iRacism: Apple refuses to sell products to US Persians

[green73]

http://rt.com/usa/news/apple-racism-iranians-us-334/


An American teen was unable to shop at an Apple store simply because she was speaking Farsi with her uncle. What seems to be a clear-cut case of ethnic profiling turns out to be in line with official company policy.

*Sabah Sabet, a 19-year old US citizen of Iranian extraction, and a student of the University of Georgia, took her uncle to buy an iPhone and an iPad at an Apple store in a mall in Alpharetta, Georgia, local news channel WSBTV reports.

But she was in for a shocker, as the store clerk refused to sell them the devices after he found out Sabet and her uncle were speaking Farsi.

“When we said ‘Farsi, I'm from Iran,’ he said, ‘I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,’” Sabet recounted.

Sabet said the incident, which she describes as “discrimination” and “racial profiling,” was very hurtful and just as embarrassing.

“I actually walked out in tears,” she recalled.

Her experience is not unique. Zack Jafarzadeh was unable to buy an iPhone for his Farsi-speaking Iranian friend, studying in the US on a visa, at another Apple store in the Perimeter Mall in Atlanta, Georgia.

“We never talked about him going back to Iran or anything like that,” he noted. “He was just speaking full-fledged Farsi and the representative came back and denied our sale.”

He also stressed that the sales clerk was only concerned with the ethnicity of their client and not where the iPhone was going.

“I feel like this is a bit of racial profiling against Iranians, and I'm appalled,” Jafarzadeh said. “I would say if you're trying to buy an iPhone, don't tell them anything about Iran. That would be your best bet.”

The vendors at the stores in question said the decision not to sell the products to anyone from Iran was within the framework of the company’s policy.

Apple’s policy, posted on its official website, prohibits the exportation, sale or supply of any Apple goods, technologies to Iran, as well as North Korea, Cuba, Sudan and Syria without prior authorization from the US government. The policy also applies to a “US person, wherever located.”

However, the policy doesn’t seem to be very consistent. When Sabah Sabet called corporate customer relations, an employee apologized and said she would be able to buy what she wanted online.

American Muslim and Iranian advocacy organizations have already reacted to the surprising case of discrimination.

“Unfortunately, this is part of an escalating pattern in which increasingly broad sanctions on Iran are hitting the wrong people,” said Jamal Abdi, the Policy Direct of the National Iranian American Council, “Some of it is by design of Congress and the Administration, some of it is a lack of clarity about what is permitted, and some of it is over-enforcement of sanctions by private companies worried about running afoul of the law.”

“Apple must revise its policies to ensure that customers do not face discriminatory treatment based on their religion, ethnicity or national origin,” Nahad Awad, the National Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations stressed. “If the actions of these Apple employees reflected company policy, that policy must be changed and all employees retrained.”

[oyarde]

Ridiculous , I would be more concerened about the people who speak Farsi that work for the CIA ...

[Cowlesy]

Oh whhhammbulance. I guarantee you it's not "Apple's policy." You probably just scared someone who perhaps has zero exposure other than what blather they hear from the media about Iranians. I am sure if they call Apple, they'd be happy to sell them whatever they wanted.

[AGRP]

They did her a favor by not allowing her to buy their overpriced crap.

[libertyfanatic]

They did her a favor by not allowing her to buy their overpriced crap.
After reading the article I knew a comment like this was coming.

[oyarde]

Oh whhhammbulance. I guarantee you it's not "Apple's policy." You probably just scared someone who perhaps has zero exposure other than what blather they hear from the media about Iranians. I am sure if they call Apple, they'd be happy to sell them whatever they wanted. Pretty mch my thoughts .

[Pericles]

Logical implication of "see something, say something" - people who are perceived to be part of groups out of favor will face official and unofficial discrimination.

[Kotin]

Disgusting.

