Opposing NSNSNS - just why?

In my view - and, once again, I try as much as I can to stick to libertarian philosophy - the following holds true:

* The country's government has no right to discriminate, or promote discrimination based on any of the known and recognized factors. This applies to promoting reverse discrimination, AKA affirmative action, as well.

* However, the government also has no business whatsoever telling private citizens how to conduct their lives OR their business, as long as the conduct is harmless to parties involved. To put it plainly, if I have a store, I should be able keep anyone I choose out of it, hire whomever I want, and fire them whenever I want and for whatever I want.

Of course, there are gray areas and much room for discussion.

Thus I cannot answer your question in the way it is phrased. If you are asking: "Astaroth, if humans could change their skin colour and a black person came to your store, would you keep him or her out until they changed their skin colour to white?" - then my answer is no. However, I cannot speak for anyone but myself, so a general answer to your question I cannot give.

 

But would you like it if people were coming into your store deliberately to start an altercation with you over the issue?

 

No, I would not like it. And chances are that you wouldn't either - right?

But isn't that exactly what some people 'round here are advocating? That is, deliberately antagonizing businesses who do put up NSNSNS signs? It's one thing to turn your nose up and say "I'm taking my business elsewhere" and quite another one to start a shouting match accusing everyone and their mother of discrimination...

 

Well, you're no better than they are if you come into a forum with the intentions of starting a fight.

I would say that most barefooters don't start shouting matches with storeowners. If they did that, they'd be thrown out for disorderly conduct. I don't think any go in with the intention of starting a fight. Most just want to buy something, which helps the owner.

I would say barefooters take a lot more harassment than storeowners, and it comes not just from particular storeowners but from many in the general public who just don't like the looks of it, for whatever reasons.

 

I've gone barefoot in a couple of NSNSNS stores but they didn't care. It's almost an unintentional-intentional thing for some. They would prefer people to not be barefoot because of liability reasons but they don't always enforce it.

 

Oh, come now, that is a lame comparison by any standard.

 

You're doing what you are telling other not to do.

 

Anyhow, if you've ever run a business, you know that your profit margins are usually only a few percent. If a storeowner has an attitude of excluding people for whatever reasons, he will quickly find himself out of business. It may be in the spirit of libertarianism, but it can quickly put you out of business.

But, the emotional satisfaction gained from excluding people may mean more to him than the business.

 

In the U.S., if ten percent of customers went barefoot in stores (as they do in some places in Australia or NZ), this wouldn't even be an issue. A place would simply go out of business if they excluded barefooters.

 

The biggest problem for me as a storeowner would be if stipulations in my insurance policy required that people not be allowed into my store barefoot. I don't know if this is common in the liability policies that many businesses hold, but if it is, it's certainly an issue that a storeowner has to consider regarding barefooters.

 

Why multiple posts, anyway?

A forum is not a business... it's a place for discourse, intellectual or otherwise (heeh). I'm merely inciting discussion, in a fashion that some just can't stand, but that's their problem. The forum isn't your private property and neither it is mine. If Skip or whatever his name is bans me (again) so be it, it's his right and I don't much care, really.

Maybe, maybe not. Ain't it grand though how things just work themselves out sometimes?

No stipulation needed, believe it or not. Not every time, anyway. "Reasonable care" can be a bitch to argue in the court of law.

 

I just think that if I am going to go into a store just to buy something *which contributes to the owners profit by the way* then I should be able to go in there and conduct my business without the owner kicking me out just for being barefoot just because he doesnt like the sight of my bare feet. I could understand if I was causing some sort of disturbance but I should have some protection from people who have some prejudice against barefoot people and they just happen to own a business. These store owners should not be able to do just whatever they want, sure they should have alot of say in what goes on in their stores but they should be more interested in denying service to people who are only there to cause trouble or who are really breaking the law. Why should only the store owner's rights be protected? I have rights too! My rights should be protected as well, including my right to chose what I wear when I go someplace without people causing an issue with it just because they dont like how it looks.

 

Yall don't agree a restaurant should be able to require Men to wear a jacket/tie?

Same principal/different specifics...

 

Ah, -so there we disagree. I believe that a store should be open to everyone -it is not the same as a private residence. I believe if you open your place to the public, then you should open it to *all* of the public. Don't want that, then don't open your business to the public. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this point

 

In the USA, if a Business is owned/financed w/Private money why should its Owner have fewer Rights than a private residence Owner?

 

Unless it is a private club, no, they shouldn't. There are more and more protests against the jacket & tie thing too, btw, if you haven't noticed... A lot of men don't like ties any more than I like shoes, and they've spoken up against these rules too... also that in these same restaurants women are often welcome with tops w/spaghetti straps or even completely strapless, while men are required to wear that 'suffocating torture instrument' or whatever those opposed call it... it's not something that affects me personally since I'm female and rarely visit nicer restaurants in male company (the few times I go, I go with my mom... and barefoot) but I fully support those who protest. I hate tight clothing and if I sat down to pay well over $100 for a delicious meal I wouldn't want to be distracted by a tie... not to mention restaurants are often quite warm -I know that I usually dress in a nice but thin and/or sleeveless blouse, even in winter, and frequently I'm still warm by the end of the evening. It does not make sense that a place so intend of making us enjoy our evening by serving us high-quality food, requires men to be uncomfortable while eating it.

 

Because if the owner could refuse access on his personal whim, there will be others in society whose rights are threatened. If there were no anti-discrimination laws, I'm afraid there would still be small towns in the South where Blacks might only be able to shop in one or two places, or perhaps not at all.

 

My Read is you/Others in this Thread haven't put your personal current/future Assets/Financial 'Necks' on the line for Business purposes.

Do it and you're perfectly within your Rights to run your Business as you choose within Legal Limits.


In case you forgot in the USA, your Rights end where mine/Others begin.

Last I checked, this isn't the Union of American Socialist Republics.

 

That's not the question I asked.

 

Then what do you mean to ask exactly? *In my opinion* the moment you open the door of your store to the public (even if it is *your* store, *you* own the building and everything in it), you should allow all members of the public to enter, regardless of what they're wearing or not wearing. By *opening* that door, not just as a private club but as a store, having certain hours that you unlock it, possibly even literally prop it open or put a large 'open' sign on it, you give away a small bit of your rights, until closing time, or should. There *are* differences between a store and your private home -I don't suppose you require all customers to ring the door bell and you let them in one by one...

I thought I'd made it clear that I *know* the current US law only protects those who might be singled out because of race, religion, sex or sexual preference, and not those who dress differently, or have a pink mohawk, or lots of piercings and tatoos... And that currently, that means my rights end at your doorstep (even if it's the doorstep to your store and not your private residence). However, I also thought I'd made it clear I *disagree* with that law and believe it should be taken further... to outlaw *all* discrimination, also when it is based on dress/hairdo's/piercings/tattoo's etc, etc.

And you're right, I am not a business owner. However, I am a customer and I have a right of my opinion -just like you have a right to yours.