The Squeeze.
Infamous Eureka lawyer Jason Singleton, who has a reputation of exploiting the American Disabilities Act for lucrative lawsuit settlements, is going after a much loved burger joint in Sacramento.
The Squeeze Inn says business is booming after it received national attention on the Food Network. But owner Travis E. Hausauer says he can’t afford the changes demanded in the lawsuit.
Singleton raised ire in Eureka last year when the Arctic Circle closed its doors after Singleton sued under the ADA.
Other local targets have been the Village Pantry, the Minor Theatre Corp., Cher-Ae Heights Casino, Cafe Waterfront, Barnes Arcata Family Drug, McKinleyville’s Central Station bar, Six Rivers Brewery and others according to a Times-Standard article last year.
RSS - Posts
July 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Money grubbing Eureka attorneys should stay in Humboldt County and leave our Sacramento landmarks alone.
July 8, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I agree, what a POS Mr. Singleton is. He sure did a lot for his cause with the Eureka Artic Circle, NOT!
Yet another reason why people hate lawyers.
Guess I better go to Sacto to get a “Squeeze with cheese” before this litgious asshole forces this Sacramento Landmark out of business.
July 8, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Isn’t there anything we can do? Singleton is a predatory menace.
July 9, 2009 at 5:12 am
Mr. Singleton has been at it “for a long time, at least ten years.”
July 9, 2009 at 6:49 am
Singleton’s cause isn’t the ADA. It’s money. He’s a miserable parasite whose actions actually create resentment towards the disabled from everyone that reads about his shakedowns. What scum.
July 9, 2009 at 7:03 am
maybe some one should check and see if they can drum up an ADA lawsuit against him.
July 9, 2009 at 7:34 am
It sounds like your problems aren’t with Mr. Singleton, but with the law. Why not follow the example of GM and Goldman Sachs, and buy yourselves a government?
July 9, 2009 at 7:59 am
Singleton is scum.
Some day he’ll get his. Karma can be a MF….
July 9, 2009 at 8:15 am
OK, I get that this guy is unpopular (and I’m not him, I promise).
Please explain:
Why is enforcement of the ADA a bad thing?
Why are you not working to modify the ADA, if you feel Singleton thrives on loopholes? This question is special to our conservative friends, who know that the law is the law, and people should NEVER break it.
Or is it just that actually honoring the spirit of the ADA would be “too expensive”? If so, please see my question above. Don’t you believe in going through the proper channels?
These questions are not facetious. It is my foolish hope that some conservalibertarians might give them some thought.
July 9, 2009 at 8:18 am
It’s interesting to see that this is a subject we all agree on:
Hating Singleton for the bottom feeding scum-bucket he is.
How sad that he has anointed himself as the poster boy for accessibility. The handicapped here loathe him for tainting the cause with greed.
July 9, 2009 at 8:46 am
It is unusual for almost everyone to agree. But this guy Singleton is a scumbag.
July 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
Some notes to consider:
Consider the who, what, where, when, why and how the A.D.A. was passed. Then, consider how the laws in this country are made; and, between whom and for whom. Then, consider who “government agencies” and “elected officials” shoulder up with in the private sector to construct and draft many of the laws (affiliated legal organizations).
Hmmmm, if Singleton does what he does for safety because someone else is in violation of some standard(s), then does this also suggest that Singleton is open for hire to sue “Government Agencies” who don’t allow for A.D.A. access (through lack of legal, mandatory enforcements) in currently used “public right-of-ways” when the “A.D.A. up-to-date” infrastructure already exists? We may soon find out.
Also, because it needs to be said in all fairness”, 8:15 am had some good insights and questions. People should be upset with “law makers” who cut and craft a kaleidoscope of confusion intentionally to create loopholes so that situations like this occur which allows these same bureaucrats to construct excuses and reasons for further bureaucratic opportunities; while in the meantime, these very same b.c.er.s run their muses of calligraphy in order to suck off taxpayers and businesses alike in such callous fashion.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 10:06 am
Da Man @ 6:49 am,
Lawmakers crafted the A.D.A. in part so that this resentment would pit consumer versus business? Why? Government wants AND needs dependency, mediation, arbitration, more bureaucracy, the ability to enter your bedroom, etc… In fact, much of the “in-house” fighting among the citizenry is created and allowed to continue by public officials solely for power and control in another’s life. Afterall, how much fun would government officials have if more people were getting along favorably? One thing is for sure – society would not have as many politicians.