[liberdom]

At least it's legal.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh whhhammbulance. I guarantee you it's not "Apple's policy." You probably just scared someone who perhaps has zero exposure other than what blather they hear from the media about Iranians. I am sure if they call Apple, they'd be happy to sell them whatever they wanted.
This^^ Stupid policy, but it's their store and their choice to lose business if they so desire. Would there be outrage if the store owner threw out hoodlums (of any race) flashing gang signs or acting otherwise suspiciously? Remember, you have no right to service.

[liberdom]

Disgusting.

It's disgusting they don't want to make money while people think they have a right to be sold a luxury electronic?

[green73]

This^^ Stupid policy, but it's their store and their choice to lose business if they so desire. Would there be outrage if the store owner threw out hoodlums (of any race) flashing gang signs or acting otherwise suspiciously? Remember, you have no right to service.

So you are equating flashing gang signs with speaking Farsi? What if they just throw someone out for being black? Freedom of association, yes, but it's illegal.

Anyway, the policy seems to be fascist.

[Acala]

Federal law prohibits the export to "enemy" countries of certain items deemd potentially a threat to national security. This includes, just for example, encryption technology. I believe the creator of PGP was, at one time, threatened with prosecution for allowing his encryption technology to be distributed freely across international borders without approval.

So, I am pretty confident that any Apple corporate policy is only what is mandated by the Federal government. Of course there is no accounting for individual douchebag employees of the company.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you are equating flashing gang signs with speaking Farsi? What if they just throw someone out for being black? Freedom of association, yes, but it's illegal.

Anyway, the policy seems to be fascist.
No. Just saying store owners can throw anyone out for any stupid reason they want (stupid and bad for business as it may be). (Note I qualified my statement "of any race".) As I said, there's no right to service. There are only a few exceptions-such as lending which are covered by various laws (equal lending, etc).

[green73]

No. Just saying store owners can throw anyone out for any stupid reason they want. (Note I qualified my statement "of any race".) As I said, there's no right to service. There are only a few exceptions-such as lending which are covered by various laws (equal lending, etc).

But you're wrong. You cannot deny somebody service based on their race. It's a violation of our natural rights but it is what it is.

[DerailingDaTrain]

But you're wrong. You cannot deny somebody service based on their race. It's a violation of our natural rights but it is what it is.

People can deny service based on whatever they want. It's their business. You've never seen those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for whatever reason"?

[heavenlyboy34]

But you're wrong. You cannot deny somebody service based on their race. It's a violation of our natural rights but it is what it is.
I'm right. You don't have a natural right to shop somewhere, buy specific things(like overpriced made-in-china crap), or be on another person's property. Store owners do have the natural right to have stupid policies. Think about the ramifications of what you're saying. You're arguing against store owners' natural rights.

[CaptainAmerica]

He can always buy one indirectly from someone brand new if he wants.

[green73]

I'm not for it but people can choose to deny people service based on whatever they want. It's their business. You've never seen those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for whatever reason"?

You are familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It's illegal to deny someone service based on their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It violates our of freedom of association, and thus is a bad law, but a law it is nonetheless.

I think this story is relevant because ultimately the US government is the culprit.

[DerailingDaTrain]

You are familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It's illegal to deny someone service based on their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It violates our of freedom of association, and thus is a bad law, but a law it is nonetheless.

I think this story is relevant because ultimately the US government is the culprit.

It's strange to see a person with your avatar bring up the Civil Rights Act in an argument since you agree that it violates our freedom of association.

[green73]

I'm right. You don't have a natural right to shop somewhere, buy specific things(like overpriced made-in-china crap), or be on another person's property. Store owners do have the natural right to have stupid policies. Think about the ramifications of what you're saying. You're arguing against store owners' natural rights.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said the law violates our natural rights.

[green73]

It's strange to see a person with your avatar bring up the Civil Rights Act in an argument.

Even when I put it into context?

