Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul

[Hype]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

[Artemis]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability to the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills hot soup on their foot and scalds it? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

[Hype]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

[Artemis]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

they could use those disposable paper slippers and gowns that hospitals use.

[Hokahey]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

Paid for by the US government of course.

[Hype]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

Paid for by the US government of course.

Sure. That's clearly within the scope of social services.

Then again, to comply with governmental hygeine regulations they have to pay for supplies anyway... so it's not a big deal. And anyway, the cost of keeping on hand enough loaner shirts and shoes for the vagrants who happen to have money to pay for the services inside in the first place is likely negligible.

[Hokahey]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

Paid for by the US government of course.

Sure. That's clearly within the scope of social services.

I was joking. I hope you are too. Scope of social services to provide proper attire to adhere to a private business owners standards?

Then again, to comply with governmental hygeine regulations they have to pay for supplies anyway... so it's not a big deal. And anyway, the cost of keeping on hand enough loaner shirts and shoes for the vagrants who happen to have money to pay for the services inside in the first place is likely negligible.

By the way, that policy had nothing to do with protection, but perception:

http://www.barefootandgrounded.com/2009 ... rvice.html

Again, discriminatory. There are no "health codes" that require patrons to wear shirts/shoes in stores/restaurants.

But, what about dress codes at finer restaurants? Those discriminate against people unable to afford nice clothing. Should the restaurants be required to provide nice clothing?

What about hospitals not hiring smokers? What business is it of there's what someone does privately to their body?

What about gyms only hiring "fit" employees? That's terribly discriminatory.

Should Hooters be required to hire Sonny if he'd like to be a server there?

[Hype]

You slid into a different concept there... Not hiring someone because they can't fulfil their duties isn't obviously the offensive form of discrimination.

[Hokahey]

You slid into a different concept there... Not hiring someone because they can't fulfil their duties isn't obviously the offensive form of discrimination.

Sonny couldn't serve tables at Hooters effectively?

[Hype]

You slid into a different concept there... Not hiring someone because they can't fulfil their duties isn't obviously the offensive form of discrimination.

Sonny couldn't serve tables at Hooters effectively?

Nope, not in the broadest sense of 'effectively'.

(side note: one way to enforce an anti-discrimination policy in a circumstance like this might be to require businesses that want to discriminate for certain positions to offer some number (perhaps an equal number) of positions that are indiscriminate, and have the same or better wages and benefits.)

So it might be better if Hooters were required to hire anyone capable of doing certain duties, but maximize the "customer experience" by having the "hooteriest" employees cover the positions where that is most beneficial, while offering equal compensation to other employees.

[Hokahey]

You slid into a different concept there... Not hiring someone because they can't fulfil their duties isn't obviously the offensive form of discrimination.

Sonny couldn't serve tables at Hooters effectively?

Nope, not in the broadest sense of 'effectively'.

(side note: one way to enforce an anti-discrimination policy in a circumstance like this might be to require businesses that want to discriminate for certain positions to offer some number (perhaps an equal number) of positions that are indiscriminate, and have the same or better wages and benefits.)

So it might be better if Hooters were required to hire anyone capable of doing certain duties, but maximize the "customer experience" by having the "hooteriest" employees cover the positions where that is most beneficial, while offering equal compensation to other employees.

I hope you realize how funny that entire post is for a variety of reasons.

[Hype]

Yup. The serious side of these issues isn't worth getting into over and over again here.

[Hokahey]

Yup. The serious side of these issues isn't worth getting into over and over again here.

"hooteriest"

[Hype]

That's totally attribute neutral, I swear!

[CaseyContrarian]

Private property that serves the public is not actually private.

Of course it is. The "private" part refers to ownership, not accessiblity.

Preventing me from patronizing your public establishment based on my skin color is hostile to my exercise of individual liberty.

No it's not. Your individual liberty has nothing to do with being allowed to patronize my business. Your rights are not being infringed upon in any way. You have not contributed tax dollars for my existence and are not required in any way to utilize my services.

Take what you're saying a step further. What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

I think instinctually most people react emotionally at the thought of permitted racism, but we do it every day by allowing clan meetings and racist publications. We can't just stifle the ability of people we disagree with to practice their beliefs.

Privately owned establishments that serve the public must comply with basic accessibility mandates, one of which is not to discriminate based on race. Such provisions were made law so as to expand the liberties of a portion of the public which previously had their freedoms significantly curtailed by socially regressive customs, even after their emancipation from actual slavery. Encroachment upon freedom isn't always merely punitive, as in a taking of liberty (which libertarians and objectivists limit to individual choice), but also the general restrictions upon participation in and access to the useful and/or edifying aspects of society. There is no "my freedom ends where yours begins," as there is no diminishing of freedom in compelling equal service to those guaranteed the same constitutional rights as oneself. if anything, it's a furtherance of both parties' liberties through implied or actual reciprocity.

If you can't grok that, I can't help you.

PS: I'm not sure Hooters is particularly hygienic.

