• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Happy Birthday Adolf!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
MililaniBuckeye;1357895; said:
If a black couple went to the same store and were denied a cake because their kid was named "Shaka Zulu Smith", how long do you think it would be before they brought the store up on charges? Or a Chinese couple with a kid name "Gengis Khan Wang"?
Click to expand...

Apr16-01.jpg



You make joke about Ghengis' wang...
 
Upvote 0
generaladm;1357916; said:
I don't believe Neo-Nazis are protected by anti-discrimination laws. Really, they're part of the reason we have them. Retailers do reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as it's not on the basis of racial or religious discrimination, which Aryans don't qualify for. If you went back 50 years, the black and Chinese parents wouldn't have been allowed in the store to begin with. I see your point, Milli, but, personally, I find nothing wrong with Nazis getting the shaft, whether it's fair or not.
Click to expand...

I bet if the shop decided to discriminate on some other basis, such as political party (refusal to decorate a cake for a winner of an election because he/she was Democrat/Republican) they'd get sued. Or if a member of the Black Panther Party (had they still existed) were refused, they'd get sued (the BPP would probably get away with claiming it was based or race, not because the BPP advocates "violence if necessary"). Or what if it were for a mentally challenged kid, and the shop said "we don't make cakes for retards"? You don't think that wouldn't raise a stink?

As for your point that a half century ago that black and asians might not have been even allowed in there doesn't make it right. Bottom line is that if you operate a public business, you have to serve everyone who is willing to pay your going price. The store is being prejudicial is assuming that because the kid has that name that he's a child of radical racists.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1358585; said:
Bottom line is that if you operate a public business, you have to serve everyone who is willing to pay your going price.
Click to expand...



A business absolutely has the right to refuse service, thats just common sense.

Now, obviously civil rights laws limit the reasons a business can refuse public acommodation, but it is within their rights if they follow the law.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1358585; said:
I bet if the shop decided to discriminate on some other basis, such as political party (refusal to decorate a cake for a winner of an election because he/she was Democrat/Republican) they'd get sued. Or if a member of the Black Panther Party (had they still existed) were refused, they'd get sued (the BPP would probably get away with claiming it was based or race, not because the BPP advocates "violence if necessary"). Or what if it were for a mentally challenged kid, and the shop said "we don't make cakes for retards"? You don't think that wouldn't raise a stink?

As for your point that a half century ago that black and asians might not have been even allowed in there doesn't make it right. Bottom line is that if you operate a public business, you have to serve everyone who is willing to pay your going price. The store is being prejudicial is assuming that because the kid has that name that he's a child of radical racists.
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your point, Milli, just pointing out that the examples you used would violate anti-discrimination laws, and Caucasians aren't generally protected by them. Most businesses display a disclaimer saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer without explanation". The political party example you raise may indeed result in a lawsuit, but that doesn't mean the customer would win. Protection of free speech prevents people from infringing on other's rights, it doesn't require anyone to become complicit to another's expression in exchange for money. There's quite a difference. We all know that the KKK and Nazi groups are entitled to public demonstrations, no matter how much public opposition there is, and they have sued successfully to retain that right. Now, if the KKK were to attempt to purchase billboard space for a racist message, and the billboard owner refused, there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. The billboard owner is not infringing on the KKK's rights, he's just refusing to allow them the use of his private property. The retard thing would definitely raise a stink. I believe 'tards are protected by special handicapped discrimination laws. If a retard was refused service in a restaraunt because he/she was was being extremely loud/disruptive, and/or unable to control their bodily functions, that would be an interesting case.

As I said before, I have no problem with Neo Nazis being treated like second class citizens, even if it is morally or lawfully unjustified. To me, any time a person who choses to live a life based on the discrimination of other people gets offended when they are discriminated against, based on their own hateful views, it is a beautiful irony. It's only made better because when it happens, they are completely oblivious to the fact that the reason that they are treated that way is because they are ignorant, hateful, peices of shit.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1358918; said:
Which is total bullshit.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. But, there's such a disparity between the number of instances of anti-white and anti-nonwhite discrimination that the type of movement resulting in civil rights laws would never take hold. I'm sure that there are cases of discrimination against whites by minorities every day, but given the relatively low number of minority owned businesses, I'd expect that they represent a much smaller percentage of total discrimination incidents. I have witnessed anti-white discrimination not involving Nazis, and I think it's just as wrong as any other practice of prejudice. The reality, I believe, is that justice, in cases like this, works as a pendulum. There was such a gross level of injustices suffered by blacks for so many years that the system was forced to favor their rights over white's. It's true that the vast majority of living white Americans and their ancestors (at least outside of the deep south) had nothing to do with those situations, and should not be held accountable for something they had no say in, but that's kind of how it had to happen. It's been little over 50 years since the Jim Crow societies were legally abolished, and the pendulum has yet to come back to center. It may not be ideal, but I'll take it over having to see "White Only" and "Colored Only" signs hanging everywhere. But that's just my two cents. What about where you live, Milli? Isn't there a pretty strong anti-white sentiment from a lot of the native Hawaiians?

Best Buckeye;1358929; said:
Not if he applies to Josef Stalin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause Hitler and Stalin were such close friends. I do believe that Mussolini's ancestors still have a good deal of influence in Italy. Maybe little Adolf can move there.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top