[heavenlyboy34]

You are familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It's illegal to deny someone service based on their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It violates our of freedom of association, and thus is a bad law, but a law it is nonetheless.

I think this story is relevant because ultimately the US government is the culprit.
IIRC, that law only affects official business policy. Store owners can make decisions to deny service on a case by case basis last I checked. Ministers can refuse to marry gay couples if they want, for example-even in states where it's legal. You have no right to service. You can even be denied service for not wearing shoes, you know.

[Acala]

IIRC, that law only affects official business policy. Store owners can make decisions to deny service on a case by case basis last I checked. Ministers can refuse to marry gay couples if they want, for example-even in states where it's legal. You have no right to service. You can even be denied service for not wearing shoes, you know.

No business can discriminate in employment or service based on race or nation of origin pursuant to Title 7 of the civil rights act. See the Ollie's Barbecue case.

[heavenlyboy34]

You didn't read what I wrote. I said the law violates our natural rights.
You're right. I read too quickly. I apologize.

[green73]

IIRC, that law only affects official business policy. Store owners can make decisions to deny service on a case by case basis last I checked. Ministers can refuse to marry gay couples if they want, for example-even in states where it's legal. You have no right to service. You can even be denied service for not wearing shoes, you know.
You said on this forum and/or the other that you can deny someone service for any reason, and I said it's illegal if the reason is their race, religion, sexual orientation.

[heavenlyboy34]

No business can discriminate in employment or service based on race or nation of origin pursuant to Title 7 of the civil rights act. See the Ollie's Barbecue case.
The Ollie's BBQ case was a violation of the interstate commerce clause (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5Q16). You're right about the CRA (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm), but it isn't applicable here. That only addresses employment practices. Denial of service is legal.

[heavenlyboy34]

You said on this forum and/or the other that you can deny someone service for any reason, and I said it's illegal if the reason is their race, religion, sexual orientation.
addressed in post 27 ^^

[heavenlyboy34]

The Case For Discrimination by Walter Block-(free pdf)
http://mises.org/document/6078/

[green73]

addressed in post 27 ^^

So you think someone can have a "whites only" business establishment.

[musicmax]

So, I am pretty confident that any Apple corporate policy is only what is mandated by the Federal government.

Thank you for your compliance, mundane.

[green73]

The Case For Discrimination by Walter Block-(free pdf)
http://mises.org/document/6078/

Again, you're mixing natural rights with legality.

[ShaneEnochs]

Oh whhhammbulance. I guarantee you it's not "Apple's policy." You probably just scared someone who perhaps has zero exposure other than what blather they hear from the media about Iranians. I am sure if they call Apple, they'd be happy to sell them whatever they wanted.

If they did that to me, HQ had better give me whatever product I wanted for free.

[musicmax]

He can always buy one indirectly from someone brand new if he wants.

Of course, because that makes it a "conspiracy".

[RickyJ]

Apple’s policy, posted on its official website, prohibits the exportation, sale or supply of any Apple goods, technologies to Iran, as well as North Korea, Cuba, Sudan and Syria without prior authorization from the US government.

This is part of what Rand voted for when he voted for economic sanctions against Iran.

We are waging an economic and a cyber war against Iran right now. It needs to stop before it becomes all out war. Romney wants all out war, yet Rand endorsed him. Forget 2016, a war with Iran will change everything.

[musicmax]

Oh whhhammbulance. I guarantee you it's not "Apple's policy."

http://www.apple.com/legal/export.html

PROHIBITED DESTINATIONS
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria

The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.

[green73]

This is part of what Rand voted for when he voted for economic sanctions against Iran.

We are waging an economic and a cyber war against Iran right now. It needs to stop before it becomes all out war. Romney wants all out war, yet Rand endorsed him. Forget 2016, a war Iran will change everything.

rep

[RickyJ]

It's disgusting they don't want to make money while people think they have a right to be sold a luxury electronic?

