Why not? Would you support a policy that forced the same owner to hire a black individual? My point is, if the govt can force a private establishment to serve everyone, then what is to stop it from forcing the same establishment to do other things which may not considered 'immoral', but are equally racist?
It is a question of pursuit in a positive, progressive and inclusive direction, rather than in the other, more regressive direction. In any event, you have freely outed yourself as a racist in your unsolicited comment to wjk. Therefore, I have little else to say to you that you would find appealing.
ok. should a racist pharmacist in a one pharmacy southern town be able to refuse to sell medications to a black man who needs them to live? should a racist grocery store owner in a one grocery store southern town be able to refuse to sell groceries to blacks?
I am no racist brass.. im just not an apologist. some people need to get over the notion that just because they don't like something doesn't mean it can be outlawed.. even if it is widely considered, or factually, wrong. Attacking an individuals right to be racist is indirectly an attack on their freedom of belief. it is anti individual freedom, and it would open a can of worms that would likely bite everyone in the ass at some point. It is easy to understand. And no I didn't miss your 'salient' points in any of your comments. Right now you are bitching out of the conversation. did you take the test yet? i will post my results as well. i am certain that you are on the authoritarian side of the spectrum.
Read my last post again. I changed it, answering your question, before you posted your response. I had taken such a test before and found myself where I expected to be. I have no interest in taking it again for your benefit. As for the racial matter, to appease racists is to be no better than one. If you believe that people can be discriminated against on the basis of race or any other thing over which they have no control and which harms no one, then you are a bigot. Period. Don't trouble yourself with a "big picture" justification.
To be honest, I haven't given a great deal of thought to this issue. After I left the Nav I started a music business. I operated a band for 10 years. Over half of the musicians I sub-contracted were black. For 8 years, I had a Latino vocalist up front. We were welcomed in virtually every establishment we played in, both black and white, bars and eating establishments alike. If I didn't think anyone in my band was going to be welcomed in a club, I wouldn't have booked it, even if the law said the band members had a right to be there or not. I understand your point regarding private property, but realistically, I don't think any of the 100's of places I played would turn down business because of skin color. Many of the establishments were actually casinos. The establishments we played always had mixed audiences. Perhaps that's why I never gave it much thought from your perspective. I don't believe the lack of such a law would make much of a difference in this day and age.
Nice try, but in both cases, I would think they would be guilty of at least negligent homicide, provided that the black individual needed the medication to live, and he/she obviously needs food. Being a racist doesn't give you special rights to commit Common Law crimes.
Oh, but if it had only been a convenience store and a woman wanted to buy a few grocery items, the owner could turn her away solely because of her skin color? And if the next store is several miles away and she came on foot, well, that's just tough shit? THIS is the kind of country you want to live in? (Not that the proximity of the next store is of any consequence, but it adds color, don't you think?)