I'm not entirely sure, but Hallack I think there may be a logical inconsistency in one of your positions.
You say that an individual's rights are more important than the rights of a business. Yet you maintain that it's a restaurant's right to serve who it pleases, even to the point of discriminating against individuals. Is that not a contradiction?
The problem is that by enforcing the rights of the individual, you're restricting the rights of the restraunt. By enforcing the rights of the restraunt, you're restricting the rights of the individual.
Which is why it's you have to determine a hierarchy -- which is the most important? If the rights of the individual are the most important, then the restaurant has to serve anyone who wants to eat there.
And saying "well the individual has the right to eat somewhere else" misses the point.
First, I think ALL rights are individual rights. Those rights to me are based on property/ownership. Both owning ourselves and the fruits of our labor. Each of us have the same rights. The business's right to to refuse service is based upon the individual owner(s) right to use their private property (including time) how they choose and with whom they choose.
I think the reason you may see an inconsistency is because you think has a right to product or service at the private place of business and the owner of that business must provide the product or service. I would say we have a right to seek goods and services from others not a right to them from others. In a free society one does not have to provide a good or service if they don't want.
To put it another way... The way my business is set up anyone can come in off the street to seek my services. It is their right to do so. I however do not have to provide my services and should not be compelled to do so.
The premise of my line of thought is founded on the belief in private property.
Does that expound upon my view making it more clear?
Well this is what I was getting at earlier with my question about institutional racism, but we got sidetracked. sirpercival made a good point here, institutional racism is when institutional systemic policies, practices and economic and political structures place non-majority racial and ethnic groups at a disadvantage in relation to an institution’s majority members.
It can be argued that institutional racism is still prevalent in america;
one need only point to inequalities in the justice system for blacks;
-The likelihood of black males going to prison in their lifetime is 28% compared to 4% of white males -and 16% of Hispanic males. (United States. Dept. of Justice. 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prison Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice.)
income inequality;
-the median black personal income in all education levels is 10-15,000$ less per year than whites (US bureau of census(2006))
and racist hiring practices:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/This is institutional racism, and this is not just true for blacks, other races and women have the same problem. There is clearly a system in place that favors white men, in at least one part of government(the courts) and clearly economically.
So, does institutional racism infringe upon different races rights? absolutely, The constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The civil rights act of 1965 abolished discrimination on the basis of race in public accomodations. Subsequently in Heart of atlanta motel vs the US, the supreme court upheld the civil rights act as constitutional, and the method by which congress abolished segregation(through the interstate commerce clause) was well within the powers of congress, and perfectly valid(with all justices concurring).
The court rejected your argument hallack unanimously in fact, that the government was forcing the hotel proprieter into involuntary servitude by making him serve the black customers. They rejected the argument on the grounds that he was not being "damaged" or coerced into service with no remuneration. It was a service he was paid for, in fact a service that he made a profit on, so the court actually felt that he was being helped by this "involuntary service". Subseqent rulings have stayed consistent to this by the way, wherein "volunteer" or non-profit organizations have been allowed to continue discriminatory practices(the boy scouts).