Oh they definitely want to make money, this is US policy they are attempting to enforce, not Apple's policy.

[liberdom]

Oh they definitely want to make money, this is US policy they are attempting to enforce, not Apple's policy.

Is it really ? Do all other companies enforce it this way? "I heard you speaking Farsi, I can't sell you this item if you intend to export it"

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, you're mixing natural rights with legality.
There's no such thing as a natural right to not be discriminated against. (It's actually extremely natural to discriminate. When you marry someone, you discriminate against every other possible partner in the world!)To enforce this would require thought policing. The free market has an amazing way of dealing with this-employers who use policies that are unpopular will be found out. Word of mouth will spread about the employer and people will stop doing business with said employer.

It is in fact you who is confusing legality and natural rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you think someone can have a "whites only" business establishment.
Yes. It's a stupid business model-and will likely cost the firm a lot of money, but so what? You aren't harmed by not being employed by someone. It doesn't cause any objective, measurable harm to you. In fact, it gives you the opportunity to find an employer you would get along with better.

[green73]

Yes. It's a stupid business model-and will likely cost the firm a lot of money, but so what? You aren't harmed by not being employed by someone. It doesn't cause any objective, measurable harm to you. In fact, it gives you the opportunity to find an employer you would get along with better.

I don't dispute that, but the CRA makes it illegal.

[Cowlesy]

http://www.apple.com/legal/export.html

PROHIBITED DESTINATIONS
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria

The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.

Right, so some Apple retail sales employee misinterpreted an export/sale restriction to a sovereign nation, as applying to an American citizen of Iranian descent. Sorry, I can't get bent out of shape about this. I am sure if the citizen calls Apple, they can remedy the situation.

I'm tired of treating every single news story that's a likely misunderstanding, as a massive affront to the justice system.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't dispute that, but the CRA makes it illegal.
No. Disproven in post 27 of this thread.

[green73]

The Ollie's BBQ case was a violation of the interstate commerce clause (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5Q16). You're right about the CRA (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm), but it isn't applicable here. That only addresses employment practices. Denial of service is legal.

I'm surprised you don't know that it applies to customer service. You can't put up sign that says, "We only serve whites". Well, maybe you can, but it's illegal to actually apply it in practice.

[Sam I am]

Oh my god, when I was nearing the end of that I found myself blaming the government for it. What has happened to me?

[green73]

Oh my god, when I was nearing the end of that I found myself blaming the government for it. What has happened to me?

You've taken the red pill?

[green73]

I'm surprised you don't know that it applies to customer service. You can't put up sign that says, "We only serve whites". Well, maybe you can, but it's illegal to actually apply it in practice.

Actually I believe there was a case where a woman put up such a sign as an antique curiosity and was made to remove it. Probably even fined.

[Sam I am]

You've taken the red pill?

Nah I think it actually is the government's fault this time. Hard to blame apple, as it seems as though they've been put into a Catch22

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm surprised you don't know that it applies to customer service. You can't put up sign that says, "We only serve whites". Well, maybe you can, but it's illegal to actually apply it in practice.
I don't see a clause in the law about it. Name it, please.

[green73]

No. Disproven in post 27 of this thread.


Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private." :P

[heavenlyboy34]

:P
A different wrinkle. I stand corrected. That doesn't make the law just or rational, though.

[Revolution9]

Federal law prohibits the export to "enemy" countries of certain items deemd potentially a threat to national security. This includes, just for example, encryption technology. I believe the creator of PGP was, at one time, threatened with prosecution for allowing his encryption technology to be distributed freely across international borders without approval.

So, I am pretty confident that any Apple corporate policy is only what is mandated by the Federal government. Of course there is no accounting for individual douchebag employees of the company.

