Pro us pizza maker fined for discrimination

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hell, if I was in that position and felt so strongly about it, I'd take their money and then spit in their pizza

[-TU--33ker 0]

you don't have to be a racist to do that. I never go out and eat at a place where I don't see how they make my meal. Thank god there are Turkish Döner places in Germany. you can always see what they put in your food, if you go there. But you have to be carefull if you order by telephone. I'd be alarmed if the guy asks you whether you want a "Turkish" of "German" Döner. the "German" one sometimes can contain sperm or other things which don't belong in there.

[PitViper 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't think it was very good for his buisiness. think about it. 60% of the tourists visiting the island where this guy had his restaurant were Germans. how much money did he loose ferforming his "political statement"?

Ya, he should of taken their money and spit on their pizzas

Or just not wash his hands after going to the bathroom. (lol, just watched the Seinfeld episode that had Poppy making the pie after leaving the bathroom without washing his hands, lol classic)

bwahaha!

that would work.

[Renagade 0]

quick quick,u call urselfs capitaliists, someone move over there right now and start up a rival cafe` and grab all the free buisness

[Jinef 2]

If it's in the English dictionary then you can change the definition and call it 'American'.

Both sides are happy

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

France isnt a race

The onwer is guilty of discrimination, but I dont beleive he is a racist just because he wouldn't serve some french people.

[Renagade 0]

neither are black ppl then

[Major Fubar 0]

I always get a good chuckle when people on these boards don't consider descriminating against people on the basis of where they were born or live racism...I mean, really? Can people really be that ignorant?

So, let me get this straight: saying I hate Pakistani's isn't racist, but saying I hate Pakistani's because they are black is racist?

Please explain to me the difference in being descriminated against on the basis of where you were born and being descriminated against on the basis of your skin colour or other genetic traits (eye shape, hair colour etc.). You have control over neither...is it really that hard to grasp?

[PitViper 0]

Please explain to me the difference in being descriminated against on the basis of where you were born and being descriminated against on the basis of your skin colour or other genetic traits (eye shape, hair colour etc.). You have control over neither...is it really that hard to grasp?

First of all, it's not about where you're born, it's about where you live.  You can control that. Have you ever heard of immigration ;)

Second, I wasn't arguing that what he did wasn't discriminatory. I was fussing over his use of the work "race".

pay attention!

[NurEinMensch 0]

As far as I know in modern anthropology the term "race" doesn't even exist.

Does that mean there is no racism any more?

[HotShot 0]

So, let me get this straight: saying I hate Pakistani's isn't racist, but saying I hate Pakistani's because they are black is racist?

I hate the French and everyone who imigrates in to the UK (including S. Africans). And thats not being racist!?

[Schoeler 0]

::

Some people will never understand....all I was advocating in the first place was unhampered free enterprise. Just because the dude didn't serve French or Germans doesn't necessarily mean I think it's smart. I just believe that businesses should run how the people that own them want them to be run. Personally I think the guy is kinda dumb. The only thing better than pissing people off is making money off of them while you piss them off.

Now that's capitalism

The most embarassing moment in American legal history occurred when the United States Supreme Court ruled according to that very philosophy. They figured that private businesses and organizations had a right to deny service and/or membership to whomever they wanted. What resulted was their abomination of opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson and another 100 years of now legal de facto discrimination under the doctrine of "seperate but equal." The problem is "seperate but equal" turned out not to be really equal, and it took dozens of Supreme Court cases and over 80 years to overturn one horrible decision.

[Schoeler 0]

Federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination according to the basis of race, religion, sex, creed, national origin, or age. I'd say they included national origin in that list for a reason. You can however freely discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in America. Yippee, land of the free and home of the brave! Yet we still have our homophobes. A very good childhood friend of mine is gay and I'd never wish that curse upon anyone willingly. We treat 10% of our population like they were baby-eating space aliens.

[Jinef 2]

Being gay is a curse?

If that is what you meant my view of you has changed.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No, he means the things gay people have to go through are a curse that he wouldn't wish on anyone.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]The most embarassing moment in American legal history occurred when the United States Supreme Court ruled according to that very philosophy. They figured that private businesses and organizations had a right to deny service and/or membership to whomever they wanted. What resulted was their abomination of opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson and another 100 years of now legal de facto discrimination under the doctrine of "seperate but equal." The problem is "seperate but equal" turned out not to be really equal, and it took dozens of Supreme Court cases and over 80 years to overturn one horrible decision.

