are they to discontinue the service?

The provider. The owner of that property who alone has the right to decide what is acceptable on the premises and what is not.

My land, MY RULES. Your land, YOUR RULES.

Sorry but the south used "freedom of association" to discriminate wholesale against African Americans until the early 1960s. This ship has sailed, the horse has left the barn. You do not have a right to discriminate period.

Yes Crusader, you do. Period.

Gay men should have the right to exclude straight women, women should have the right to have their own private clubs, men should be able to have their own, a Jewish store owner has every right to refuse to allow Nazi's on his property.

Its not pretty when someone decides that since they hate blacks they won't allow them into an establishment.

But if you want people to be free, they must be free to decide how to use their own property. Some people will misuse that freedom, and they are vile, make no mistake about my position.

But the imposition of virtue by overturning freedom, no matter the greater good that you proclaim as your purpose, is like a poisonous seed that comes back to bite us later. Eroding liberty to create equality will end by taking both away.

And you can quote me on THAT.

I will agree that most private entities have a right to refuse service or membership to offensive parties -- as they should.

But some entities, such as the American Legion lose that right as per their charter.

I was in an Ohio suburb when a black USAF Major showed up after a PCS (Permanent Change of Station) wanting to change his Legionnaire membership to his new local. The uproar over a black Legionnaire disgusted me. We took the leadership to task.

BTW: the No Shoes, No Service laws don't actually exist: www.barefooters.org/health-dept/

What if I open The Atheist Café, and I want to refuse to serve people who wear religious symbols or Burkas.

LMAO! Amy, what a cool and funny idea! That's even better than the Atheist bus campaign! I'd become a regular! Unfortunately, The Atheist Café would become a magnet for the religulously impaired pretty soon. But that's okay: There would be two different price lists, with the believers paying more than the atheists...

But that's okay: There would be two different price lists, with the believers paying more than the atheists...

I can't support two price lists, but that is again a business choice. I would be open to required disclosure of the two price lists.

But that would behoove a a business to be open and honest.

Sorry Jim P., maybe I got a little carried away with the price lists. Maybe I shouldn't comment on Amy's blog while I'm laughing.

Meanwhile, I have googled the place, and it seems to be quite popular. Check it out:

http://www.neatorama.com/2009/09/22/bizarro-at-the-atheist-cafe/

Sorry but the south used "freedom of association" to discriminate wholesale against African Americans until the early 1960s. This ship has sailed, the horse has left the barn. You do not have a right to discriminate period.

Crusader, the South's Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in private business establishments. You couldn't have allowed blacks and whites to sit together at your Southern lunch counter if you wanted to.

Amy:
What if I open The Atheist Café
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... what if WALMART declares that it will only serve atheists? Or - what is more likely based on market share - will no longer serve atheists?

What if Google refuses to process requests from Israel?

We are living in an age of consolidation and mass markets.

Has Google become a "public accommodation" yet?
I know I couldn't do my job without it.

The thrust of anti-discrimination law is that by engaging in trade you are entering a public sphere, a commons of sorts. That obligates.

Who can sit in YOUR restaurant is not entirely the same has who can sit in your (private, non-commercial) house.

Who can sit in YOUR restaurant is not entirely the same has who can sit in your (private, non-commercial) house.

Posted by: Ben David

And how much longer do you suppose that will last?

So who is going to enforce all these private property rights?

What if a black prospective patron ignores the 'whites only' sign and insists on entering the restaurant?

Are you libertarians suggesting we should go back to the days when the police arrested black people for sitting down at a lunch counter?

Or should the owner be allowed to assault any black who refuses to leave?

"Sorry but the south used "freedom of association" to discriminate wholesale against African Americans until the early 1960s"

Most Contrived Fallacy Ever.

"So who is going to enforce all these private property rights?"

DUH...I am, YOU are. Every single private citizen is the enforcer of his rights over his own property. Police are simply a supporting arm to augment our safety and security, and ensure that our rights are not otherwise violated.

"What if a black prospective patron ignores the 'whites only' sign and insists on entering the restaurant?"

Alright, this is a disengenuous argument, but I'll throw down for it.

By what right does any person, of ANY color, DEMAND entry onto private property? And make no mistake, a privately owned piece of land, no matter what the purpose of the structure set upon it, IS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

And by the way, idiot, the restaurant with a white's only sign on the front door, probably wouldn't last very long, how many white folks do you know that would patronize it?

But lets assume that someone does want to do so? Sure they're pretty vile as far as I'm concerned, but being personally vile does not deprive one of the right to associate freely as one chooses to.

By your argument, everybody MUST associate with everybody, under any circumstances outside of one's own home. And by your argument, no liberty of any kind is sacred.

Liberty may be misused, it may be abused by vile persons, but when that liberty is removed, we have a far more vile rule over us, which we lose our freedom to object to.

Let's turn this around a bit. Let's say there's a restaurant (or bar, or whatever) in a predominantly Black (or Hispanic, or Chinese, etc) neighborhood. In some (not all) places where this is the case, there is a de facto "Blacks (or Hispanics, or Chinese, etc) Only" rule in effect. However, in this instance, the rule is enforced by threat of violence rather than rule of law. If someone of another ethnicity enters, they are intimidated into leaving, usually by the other patrons.

How much more reasonable would it be to allow them to post a sign and call the police if someone refuses to leave? How much SAFER would it be?