JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@roger,

In the old days restaurants used to keep a few ties handy so men walking in with open shirt collars could politely be given one. Maybe Porsche could cut a deal with his favorite establishments whereby they keep a pair of flip-flops in his size to use while visiting <G>

1 Reply

@Ceili,

I'm not following you.

There are no laws against going barefoot. At my local Subway they had no posted signs and he couldn't produce any. How is it NOT discrimination?

People with shoes allowed, people without shoes are not allowed. Isn't that the definition of discrimination?

2 Replies

@roger,

Exactly. I really like going barefoot; however my fiance still thinks it's pretty weird. I'm slowly converting her.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

I would have to politely decline there too.

And you bring up a good point, flip-flops are allowed, but barefoot wouldn't be.

It really makes no sense.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
"Sorry, we don't serve your type in here, try the next pub, or another bus company."

That's ok? Not racist? Yeah right.

"I am not going to do that paperwork today BECAUSE YOU ARE A MIXED RACE COUPLE, but if you'll go over there my partner will do it for you" The JP directed the couple to a person whom he knew would do it, thus your example is critically flawed. The thing I am unsure of is did they have to drive to another town to get it done? The JP's conduct was more out of line if they did.

Fixed that for you.

Driving to another town is irrelevant. Your Mississippi's Burning "pool is closed" argument is totally weak.

The man is actively attempting to sidestep the law by passing off his duties to someone else.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Please answer me this, though: if the JP, instead of stating his views, had just plain said "sorry guys, I'm sick today / I suddenly got busy with an emergency / so I'm gonna call another JP down the street, see if he's available" would he be in any way criticized?

No. He wouldn't. But this guy was just stupid enough to reveal his motive. He has directly stated his reasons for not doing his job. He would have been better to be a silent coward and wired his jaw shut.

But you know what? If by your example he would be willing to lie to disguise his motives for not performing his duties, we'd have an equally large problem even if we didn't know about his racial prejudices.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Right. Bare feet don't stink.

Actually, they don't really. At least, not in the way that recently un-shod ones tend to.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

But this guy was just stupid enough to reveal his motive

That word should be "honorable" in my opinion.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
But this guy was just stupid enough to reveal his motive

That word should be "honorable" in my opinion.

That you would confuse a stupid act for an honorable one is something that surprizes me in the least.

"Honorable" would have been upholding the duties of his office, instead of allowing his personal racial biases interefere with his responsibilites.

"Honorable" would have been a demonstration in judgement which left behind old prejudices and generalizations in his work.

"Stupid" is attempting to use a defeated legal arguemtn as justification for not doing your job.

"Stupid" is being told by the State Attoney General that this would get you in trouble and then doing it anyway.

"Stupid" is opening his mouth and removing any doubt that his motives were racially based.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Ok, the way I see it. If the restaurant barred you because you couldn't afford shoes - which you clearly can, or barred you because you couldn't wear them - no feet/handicapped et al, then I'd see your point of view. If the restaurateur only wants shod customers, it's his prerogative. If I owned a bar or restaurant, I wouldn't want you in my establishment either. If somebody stepped on your toes or you stepped on a broken glass, I wouldn't want the liability. I've seen people who go around without shoes. Their feet are gross, stained and can't be cleaned or thrown out like an old pair of shoes.
Just because you choose to thumb your nose at convention, doesn't mean everyone should follow suit. It's your choice to be without shoes, nobody else.
I worked in a high priced restaurant. Eric Clapton showed up at the door wearing jeans. The maitre'd refused to let him in. Eric railed at the system and plead the same line. He could have worn the appropriate clothing, he chose not to. He had his standard, we had ours. I wished we didn't in this case... but that would have discriminated everybody else. I guess.
As for signs... it's people that insist on the obvious, giving us the perpetual need for tags warning us about everything from shampoo in the eyes, to not putting a fork in a toaster and hot McDonald coffee. I can't wait till I see Subway with the "no shoes" policy placard hanging on the wall. I'll know who to thank.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Ok, the way I see it. If the restaurant barred you because you couldn't afford shoes - which you clearly can, or barred you because you couldn't wear them - no feet/handicapped et al, then I'd see your point of view.

Well, whether you see my POV or not, it IS, in fact, discrimination. I agree, not as severe as racism. But still, discriminatory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Quote:

If the restaurateur only wants shod customers, it's his prerogative.

Replace 'shod' with a few other adjectives.....well, nevermind.