I'm not advocating a separate but equal policy. What I am saying is that business should not be hampered by the federal government. If people want to hurt their business by making an extreme political statement it's their business. Ultimately their actions will decide the fate of their livlihood, after Brown v. Board of Education a lot of good legislation did take place, (excluding affirmative action, try getting a scholarship in the U.S. being a white middle class male) but even today many private establishments can and do still refuse patronage/ membership at their discretion, while the aspect mostly affected by legislation is equal opportunity in employment. Establishments cannot refuse employment based on religion/race/age/sexual preference, but never the less can refuse membership based on the fact that the person is not a Yale graduate. What I am saying is that it would be prudent to allow anyone to patronize your business simply because it increases profits. Who cares who you are selling to as long as you are making money given that it is not causing physical harm to others? (i.e. selling weapons to criminals)

[Jinef 2]

Oh ok, didn't understand that then.

[Major Fubar 0]

Please explain to me the difference in being descriminated against on the basis of where you were born and being descriminated against on the basis of your skin colour or other genetic traits (eye shape, hair colour etc.). You have control over neither...is it really that hard to grasp?

First of all, it's not about where you're born, it's about where you live.  You can control that. Have you ever heard of immigration ;)

Second, I wasn't arguing that what he did wasn't discriminatory. I was fussing over his use of the work "race".

pay attention!

We'll just have to agree to disagree - maybe it's a national thing. Here in Oz, discrminating against people either by ethnic/genetic traits (skin colour, eye shape et. al.) or by what country they live in/come from is called racism.

Also, I hope that crack about immigration is a joke - I would hate to think you would really expect soemone to change what country they live in to escape descrimination...

[USSoldier11B 0]

Personally I don't care who immigrates to the U.S. as long as they don't try to blow up civilians or live off of socialized government assistance. (unless it is money to get an education) I have several very good Lebanese friends who own a nice middle eastern restraunt over by the university.

[Schoeler 0]

@ June 12 2003,15:51)]No, he means the things gay people have to go through are a curse that he wouldn't wish on anyone.

Thanks Tex, I was afraid I'd be misinterpreted.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]The most embarassing moment in American legal history occurred when the United States Supreme Court ruled according to that very philosophy.  They figured that private businesses and organizations had a right to deny service and/or membership to whomever they wanted.  What resulted was their abomination of opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson and another 100 years of now legal de facto discrimination under the doctrine of "seperate but equal."  The problem is "seperate but equal" turned out not to be really equal, and it took dozens of Supreme Court cases and over 80 years to overturn one horrible decision.

I'm not advocating a separate but equal policy. What I am saying is that business should not be hampered by the federal government. If people want to hurt their business by making an extreme political statement it's their business. Ultimately their actions will decide the fate of their livlihood, after Brown v. Board of Education a lot of good legislation did take place, (excluding affirmative action, try getting a scholarship in the U.S. being a white middle class male) but even today many private establishments can and do still refuse patronage/ membership at their discretion, while the aspect mostly affected by legislation is equal opportunity in employment.  Establishments cannot refuse employment based on religion/race/age/sexual preference, but never the less can refuse membership based on the fact that the person is not a Yale graduate. What I am saying is that it would be prudent to allow anyone to patronize your business simply because it increases profits. Who cares who you are selling to as long as you are making money given that it is not causing physical harm to others? (i.e. selling weapons to criminals)

Yes, in some ways that true, but a completely laissez faire economic policy is impossible and unrecommended in a large and diverse society.  The framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate business through the interstate commerce clause for very important reasons.  The laissez faire Supreme Court of the early 20th century made several bad decisions in the interests of unregulated business.  It left the door open to too much abuse of employees, etc..  Look at the Court's decision in Lochner v. New York and in the various child labor cases.  The federal governments record with union busting is horrible as well.  The Haymarket Riots, the I.W.W. massacre in Everett Washington, the hiring of thugs to bully workers striking for basic employment rights.  Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no union supporting socialist, as a future attorney I'm a capitalist at heart, but unions do provide society with a lot of essential benefits and reforms. That very Court tried to block all of the New Deal legislation that pulled this country out of the Great Depression until Rooselvelt threatened to pack the Court with 7 new justices.

[PitViper 0]

Also, I hope that crack about immigration is a joke - I would hate to think you would really expect soemone to change what country they live in to escape descrimination...    

No.. I was merely pointing out that national identity is not a permanent attribute.

[Guest]

No.. I was merely pointing out that national identity is not a permanent attribute.

Maybe not in USA but certainly in Europe where nationality equals ethnic group. Belonging to a state and belonging to a nation is not the same thing.

[PitViper 0]

No.. I was merely pointing out that national identity is not a permanent attribute.

Maybe not in USA but certainly in Europe where nationality equals ethnic group. Belonging to a state and belonging to a nation is not the same thing.

I can see how the difference in understanding would come about.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]We treat 10% of our population like they were baby-eating space aliens.

I's 10% of the population really gay? I find that startling.