Misconception Civil Rights

[LibForestPaul]

Many talk here of how people should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. However, civil rights did not deal with this issue. What it dealt with is state tyranny. The state dictating to a white owner that he may not serve specific Americans because of who they were. Individuals terrorizing white owners who strayed outside of the prescribed behavior of oppression of people of color. The white business owner had no more liberty to serve a negroe than a negroe had liberty to patronize a white only establishment.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Many talk here of how people should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. However, civil rights did not deal with this issue. What it dealt with is state tyranny. The state dictating to a white owner that he may not serve specific Americans because of who they were. Individuals terrorizing white owners who strayed outside of the prescribed behavior of oppression of people of color. The white business owner had no more liberty to serve a negroe than a negroe had liberty to patronize a white only establishment.

I tried to get across this very point to the dipsticks over at HuffPo that what Rand was talking about (private property rights) was the absolute antithesis of the Jim Crow laws (and their Northern counterparts). It was State sanctioned/imposed tyranny that is no different in its own way than the State telling a business owner that they HAVE to service someone they do not wish to.

[free1]

Civil Rights are granted rights.

The state can take them away, or change them at will and you have no say.

[WaltM]

Many talk here of how people should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. However, civil rights did not deal with this issue. What it dealt with is state tyranny. The state dictating to a white owner that he may not serve specific Americans because of who they were. Individuals terrorizing white owners who strayed outside of the prescribed behavior of oppression of people of color. The white business owner had no more liberty to serve a negroe than a negroe had liberty to patronize a white only establishment.

You mean before civil rights movement serving blacks at your choice was illegal?

And right after it the opposite was forced?

[DamianTV]

Civil Rights are granted rights.

The state can take them away, or change them at will and you have no say.

...which is the most important difference between a Right and a Priviledge.

[LibForestPaul]

You mean before civil rights movement serving blacks at your choice was illegal?

And right after it the opposite was forced?

Pretty correct.
The federal government usurped the state government which originally usurped natural rights.

i.e. You must not server people of color, to you must serve people of color, AND here is how it will be implemented. Had the federal government not stepped in, the only other choice available for people (both white and black) who did not want to live under state mandated tyranny (unjust laws) and state sanctioned tyranny (KKK, jury rigging) would have been armed defense.