A necessity is not really something that which was “constructed by frauds, manipulations, choregraphings or deceit”. Wait until Home Builders are forced to provide a certain number of A.D.A. S.F.R.’s.; or, homes specifically built for people with impairments; or, homes based on the sizes, heights and body weights of peoples, etc….
Voters get what they vote for.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 10:08 am
I’m all for ending the guy’s witch hunt lawsuits when they go after trivial modifications needed under ADA law. Such situations should be resolvable without awarded damages if the defendant simply makes the necessary adjustments. There is such a thing as good faith. Most Humboldt County businesses try to do the right thing, and we shouldn’t ding them for simple mistakes.
But look at just how inaccessible this restaurant allegedly was. Read the list of alleged violations.
If the upgrades are too costly, the restaurant should have moved 19 years ago when the ADA was enacted. Today there is no excuse for such extensive violations. It’s a civil rights issue. Shame on anyone who supports blatant discrimination.
July 9, 2009 at 10:29 am
Part of the problem 10:08 is the extra cost of doing business that was catapulted upon business immediately after the A.D.A. was passed. This cost was “a kill-murder-death” toll upon business who were struggling then to just get by. I would hunch at a guess that most business “do not want” to turn away customers; rather, it is about “financial reality”. Then, if one has to sell a business because of “the added costs”, then who in their right mind would purchase a business at a location needing so much $’s in repairs.
This issue needs to be looked upon in the same light as a home. If people had to upgrade their home every time an applicable “new law” was passed, guess what, people would start losing their homes in droves – kinda like what is going on for enough people currently; and, since homes are treated as financial assets (like a business), then it would seem that government would try to eventually grab at anything that they can regulate a business on.
For government agencies and payrolls, it is all about raising the monetary values in society to set higher tax levels upon society – very simple concept to understand, especially when the concept has been proven enough times to have been an utter failure in past societal regimes(historical note).
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 10:33 am
ADA should be applicable to new construction or remodels. Older businesses shouldn’t have to relocate because of it. For Christ’s sakes, what have we become? This guy is a leach and a scumbag, ADA is well-intentioned but deeply flawed such that this kind of thing can happen. You’re saying a mom and pop burger stand that’s been aroudn forty years, should have to move because some new law comes down the pike? That’s a reasonable and prudent thing to do?
This stuff pisses me off….
July 9, 2009 at 10:47 am
neo,
The law should take common sense into account, and minor violations that do not fundamentally change accessibility should be grandfathered. That said, the ADA is a statement that, yes, if you want to do business, you have to be welcoming to all citizens, not just the convenient ones.
I understand why businesspeople find that aggravating. But it’s a simple matter of civil rights.
We educate ALL children, even those with mental and physical disabilities. It costs a lot of money. As a society, we’ve said we’re rich enough, and our nation is better that way.
Restaurants have to take sanitary measures that cost money, because as a nation we’ve decided our society is better that way, even if it makes eating out more expensive.
Having a disability is exactly the sort of “no fault of one’s own” problem that can affect anyone, or anyone’s child. Those of us lucky enough not to need special measures for accessibility should thank our lucky stars and recognize that accessibility is a cost of doing business.
July 9, 2009 at 11:05 am
10:08 If the changes are too expensive, he should move? Ummmm, out of state? Was this the intent of the law when it was enacted? Were Californians that short-sighted that they didn’t realize that their laws would force small businesses out of the state?
Considering the state of the State’s taxes, perhaps a fresher solution is in order. If I was the owner, I’d settle: agree to make the changes but no payout to cripple. I would decrease the seating by half and increase the prices. Call them the “Paraplegic Lounge” on the walls and the “Humboldt Lawyer fee” on the receipts. Allowing 1 customer who didn’t even bother to order a burger to inconvenience the 1000s of other customers who did sounds like the Californian way.