Any cryptology in any iPhone app needs a certificate of authorization of some kind. You can't even encrypt your game fer fuxaches to stop people from ripping the assets. This is NOT an Apple policy. I doubt your average run of the mill Apple salesclown knows about Farsi. Sounds like an employee with a personal vendetta and you know those types lurk everywhere waiting to tell you all about the bogeyman. They have taken over Capitol Hill and writhe and insinuate their devlishness at AIPAC celebrations of power frequently.

Rev9

[green73]

A different wrinkle. I stand corrected. That doesn't make the law just or rational, though.

No one in here ever said it did :)

[green73]

Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114095.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed):

Apple refuses to sell its products to Persians, including American ones, due to the US State's virulent hatred of that ancient civilization.

[idiom]

He can always buy one indirectly from someone brand new if he wants.

It would still be illegal.

[Vanilluxe]

Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.”

Rosa Parks could not be asked to sit in the back of the bus today, just as the lunch counter segregation of the early 1960s would be deemed a violation of constitutional law. The scope of the Federal Civil Rights Act is narrowed specifically to those four areas of discrimination, however. Consequently, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted and prohibited businesses from refusing service based on a person’s disability. A restaurant could not refuse to serve a blind patron because they could not read the menu. A car dealership could not refuse service because a proposed buyer was in a wheelchair.

[liberdom]

It would still be illegal.

Only if you get caught. And before today, anybody can claim ignorance.

[Vanilluxe]

I just made a search on law advice websites and the Apple store is considered a public accommodation which may not discriminate against race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability. I mean it does kind of make sense, lets say there is this only store in range of 50 miles and it says people with crutches cannot be served. This would violate there right to have a public accommodation since its the only one in range which can deny a resource that the person with a crutch needs. If PG & E shuts down gas and electricity to people who are unmarried, it would deprive them the basic accommodations needed to live.

[heavenlyboy34]

I just made a search on law advice websites and the Apple store is considered a public accommodation which may not discriminate against race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability. I mean it does kind of make sense, lets say there is this only store in range of 50 miles and it says people with crutches cannot be served. This would violate there right to have a public accommodation since its the only one in range which can deny a resource that the person with a crutch needs. If PG & E shuts down gas and electricity to people who are unmarried, it would deprive them the basic accommodations needed to live.
Have you seen Stossel's report on the ADA? Did it affect your current opinion? /curious

[kuckfeynes]

There are lots of whites only clubs where I live and no one seems to care. The Polish Club, The Bavarian Club, etc...

[Vanilluxe]

Have you seen Stossel's report on the ADA? Did it affect your current opinion? /curious

I came to my beliefs, because I am a diagnosed autistic person who is now speaking out for people of disability to have right to access accommodations needed in life. Let's say I live in a small town, and there were only one therapist to help me within 50 miles and he refused service, because I am dumb just because I have a mental condition and I need special needs. It is depriving me a right to have access to an public accommodation that could readily be available, but refused due to a stupid reason. It is the same thing if your water company cuts off water to you, because of a discrimination and deprives you of a right to survival. It is injustice to me.

[Vanilluxe]

Have you seen Stossel's report on the ADA? Did it affect your current opinion? /curious

Also to add, I just saw it and I half agree with him, but I still have the same view as having some way for people with special needs (I won't say disabled) to be able to strive and rise like other people. If it were not for the school to provide me with a therapist and a counselor, I would never have had an account in a public forum, and even yet having my profile name from the Pokemon Vanilluxe. I would have plenty of stress if you knew I liked Pokemon, but now with some help I have the self-esteem and positive thinking to post up here normally without any panic. I agree that elevators, escalators, mirrors, etc. are bad policy, because they are a government one size fit all for disability when there should be different ways available to help people with special needs. All I ask for the government is to allow people with special needs to have access, not protection, but access to society like people without special needs. Access includes laws for protecting people with special needs from unreasonable discrimination by a public access. I also abhor No Child Left Behind as it focus more on testing results than helping people like me learn in our own pace and style; I just ask for the counseling, therapy, and special education courses to allow future generations find a voice and path like me. I just need help, but not protection and is all I am asking for people like me.

