Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > The Trailer Park
Reload this Page >

Arizona, so stupid it burns

Arizona, so stupid it burns

Old Feb 23rd 2014, 3:17 am
  #76  
 
Lion in Winter's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: East Seaxe
Posts: 72,376
Lion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by dakota44
Come on now. I am led to believe that he is the guy that proved when they said "Do not put metal in the microwave" They ****ing meant it.
I have no idea, but nevertheless his microwave installation skills are apparently known far and wide.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
Lion in Winter is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 3:25 am
  #77  
Bloody Yank
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
RoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business.
Your point is contradictory. If you truly understand the history, then you should already know why proponents believe that public accomodations should be treated as they are, and why outlawing Jim Crow is considered to be a positive.

The arguments for getting rid of Jim Crow are integral to the very nature of the civil rights movement. The assertion is that separate but equal isn't, and that equality is necessary in a free society.
RoadWarriorFromLP is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 3:27 am
  #78  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Sally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter
I have no idea, but nevertheless his microwave installation skills are apparently known far and wide.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
He's a man, with a plan
Got a counterfeit dollar in his hand
Sally Redux is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 3:57 am
  #79  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
dakota44's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
dakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter
I have no idea, but nevertheless his microwave installation skills are apparently known far and wide.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
Holy crap.
dakota44 is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 4:14 am
  #80  
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,397
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter
Plus you are apparently an internationally-recognized expert on the installation of microwaves. ....
And cook tops, don't forget the cook tops.
Pulaski is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 5:03 am
  #81  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: The exclusive foothills outside of Denver
Posts: 105
The Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Sally Redux
What does that mean??
he stacked too many deep thoughts on top of each other and the whole thing collapsed
The Quiet Man is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 5:09 am
  #82  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: The exclusive foothills outside of Denver
Posts: 105
The Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond reputeThe Quiet Man has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
I would like to attempt to explain my position while I still have some reputation worth salvaging.

For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.

I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.

I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.

Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!

Which libertarian philosophies?
The Quiet Man is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 5:15 am
  #83  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
dakota44's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
dakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by The Quiet Man
Which libertarian philosophies?
Maybe he just misspelled librarian.
dakota44 is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 5:34 am
  #84  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Sally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond reputeSally Redux has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by The Quiet Man
he stacked too many deep thoughts on top of each other and the whole thing collapsed
Sally Redux is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 6:05 am
  #85  
Country Member
 
g1ant's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Moved from Georgetown to Round Rock, Texas. 15 miles closer to civilization.
Posts: 936
g1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond reputeg1ant has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by markonline1
I regularly frequent a pub in Santa Cruz that is clearly owned by an Irish Nationlist judging by the anti British stuff he has discreetly propped up behind the bar. Serves good beer though, so whether he hates me or not, I'm still going
I'd be happy to go there too. Preferably on St. Patty's Day (sic) when I will wear orange as always I do on that day.
g1ant is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 10:31 am
  #86  
WTF?
 
Leslie's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,352
Leslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
I would like to attempt to explain my position while I still have some reputation worth salvaging.

For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.

I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.

I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.

Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!
I don't think your position is bad or evil, I just think you're missing the whole point of public accommodation.

You mention the government interfering in private business but we're not discussing private business here --- we are discussing public businesses. If a woman does hair in her home, and her clients come to her word of mouth, she can refuse to serve anybody she likes for any reason she likes. But if she rents a store in the mall, and advertises that she's open to the public, then she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, etc.
Leslie is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 1:39 pm
  #87  
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,397
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Leslie
I don't think your position is bad or evil, I just think you're missing the whole point of public accommodation.

You mention the government interfering in private business but we're not discussing private business here --- we are discussing public businesses. If a woman does hair in her home, and her clients come to her word of mouth, she can refuse to serve anybody she likes for any reason she likes. But if she rents a store in the mall, and advertises that she's open to the public, then she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, etc.
OK. Now we're getting somewhere.

Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?

There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.

Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.

As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.

Last edited by Pulaski; Feb 23rd 2014 at 1:50 pm.
Pulaski is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 1:54 pm
  #88  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,248
Marocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond reputeMarocco has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
Should not a private businessman have the right to decide with whom he does business? Granted, it is pretty stupid to turn away paying customers, but if a business wants to do so, I am not even sure why the would-be customers would want to force the issue?

Certainly if I walked into a business that had a sign on the wall saying "We don't serve Englishmen". I'd be more than happy to go elsewhere, and would, in fact, prefer to know that than to do business with someone who hates Englishmen.
Ditto... If my money isn't good for them, I'd much rather take it elsewhere.
Marocco is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 2:09 pm
  #89  
 
Lion in Winter's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: East Seaxe
Posts: 72,376
Lion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond reputeLion in Winter has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
OK. Now we're getting somewhere.

Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?

There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.

Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.

As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
It isn't government's job to make everyone friends. It is their job to do their best - on our behalf, those who elected them and pay them - to attempt to run our society based on just laws that work for the greater good. Of course there will be judgments involved as to what that greater good is, but that is the point of having a society that works to better itself rather than just leaving it up to our baser instincts. Hence, for example, we have laws against stealing - not because lawmaking can prevent people from stealing or from wanting to be thieves, but because it lays out one of our society's chosen norms and the consequences for breaking it.

I remember that UK hotel issue, and the argument there - with which I happen to agree - is that sexual orientation should not be a basis for refusing service in a civilized society. That is one of the "norms" that I support, hence I support legislation to uphold that.

There is no possible consistency in the position that "government shouldn't interfere with private people/property/ownership" if you make that lack of interference alone the sole criteria. We want that interference a lot of the time, and we get it, or god knows what life would be like. So the only difference is the set of values we uphold that we use to guide and shape that interference. And those should be chosen with care - but they are always a matter of judgment about the kind of society we want.

Last edited by Lion in Winter; Feb 23rd 2014 at 2:12 pm.
Lion in Winter is offline  
Old Feb 23rd 2014, 2:12 pm
  #90  
Bloody Yank
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
RoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond reputeRoadWarriorFromLP has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns

Originally Posted by Pulaski
OK. Now we're getting somewhere.

Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?

There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.

Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.

As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
You could have just said, "I have absolutely no idea why minorities would possibly want equal treatment," and left it at that.
RoadWarriorFromLP is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.