July 9, 2009 at 11:09 am
99.99% of historical buildings are not ADA compliant. Should they be modified to make them so, thus possibly ruining the aspects of them that makes them attractive? Torn down even? Nonsense! Old Town Eureka would be obliterated.
Did you know that if a business leases a building, the BUSINESS is responsible for retrofitting to ADA standards, not the building owner? What sense does that make?
I think most business owners WANT customers and are willing to accomodate disability as much as possible.
July 9, 2009 at 11:49 am
Forgive me, 11:09. I didn’t know Arctic Circle was a historic landmark. Can you spell straw man?
As for a business leasing a building: don’t lease non-compliant buildings and you’ll have no problem. Or, if they’re that appealing, yes, modify them so you are in compliance with civil rights law. You should have no problem if you are a good businessperson because the law creates a level playing field. Everybody has to live by the same rules, so you don’t have any special competitive burden except stupidity.
July 9, 2009 at 11:55 am
11:05,
The ADA is federal law, not state. You’d have to move out of the country, which is what I’d suggest. If you move to India, you’ll find many “cripples” who know their place.
It’s hard to imagine anyone was particularly loyal to Arctic Circle, a true dog of a fast food joint that contributed absolutely nothing to Eureka beyond what McDonalds and Burger King do, so I’m guessing you are the jerk ex-owner. Given your language, I’m really glad you’re out of business.
Local can be good. Local can also be provincial, small-minded, mean-spirited and pathetic.
July 9, 2009 at 11:59 am
I remember being at SFO, in an elevator that had braille markings next to the floor numbers. Someone with a Southern accent was incredibly amused that Californians were wacky enough to label buttons at an airport in braille. I was preparing to visit relatives living in the South, and I recall thinking, “there’s no place like home.”
July 9, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Why is enforcement of the ADA a bad thing?”
How about if we start with the simple fact that it’s unconstitutional? There are seventeen enumerated powers in the constitution, and ordering business owners to remodel their buildings to accommodate vexatious litigants is not among them.
As for the moral issue, how does being a gimp entitle anyone to another person’s property or labor? If you’re in a wheelchair, sucks to be you, but that’s your own problem. Ask for help if you need it, don’t demand it at the point of a gun.
July 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“ADA is well-intentioned but deeply flawed such that this kind of thing can happen.”
It’s a great lesson to teach people that government force is a very blunt instrument. If you’re irritated that you can’t get a wheelchair into a restaurant, then picket them, get your friends to boycott them, or whatever else you want to do to try to shame them into doing what you want, but when you demand that the cops shake down the owner for not giving you what you want, you become a thief.
July 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Ah, some guy,
I’m glad for 11:05… now he has company.
You are, of course, completely correct. Sucks to be a “gimp” in a wheelchair, but it’s totally unconstitutional for the government to force bizness to do anything for the “gimp.”
Similarly, it sucks to be an elderly lady getting mugged, but it’s unconstitutional for a government agent, just because he’s wearing a badge, to interfere with the rights of the mugger to conduct his affairs.
Also, it’s completely unconstitutional for the government to interfere with your right to build a firetrap, or sell medicines that kill people, or (local angle) subject a community to landslides because the dopes built under an area that had perfectly harvestable trees.
But, of course, it is very constitutional — mandatory, in fact — that the gubmint prevent women from controlling their bodies. Not to mention the vital importance that the gubmint prevent gay people from touching one another in clearly immoral ways.
Thank heavens Dubya understood all this.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Oh my god, I’ve got work to do. See y’all later, and don’t forget to have fun and watch Rush!
July 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Is it illegal to be stupid? Maybe there is some room for a lawsuit here, becuz Me no nunderstan.
July 9, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The ADA is being abused by a handful of scum sucking lawyers like Jason Singleton.
There was a reasonable change introduced by congress to have a slight change. Once a business was notified of a defect, it would have 90 days to fix the problem before any lawsuit is allowed.
It never got out of committee. Wonder why ?
Lawyers dominate our congress, our senate & our state legislature.
July 9, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I’ve eaten there, huge burgers that have lots of greasy juice to run down your chin. Just the way Sacto loves ‘em. And it is long and narrow with the grill in front of the bar. Yep, probably just about impossible for someone in a wheelchair to eat at.