[PaulConventionWV]

So you are equating flashing gang signs with speaking Farsi? What if they just throw someone out for being black? Freedom of association, yes, but it's illegal.

Anyway, the policy seems to be fascist.

*facepalm*

Are you really that thick? Where did he ever compare speaking Farsi to flashing gang signs? Why do people jump to conclusions like this?

[PaulConventionWV]

But you're wrong. You cannot deny somebody service based on their race. It's a violation of our natural rights but it is what it is.

//

[PaulConventionWV]

Even when I put it into context?

You have to admit that was a bit misleading of you. You could have pointed out the miscommunication in the first place, but you insisted on making a useless point while leading others to believe you think shopping is a natural right.

[PaulConventionWV]

No business can discriminate in employment or service based on race or nation of origin pursuant to Title 7 of the civil rights act. See the Ollie's Barbecue case.

Why are we still discussing this when we all agree that any business can refuse service for any reason? Why are we dragging this out?

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm surprised you don't know that it applies to customer service. You can't put up sign that says, "We only serve whites". Well, maybe you can, but it's illegal to actually apply it in practice.

If businesses started putting up signs like that, I almost guarantee there would be another Supreme Court Case that would outlaw such signs because they "intimidate customers from exercising their RIGHT to be served without discrimination."

Of course, that's provided that they don't just assume it's illegal to have a sign as part of the CRA.

[green73]

Why are we still discussing this when we all agree that any business can refuse service for any reason? Why are we dragging this out?

And you call me thick? You still don't get it. You can't refuse service for certain reasons, such as race. The gov't has made it illegal.

[PaulConventionWV]

I came to my beliefs, because I am a diagnosed autistic person who is now speaking out for people of disability to have right to access accommodations needed in life. Let's say I live in a small town, and there were only one therapist to help me within 50 miles and he refused service, because I am dumb just because I have a mental condition and I need special needs. It is depriving me a right to have access to an public accommodation that could readily be available, but refused due to a stupid reason. It is the same thing if your water company cuts off water to you, because of a discrimination and deprives you of a right to survival. It is injustice to me.

You would have to move. It would take a complete nanny state to enforce the kind of rules you require. It is even MORE unjust for the government to force a private organization made up of people to do anything for you than it would be for one person to deny you service simply because they don't like your needs. What are you going to do next? Require the one young person in a town of old people to help every old person they see across the street? The rules are dumber than the person who refuses service. If that one person does refuse service to you, however, I guarantee it won't be popular. If that is the case, then someone who sees the discrimination will probably set up business in your town because they know they have at least one guaranteed satisfied customer. Problem solved. Don't make the government force people to behave a certain way just because it suits your lifestyle.

[PaulConventionWV]

And you call me thick? You still don't get it. You can't refuse service for certain reasons, such as race. The gov't has made it illegal.

I get that. What I'm wondering is why you two insist on arguing over such a petty issue. I thought these things were common sense.

[PaulConventionWV]

Also to add, I just saw it and I half agree with him, but I still have the same view as having some way for people with special needs (I won't say disabled) to be able to strive and rise like other people. If it were not for the school to provide me with a therapist and a counselor, I would never have had an account in a public forum, and even yet having my profile name from the Pokemon Vanilluxe. I would have plenty of stress if you knew I liked Pokemon, but now with some help I have the self-esteem and positive thinking to post up here normally without any panic. I agree that elevators, escalators, mirrors, etc. are bad policy, because they are a government one size fit all for disability when there should be different ways available to help people with special needs. All I ask for the government is to allow people with special needs to have access, not protection, but access to society like people without special needs. Access includes laws for protecting people with special needs from unreasonable discrimination by a public access. I also abhor No Child Left Behind as it focus more on testing results than helping people like me learn in our own pace and style; I just ask for the counseling, therapy, and special education courses to allow future generations find a voice and path like me. I just need help, but not protection and is all I am asking for people like me.