Quote:

If I owned a bar or restaurant, I wouldn't want you in my establishment either. If somebody stepped on your toes or you stepped on a broken glass, I wouldn't want the liability.

Would you mandate gloves for the same reason? Can you explain how thong sandels protect my feet better?

Quote:

I've seen people who go around without shoes. Their feet are gross, stained and can't be cleaned or thrown out like an old pair of shoes.

Is this the real problem here; you personally don't like it? What if I was wearing an old pair of dirty shoes, should they kick me out? What if I had gross, stained, can't be cleaned feet and I slipped on a thong sandle?

Quote:

Just because you choose to thumb your nose at convention, doesn't mean everyone should follow suit. It's your choice to be without shoes, nobody else.

I'm not requiring anyone else to go shoeless.

Quote:

I worked in a high priced restaurant. Eric Clapton showed up at the door wearing jeans. The maitre'd refused to let him in. Eric railed at the system and plead the same line. He could have worn the appropriate clothing, he chose not to. He had his standard, we had ours. I wished we didn't in this case... but that would have discriminated everybody else. I guess.

Yeah, I guess I just don't understand the whole 'appropriate' argument. I mean I understand you using the argument, and I can't disagree that businesses have the right to do these things (and like I said, I left each time). But it seems 'wrong' to me in both your case, and in mine.

Quote:

As for signs... it's people that insist on the obvious, giving us the perpetual need for tags warning us about everything from shampoo in the eyes, to not putting a fork in a toaster and hot McDonald coffee. I can't wait till I see Subway with the "no shoes" policy placard hanging on the wall. I'll know who to thank.

I'm just going to chaulk this up to you being ignorant to what walking around barefoot really is like. I have RAN over glass without so much as a scratch. Your feet are the end result of millions of years of evolution. They are not these dainty things that need protection (well, maybe yours are NOW, but if you spent some more time barefoot you'd see some very positive changes in this regard).

Feet are natural, normal.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

"Inaccurately misnamed" must of necessity mean that he's accurately named. If your knowledge of constitutional law rivals your grasp of syntactic parsing you're the only delusional poster here so far.

Have at 'er, HS.

My fear is that you've done what you usually do, set your mind to repeating some silly old canard. We've seen your parsing abilities in that other thread; they were nonexistent judging by how quickly you scurried away.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Feet are natural, normal.

Worthy of a "New Topic" I reckon...?
I'd wade in but don't want to deflect this thread too much.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Far as I know any bar proprietor or manager can refuse service to anyone . . . .

Thus far, you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about the subject. Perhaps you should google public accommodations and discrimination.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Now "baggy jeans" can mean one thing if shown by a designer in the pages of Vogue, and quite another in the streets. The ACLU was opposed to passing a city ordinance in Atlanta forbidding this particular fashion on grounds it's racial discrimination. But how can you prove INTENT?

Intent can be proven in the same manner as anything else: by direct or by circumstantial evidence. In the JP's case, proving his intent is fairly easy, since he admitted his intent was to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples. In most other cases, however, intent must be proved through circumstantial evidence.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Feet are natural, normal.

Worthy of a "New Topic" I reckon...?
I'd wade in but don't want to deflect this thread too much.

Yeah, I kind of started a thread over here

http://able2know.org/topic/137830-1

This conversation would be better served over there.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
"Inaccurately misnamed" must of necessity mean that he's accurately named. If your knowledge of constitutional law rivals your grasp of syntactic parsing you're the only delusional poster here so far.
.............
My fear is that you've done what you usually do, set your mind to repeating some silly old canard. ...

JTT - you've managed to ridicule yourself so amply in so many threads that if what you state is your ONLY fear, maybe you should reconsider your maximum probability estimation of non-sequential k-out-of-n systems Smile

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra - for once you're right, I've no experience whatsoever as barkeep, so I was trying to educate myself on the subject. Thanks in advance for any contribution you can make, because I still don't know why private property isn't protected by the freedom of association - e.g. if I don't want customers in jeans, or anybody barefoot, or anybody wearing his trousers so that his underwear shows, why can't I just put up a sign saying so?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thanks Joe, appreciate it.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

... - e.g. if I don't want customers in jeans, or anybody barefoot, or anybody wearing his trousers so that his underwear shows, why can't I just put up a sign saying so?

You can because those things are not the same as a racial trait that someone cannot control. You can put on shoes, you cannot change your skin color. Any "public" establishment must serve the public regardless of race. Private clubs can do as they wish.

0 Replies

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know