Well, we passed the ADA and now have to figure out how to live with it or amend it. Problem is, most folks have a funny habit or ignoring laws that aren’t enforced and they don’t like. And then they feel entitled to do that. Especially in small towns where laws are subordinate to conformity with social norms based on tradition.
July 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm
About non-enforced laws – Ignorance becomes exponential, generation after generation – go figure.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm
On the one hand, the ADA is worded badly.
On the other hand, I am glad this Singleton character is going after businesses that I don’t like. People were all mad about Arctic Circle… well ha ha, fatties. Go get your arteries clogged somewhere that has wider doors and such.
He did go after Barnes Arcata Drugs and that would suck if I ever went to that place. Fuck that, this guy is my hero.
July 9, 2009 at 3:28 pm
So people in wheelchairs are not able to eat greasy hamburgers and this is bad because . . . . ?
July 9, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Henchman, that was then, this is now. 19 years later no business has a valid excuse for egregious ADA violations.
July 9, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The Squeeze Inn only holds about 10 customers at a time. The owner is supposed to move the business to accomodate the AH Singleton? A restaruant that small can not afford to make significant structural changes or find a new location. You might as well just say we’re going to force you out of business because we can. Civil rights my ass.
This is not an “egregious” ADA violation.
July 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm
11:49, I wasn’t specifically referring to Artic Circle. Other businesses in town have been targeted. And when I walk through Old Town it looks like a great place for Singleton to find targets.
Being a good businessperson has nothing to do with it. You must live in some kind of fantasy world if you actually believe that the law provides a level playing field…And it’s very clear you don’t own your own business…
Still puzzling over why you felt the need to call me stupid though…is it because you can do so anonymously?
July 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Apologies, 6:06 and 11:09,
I had meant to call 11:05 stupid, not you. And yes, it’s because I can do it anonymously.
Do you really think that the ADA will destroy our historic buildings? I don’t. (Tho I confess I do wonder why some of our historic buildings are considered historic buildings, when they look more like… oh, there I was about to go again.)
And while Singleton may be every bit as Satanic as everyone here seems to think, the ADA is a perfectly reasonable law that happens to impact people who think laws are supposed to bother people less wonderful and civic-minded than they deem themselves.
July 9, 2009 at 7:24 pm
4:06pm,
Now is just like then – financial reality – kinda like how California is doing right now in a bankrupt U.S.A.. I agree on egregious violations, but that generally never lights a fire under government agencies to enforce A.D.A. standards prior to a complaint in situations where “some sort of a process” was not involved.
….and again, it is about financial reality that limits the effectiveness of A.D.A. standards, at least until the small guy is “out-wealthed” and all business is conducted by the wealthy or those fortunate enough to have political connections that render grants, loans, bonds, etc…. So, if you want to avoid A.D.A. hassles, simply rent or buy a “new” commercial tenant space; however, newer places are much more in rental costs. So, a quandary exists in a world that fancies money in part order to be progressive, yet somewhere along the way, people let their greed for power and control rule the day……..
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Somebody needs to OFF this Singleton guy. Yep, I said it.
July 9, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“the ADA is a perfectly reasonable law that happens to impact people who think laws are supposed to bother people less wonderful and civic-minded than they deem themselves.
No, it is not. People should be able to choose for themselves how they run their business, or their homes.
July 9, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Irresponsible thing to say, Fred.
July 9, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Singleton; the disgruntled and unhappy disabled person; the business; bureaucrats; chaos within a business environment – can’t we all see the political game going on here in a non-monolithic reality? If blame is to be casted, cast it upon those who do not read laws and bills before ratification.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 9, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Singleton is a sleaze.
That said, the ADA is a civil rights law. Why don’t you see more disabled people out and about, or working in local businesses? Because it is nearly impossible for them to use many of the facilities which you and I take for granted. Should disabled people have separate, but equal facilities? We all know how that works out.
If the business in question had a plan to fix the facilities and had put away $500 a year for the last 19 years to make it so, they probably wouldn’t have to worry. Most business owners won’t pay attention to the law until they are sued, then claim ignorance. These guidelines have been around for a long long time, and similar laws have been on the books in this state for much longer. The law only kicks in if you are actually doing any renovations or construction costing a certain amount. There is a lot you can do without doing major construction.