The government can't "allow" you to have access to anything in society. In order to do that, it would have to force people to give you access. That violates their natural rights more than it does yours. As long as they are not forcing you to not have access, then you shouldn't force them to give you access. You just can't get it from them if they don't want to give it to you.

[green73]

I get that. What I'm wondering is why you two insist on arguing over such a petty issue. I thought these things were common sense.

Obviously not! And I wouldn't call it an argument. IIRC he actually said (beyond the natural rights aspect of it) that it is legal to discriminate based on race. He then admitted that he had been mistaken. It was all very civil. No disrespect or putdowns, like calling people thick.

[asurfaholic]

We live in a nation of hate. This will continue to become the norm unless a lot of stuff is changed...


I strongly believe that some discrimination is necessary in some businesses. In my business, I go to people's homes and work places for service calls. I perform work, then charge customers. Established customers get billed. New customers pay cash before I leave. And some customers based on their enviroment just can't be trusted to pay the bill. So we refuse service unless they provide a credit card or pay upfront. Its a slippery slope, but there are people who will actually not pay their bills.... *gasp* ...and we don't do business with those if we can help it.

We serve all races ect, but we do discriminate based on several factors.

[Vanilluxe]

The government can't "allow" you to have access to anything in society. In order to do that, it would have to force people to give you access. That violates their natural rights more than it does yours. As long as they are not forcing you to not have access, then you shouldn't force them to give you access. You just can't get it from them if they don't want to give it to you.

I have done some research and any private property that is opened to the public to provide goods or services is considered a public accommodation under the law. As the public accommodation it cannot discriminate based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, disability, etc. The MN State Dep. of Human Rights provides more answers on public access and accommodations.
http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/yourrights/pubaccom_faq.html

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

According the this legal advice website:

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

Also technically refusing service based on those reasons hurts the community it discriminates emotionally with malice intent which does violate equal rights. Also its not that easy to suddenly move or have someone else opening a therapy office.

[heavenlyboy34]

Also to add, I just saw it and I half agree with him, but I still have the same view as having some way for people with special needs (I won't say disabled) to be able to strive and rise like other people. If it were not for the school to provide me with a therapist and a counselor, I would never have had an account in a public forum, and even yet having my profile name from the Pokemon Vanilluxe. I would have plenty of stress if you knew I liked Pokemon, but now with some help I have the self-esteem and positive thinking to post up here normally without any panic. I agree that elevators, escalators, mirrors, etc. are bad policy, because they are a government one size fit all for disability when there should be different ways available to help people with special needs. All I ask for the government is to allow people with special needs to have access, not protection, but access to society like people without special needs. Access includes laws for protecting people with special needs from unreasonable discrimination by a public access. I also abhor No Child Left Behind as it focus more on testing results than helping people like me learn in our own pace and style; I just ask for the counseling, therapy, and special education courses to allow future generations find a voice and path like me. I just need help, but not protection and is all I am asking for people like me.
I agree that places like courtrooms where people HAVE to go for certain functions (courthouses, etc) should be compelled by law to accommodate the disabled. Forcing other businesses to do that is irrational and tyrannical. I have a disability too, but I don't expect special treatment (though I appreciate it when people voluntarily help me). You might be surprised how many charities already exist to help for counseling, education, etc for the disabled. Heritage For The Blind, for example, does a lot of work in my area. /end rant

[heavenlyboy34]

We live in a nation of hate. This will continue to become the norm unless a lot of stuff is changed...


I strongly believe that some discrimination is necessary in some businesses. In my business, I go to people's homes and work places for service calls. I perform work, then charge customers. Established customers get billed. New customers pay cash before I leave. And some customers based on their enviroment just can't be trusted to pay the bill. So we refuse service unless they provide a credit card or pay upfront. Its a slippery slope, but there are people who will actually not pay their bills.... *gasp* ...and we don't do business with those if we can help it.

