No right for store owners to protect their property or choose whom they will serve?
We read:
"A Fort Wayne business that posted a sign barring Burmese immigrants from entering could face a civil rights complaint.
Ricker Oil Co. president Jay Ricker has apologized for the sign posted by an employee and says the business welcomes all customers. But director Gerald Foday of Fort Wayne’s Metropolitan Human Relations Commission says he is considering filing a complaint.
The sign attempted to bar Burmese people “for sanitary reasons.” Fort Wayne is home to about 5,000 Burmese, the largest concentration in the United States. Many chew betel nut and spit the residue, which can result in red stains.
Health department spokesman John Silcox says businesses can’t banish an entire group because of an individual’s actions. [But it was NOT just one individual's actions. It was the common behavior of a group -- JR]
Source
12 comments:
Would have been more sensible to say spitting disallowed on the premises, or words to that effect.
That's right, and the law would have protected him. If not, a baseballl bat also works.
Isn't it funny that the government says we can't do one thing for the actions of a few people
but if it is the 2nd amendment, well that is a different subject isn't it.
Less then 13,000 people used firearms to kill people last year, less then 500,000 people used firearms in violent crime.
Yet, Chicago wants to keep their ban on firearms. D.C. fought to keep their ban on firearms.
Because the actions of a few individuals meant that an entire group of people should be denied their rights.
He should probably have placed a policy of strict no chew policy on the premises. Although he probably already tried that and it didn’t work. What else could you do besides move?
Bobby, it's not about guns. It's about CONTROL.
Yes Bob S...and how many of those 500,000 crimes were committed by legal gun owners? And how many of those crimes and/or killings would have been stopped if the victims had been allowed to legally have a gun? It's not the law abiding citizen we have to worry about, it's the criminals and the government that are the problems.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
In my day every store had this sign:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”
When did that go away?
I’m telling you Political Correctness is going to kill us all!
What a bunch of barbaric creeps. How is it any different from me walking up to a person and spitting on his clothing? His clothing is his personal property. My store is my personal property. If he can spit in my store then I can spit on his coat, glasses, or hat. And if there's a problem with that, then the one with the larger baseball bat wins.
Whether it is illegal or not for him to demand that they leave. Isnt it trespass if the burmese have seent he sign and still remain in the store?
The government stole our ability to own property. We are so restricted in the use of the things we have pseudocontrol over it is not even strong enough to control to qualify as property. Isnt there something inthe constitution about a rigth to own property, or a right of the person to be secure in their property?
"Whether it is illegal or not for him to demand that they leave. Isnt it trespass if the burmese have seent he sign and still remain in the store?"
Property rights and rights of usage have always been different for private property than that which is in the "public arena."
"Isnt there something inthe constitution about a rigth to own property, or a right of the person to be secure in their property?"
The same Constitution gives the Federal government some regulation over commerce between states. Most state constitutions or agreements have similar provisions allowing some regulation over commerce and therefore property within the public arena.
In this case, for example, you would be able to ban all Burmese from your house, but not from your business.
The quandary comes in where the store owner wants law enforcement to enforce "trespassing" laws, but not "commerce" laws. In most cases, the store owner doesn't want to make a scene in his own store about having a customer removed for some violation like this. How many times have you seen a store allow people with no shirts or shoes in a store even if the law and store policy requires them?
Store and owners understandably want the least amount of negative attention and the least amount of aggravation. Too often they, like ourselves, only see the laws that apply to others or that are in our favor.
Post a Comment