There are clear exceptions in the law for historic buildings, and there are many historic buildings in old town which have been upgraded to comply without loosing their “historic character.”
The ADA is a poorly written law that invites these types of lawsuits, and I wish it would be fixed so the guidelines are more clear. I also wish the State would implement a building code that was in full compliance with the federal law. Bummer it won’t be cleared up anytime soon.
All you business owners out there should take the law seriously and hire an architect or another licensed professional who knows the applicable laws and codes when renovating or moving to a new location. They’ll save you money in the long run.
July 9, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I’m with Fred on this one. Having been a business owner fearing I’d be picked out for fleecing by this guy, and not having enough money to hire lawyers, engineers and licensed professionals, any of us could be the next victim. How is this not terrorism? The guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, making big bucks off small business owners “on behalf of the disabled.” That makes him righteous. . .uh huh.
July 9, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Walt,
your elected officials, upon ratifying A.D.A., essentially allowed this “terroresque” situation to propagate. If it isn’t Singleton, it will be someone else because A.D.A. and Congress allows it to be so. Did you ever consider that government agents already “knew” before A.D.A. ratification that attorneys would get the media attention while enforcing this type of dysfunctional law? Talk about “setting society up” from the position of being an elected official.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 10, 2009 at 5:24 am
Jeff:
Our “elected” officials, being a pack of “mentally challenged sex workers”, may not have known what would happen when they passed it, but by the time Singleton set up shop and started terrorizing small business all over the north state, folks like Mike knew. . .and have done NOTHING. You’re probably right SOME of them saw it coming, but given the fact so many used to “practice law” before going into politics, guess whose interests they were looking out for? “My” elected officials could not care less what you or I think.
July 10, 2009 at 6:42 am
Less the first half of the first sentence(although, after seeing the picture of Obama staring at the buttox of a young girl……), I agree completely Walt.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 10, 2009 at 6:50 am
Is he still on the HCDCC??
July 10, 2009 at 9:28 am
Anyone who thinks the ADA rules are reasonable, have never been forced to comply with them.
Some of the businesses attacked by Singleton & his wheel chair thugs have been cited for having the light switch 1/2 inch too high. Or the wheel chair ramp three degrees too steep.
They file suit for something like $50,000. The owner cries “Foul”. Singleton tells them they will lose in court anyway, but pay me $15,000 & I’ll go away – your attorney fees would be more than that.
The business pays the extortion, Singleton gives his wheel chair guy $5,000 & they move on to the next target.
July 10, 2009 at 9:29 am
I said: “the ADA is a perfectly reasonable law”
Fred Mangels said:
“No, it is not. People should be able to choose for themselves how they run their business, or their homes.”
I say:
Right, Fred. If I don’t want to serve/teach/live-next-to no f-ing n*, k*, J*, M*, H*, I*, A*, g*, no gubmint official’s gonna make me. Thank heavens for anonymity; I wouldn’t want Fred proposing I be murdered.
July 10, 2009 at 10:12 am
Some of you need to spend a day in a wheelchair.
July 10, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I have little respect for opportunistic money-grubbers like Singleton, and I agree that the ADA should be amended to allow businesses a grace period to make changes after problems are pointed out and that lawsuits should be disallowed during the grace period.
But I have to say that after reading some of the incredibly insensitive statements in this comment thread, I’m stating to think that maybe even parasites like Singleton may serve some necessary function. I mean take a look at the attitude some folks have: “Cripple,” “Paraplegic Lounge,” “If you’re in a wheelchair…sucks to be you…but that’s your problem.” And “gimp”…I mean really? People still actually say things like that about disabled folks!? Sickening.
I agree wholeheartedly with Babushka; in fact I’d go a bit further: Some of you need to spend a month or two in a wheelchair, then maybe you’d have some appreciation for why handicapped accesibility is a real civil rights issue.
July 10, 2009 at 2:34 pm
And Jeez, Fred, really now, could you possibly make a bigger fool of yourself? It’s hard to see how!