We serve all races ect, but we do discriminate based on several factors.
+a bunch. "Discrimination" has gotten a bad rep in recent decades. It used to be a good thing (like having discriminating taste).

[Vanilluxe]

I agree that places like courtrooms where people HAVE to go for certain functions (courthouses, etc) should be compelled by law to accommodate the disabled. Forcing other businesses to do that is irrational and tyrannical. I have a disability too, but I don't expect special treatment (though I appreciate it when people voluntarily help me). You might be surprised how many charities already exist to help for counseling, education, etc for the disabled. Heritage For The Blind, for example, does a lot of work in my area. /end rant

I understand your point, and I do understand there are a lot and charities and organizations, however although businesses are private property, they are public accommodations as well. I mean I ask both you and PaulConventionWV, how would you feel if a Latino CEO of a public utility cuts off all power, gas, or water to non-latino households? I want you both to understand that I am a Paul and liberty supporter, but I also like to keep an open mind and flexible thinking (part of my therapy) to other ideas.

[BlackTerrel]

No one actually believes that Apple really won't sell products to Persians in the US do they?

Big companies in the US are accused of racism every day. Sometimes legit, usually I argue it is not. I can find many other articles accusing Apple of discriminating against other groups but they would not be posted on here because it wouldn't fit the RPF narrative that we are evil and Iranians and Muslims are victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/ipad-racism-apple-investi_n_603393.html

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/91598.html


Looks like Attorney General Andrew Cuomo isn't worried about the iPad voting block.

The gubernatorial candidate is investigating allegations that Apple is refusing to sell iPads to Asian tourists and Asian-Americans.


Apple is being sued for racism after two black men say they were denied service at a New York City store.

Plaintiffs Brian Johnston, 34, and Nile Charles, 25, which filed the lawsuit against Apple in New York Supreme Court, accused the company's employees of racism after they prevented them from buying headphones.

The two men, both black, who wore "baggy jeans and large sweaters with hoods," said they were told by one Apple employee that they were not welcomed in the Upper West Side store.

"And before you say I'm racially discriminating against you, let me stop you," they claim the employee said. "I am discriminating against you. I don't want 'your kind' hanging out in the store."

Johnston and Charles said they were "shocked and humiliated" by the actions of the employee and a second Apple employee approached them asking them to leave.

Somehow I'm guessing if I posted these articles not everyone would be so quick to believe the people making the claim and condemn Apple.

[PaulConventionWV]

I have done some research and any private property that is opened to the public to provide goods or services is considered a public accommodation under the law. As the public accommodation it cannot discriminate based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, disability, etc. The MN State Dep. of Human Rights provides more answers on public access and accommodations.
http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/yourrights/pubaccom_faq.html

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

According the this legal advice website:

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

Also technically refusing service based on those reasons hurts the community it discriminates emotionally with malice intent which does violate equal rights. Also its not that easy to suddenly move or have someone else opening a therapy office.

You're right, but I'm not talking about current law. I want the CRA of 1964 repealed. I'm speaking on principle. Businesses should be able to refuse service to whomever they wish. You have no right to force them, as a private business, to provide you with anything. The government has no right to "define" them as public property and force them to do so either. They are private by nature.

[PaulConventionWV]

I understand your point, and I do understand there are a lot and charities and organizations, however although businesses are private property, they are public accommodations as well. I mean I ask both you and PaulConventionWV, how would you feel if a Latino CEO of a public utility cuts off all power, gas, or water to non-latino households? I want you both to understand that I am a Paul and liberty supporter, but I also like to keep an open mind and flexible thinking (part of my therapy) to other ideas.

Then someone else would provide power, gas, and water to those households and make a pretty penny off of it. Problem solved. Not to mention the Latino CEO would probably go out of business.