[Hype]

Yeah but I bet "Hoohahs" is worse.

[CaseyContrarian]

Yeah but I bet "Hoohahs" is worse.

ZING!

[Hokahey]

Private property that serves the public is not actually private.

Of course it is. The "private" part refers to ownership, not accessiblity.

Preventing me from patronizing your public establishment based on my skin color is hostile to my exercise of individual liberty.

No it's not. Your individual liberty has nothing to do with being allowed to patronize my business. Your rights are not being infringed upon in any way. You have not contributed tax dollars for my existence and are not required in any way to utilize my services.

Take what you're saying a step further. What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

I think instinctually most people react emotionally at the thought of permitted racism, but we do it every day by allowing clan meetings and racist publications. We can't just stifle the ability of people we disagree with to practice their beliefs.

Privately owned establishments that serve the public must comply with basic accessibility mandates, one of which is not to discriminate based on race. Such provisions were made law so as to expand the liberties of a portion of the public which previously had their freedoms significantly curtailed by socially regressive customs, even after their emancipation from actual slavery. Encroachment upon freedom isn't always merely punitive, as in a taking of liberty (which libertarians and objectivists limit to individual choice), but also the general restrictions upon participation in and access to the useful and/or edifying aspects of society. There is no "my freedom ends where yours begins," as there is no diminishing of freedom in compelling equal service to those guaranteed the same constitutional rights as oneself. if anything, it's a furtherance of both parties' liberties through implied or actual reciprocity.

If you can't grok that, I can't help you.

PS: I'm not sure Hooters is particularly hygienic.

No law was ever necessary to turn the tide on the rights of blacks. It was the power of the people that changed our country. It wasn't the signing in to law of an act that can be ignored so long as you lie about the discrimination. I've been in management. I've been in Human Resources. I've seen time and time again where everyone that doesn't get the position they want calls the EEOC and claims discrimination. The EEOC would call us and we'd explain that it was actually due to X, Y, Z and that was that. It always struck me how if we really had been discriminating against them it would have been very easy to make it appear completely legal.

That doesn't take in to account harrasment, lower pay for women etc etc but those issues are resolved with stronger contract law and again doesnt require "equality" laws.

Additionally, small businesses are hampered and inhibited by the over abundance regulations that require wheel chair ramps, parking spaces and so on.

There are stories of police officers shutting down little girl's lemonade stands for lacking a permit for gods sake.

As a nation completely broke and still facing record unemployment we need to ask ourselved if we're regulating people out of business. Even Obama in his SOTU address made it a point to discuss useless regulations the government was relaxing or eliminating to try and foster business growth.

The ideals you advocate for would require me to ensure your every need is met in order to sell my wares. If I want to offer my services around, that should be my right to do so. It is NOT your right to have access to my wares.

Now, if you're discussing a government service, or a utility that works with the government as a monopoly, you SHOULD be ensured equal rights and access.

Im sure you can grok the difference between private and public services.

[Romeo]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability to the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills hot soup on their foot and scalds it? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

actually there isn't a DOH or OSHA code or regulation for customers.
Only employees.

[Hype]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

[CaseyContrarian]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

Yes, can't we move forward from a place of agreement? I'm a united, not a divider.

PS: I'm not sure stronger contract law would do diddly squat for gender pay disparity, but as it pleases Hoka to pretend, I won't shatter the illusion.

[Hype]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

Yes, can't we move forward from a place of agreement? I'm a united, not a divider.

PS: I'm not sure stronger contract law would do diddly squat for gender pay disparity, but as it pleases Hoka to pretend, I won't shatter the illusion.

That sounds like drunk law student talk. Are you a drunk law student?

[CaseyContrarian]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

Yes, can't we move forward from a place of agreement? I'm a united, not a divider.

PS: I'm not sure stronger contract law would do diddly squat for gender pay disparity, but as it pleases Hoka to pretend, I won't shatter the illusion.

That sounds like drunk law student talk. Are you a drunk law student?

No I'm a sober DC policy professional. Close enough.

[Hype]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

Yes, can't we move forward from a place of agreement? I'm a united, not a divider.

PS: I'm not sure stronger contract law would do diddly squat for gender pay disparity, but as it pleases Hoka to pretend, I won't shatter the illusion.

That sounds like drunk law student talk. Are you a drunk law student?

No I'm a sober DC policy professional. Close enough.

Those are very similar. Exactly the same amount of scruples.

[Hokahey]

I just think the world would be more just if we provided loaner shoes and shirts to those who wanted to partake of a private establishment but had not the means to acquire the requisite garments.

Yes, can't we move forward from a place of agreement? I'm a united, not a divider.

PS: I'm not sure stronger contract law would do diddly squat for gender pay disparity, but as it pleases Hoka to pretend, I won't shatter the illusion.

That sounds like drunk law student talk. Are you a drunk law student?

No I'm a sober DC policy professional. Close enough.

Those are very similar. Exactly the same amount of scruples.