First you advocate MURDER. (“Someone needs to OFF this guy”). So let me get this straight: a fast-food restarant gains competitive advantage by breaking the law and then decides to close rather than comply with the law and pay a settlement. This deprives you of your preferred choice of hamburgers — and therefore murdering the attorney is justified? Please, get a little bit of perspective, dude.
Then you completely deny the need for any civil rights legislation. (“People should be allowed to choose for themselves how they run their business…”) So according to you, businesses should only accomodate those kinds of people that they want to accomodate, and so they should be allowed, for example, to turn away black people, asians, women, jews, gays, native americans, muslims, etc.? Try to think things through a little before you make these mindless sweeping generalizations. For one thing, you’ll have more room left for burgers when you don’t have your foot crammed so securely in your pie-hole.
July 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm
So according to you, businesses should only accomodate those kinds of people that they want to accomodate, and so they should be allowed, for example, to turn away black people, asians, women, jews, gays, native americans, muslims, etc.?
Yep, and I stand by it. I consider your comment ignorant.
July 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm
HF wrote, The business pays the extortion, Singleton gives his wheel chair guy $5,000 & they move on to the next target..
Yep, and point to be made here is Singleton never asks the business to simply correct a supposed deficiency. He comes out of nowhere and simply sues them, offering to drop the lawsuit if they pay him some tens of thousands of dollars. It is extortion, clear and simple.
July 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm
he is disgusting. He makes all handicapped people disgusted. I hope one day he is disabled and finds people trying to capitalize on bogus lawsuits against the independent family owned businesses. DISGUSTING.
July 10, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I had to drive to Ukiah today to get a transmitter for one of our stations. Caltrans was doing construction on 3 or 4 different parts of 101.
When the construct railroads, they don’t have to hire the guy with the stop/slow sign and the pilot cars and cones etc. I don’t think that 101 should be the only way for people to get south without flying. The car should not be glorified while the train is dismissed. They are building the south end of the line as we blog. The right of way, as pointed out before, is worth too much to ignore. A trail to reggae or earth dance would be nice but a train ride would be more practical.
July 11, 2009 at 9:03 am
The fact is the law says that if you own a business that is not in compliance with the ADA, you must bring it up to compliance BEFORE you spend any other money on fixing anything else in the business. So if they are in non compliance with the ADA it is fine until they do repairs or install a new stove or fryer. The law says that they MUST first bring the facility up to ADA standards before the make OTHER improvements.
Stop discriminating against the sick and disabled.
July 11, 2009 at 9:47 am
Anything done “on behalf of the sick and disabled”, fraud, deceit, theft, terror, extortion, all are excusable, even holy, if wrapped in the Sacred Mantle. In nomine Patris et Filli et Spiritus Sancti. . .
July 11, 2009 at 10:24 am
9:03 wrote, “The law says that they MUST first bring the facility up to ADA standards before the make OTHER improvements.”.
And, again: Singleton doesn’t ask them to bring things up to ADA standards. He files suit against them and tries to get a settlement. He’s not interested in compliance, except to find violations that he can file suit for.
July 11, 2009 at 10:28 am
9:03 am,
Which section of the A.D.A. law are you citing? I am interested in your comment about stoves and fryers(equipment is not the actual facility or structure).
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 12, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Fred Mangels Says:
July 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Skippy said: “So according to you, businesses should only accomodate those kinds of people that they want to accomodate, and so they should be allowed, for example, to turn away black people, asians, women, jews, gays, native americans, muslims, etc.?”
Fred: “Yep, and I stand by it…”
Well, I appreciate your candor. So apparently the Civil Rights movement was a mistake? They should have let those Woolworth’s lunch counters stay “White Only?” And refusing to employ any minorities or women would be O.K. too?
I guess the idea is that as an unwanted minority, you just take your business, or your resume, elsewhere.
Well, that doesn’t work out very well for the minorities, as their choices of where to work or where to purchase goods can be very limited.
Libertarianism is based on an important principal, but like all political ideologies it leads to absurd and undesirable outcomes when the ideologues don’t leave room for pragmatic exceptions to the rule. At that point it’s just dogma, and there’s no dogma that works all the time.
Of course adhering stubbornly to dogma is much easier than actually thinking things through on a case-by-case basis. This is the reason for the enduring popularity of various dysfunctional dogmas — religious, political, cultural, etc.
July 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Well, we all assume the civil rights act was a good thing, because it corrected the behavior of all those fat morons who tawk funneee. but maybe, just maybe, the
gummint telling us who we can and cannot hang out with, do business with,
go to the gym with, even if its for the best, just maybe, its not really in the constitution, was not the intent of the framers, was not the purpose of the 14th amendment, and is illegal after all. good, but illegal.
July 15, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution, many of the “founders” were slave-owners, and these founders only intended for “white” male property owners to vote. That doesn’t mean these things were morally right or should continue forever. That’s why the Constitution gets amended, and the amendments that were put in place after the Civil War are the constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act, though unfortunately it took another century before those post Civil War amendments were properly fleshed out in legislation like the Civil rights act.
The government certainly does not “tell us whe we can and cannot hang out with” or who to go to the gym with, so private freedom of association is still alive and well. If you want to hang out with all “white” people, you can join the Klan or the World Church of the Creator, or start your own private, exclusive club of any kind.
Where civil rights comes in is in the area of Public accomodations, in other words businesses and other enterprises that are open to the general public, not “members only” organizations.
So you can hang out with whoever you want, and no one can force you to hang out with people you don’t want to. What you can’t do is open a business or a public agency and then bar minorities, or women, or disabled people from being customers. And most of us in this country think that’s a pretty important thing.
July 15, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Skippy, you make US history sound so glorious and give the impression that we have come so far from the bad old days of 1883 when the Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional.
There is just one bit of fact missing. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment do not assert any power over private citizens as far as discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may only take “remedial action” in situations involving 14th Amendment in particular. Many have argued that the Civil Rights Act is still unconstitutional.
We have not come as far as you make it out to be. It is not the US Constitution that prevents me from opening up the no white boys allowed ping-pong and pai gow club, state law in California prevents this. The California Constitution provides many protections except for gay people who are explicitly singled out due to the most recent amendment.
While your positive sentiment is appreciated by “most of us,” it is not the way things actually are. The Constitution of Canada explicitly forbids the activities you describe, the US Constitution does not. Any federal statute that purports to forbid discrimination is unenforceable in a private situation which is not in violation of state law.
July 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Well I didn’t mean to imply that everything was hunky-dory now, discrimination-wise. I was responding to “Think About It” at 8:32pm, who seemed to be arguing that discrimination ought to be allowed due to our rights of freedom of association. And was conflating private association with public accomodations.
Anyway, I’m not any kind of expert on federal vs. state civil rights laws, but I do know that it was a federal law (The Voting Rights Act) that put an end to many of the barriers to minorities voting in the South. And the federal Civil Rights Act has some effect as well, does it not? Brown vs. Board of Ed was a reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, not a state constitution. Etc, etc…
As far as your assertion that “any federal statute that purports to forbid discrimination is unenforceable in a private situation which is not in violation of state law,” I honestly just don’t know if that’s true or not. Perhaps it hinges on the word “private.” But, for example, someone who offers apartments for rent cannot (legally) discriminate due to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which has been enforced in many thousands of cases over the years. Was this only possible because there was a state law that also covered that situation? Or because housing is a “public accomodation,” not a private situation? I don’t know. Perhaps you do?
July 15, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“Many have argued that the Civil Rights Act is still unconstitutional.”
Well, unless those making that argument are appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they can argue anything they like, but that doesn’t make the Civil Rights Act officially, legally considered “unconstitutional.”
July 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm
The day that scumbag enters my establishment, I’ll go out of business. Now, who wins?
We, as Americans, live under so many laws that we can’t possibly read all of them in our lifetime. So many of them conflict that it is impossible to abide by all of them, ever. The point I’m trying to make here is, if you want to find a problem, you can. And, some people make it their business to find problems instead of being positive, productive members of society.
If Travis has not yet found a new location for his restraunt, maybe he should consider moving out of state. I hear Nevada is nice…
I would be willing to bet that Kimberly Block has never had a squeeze burger and never will. What has she won here, other than money? To me, this is the real crime.