Current Events > SD lawmaker says businesses should be allowed to deny service due to skin color

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sd-state-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color/ar-AAygx1w?ocid=sf

A South Dakota state lawmaker argued in a Facebook comment that businesses should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin.

The comment from state Rep. Michael Clark (R) came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, because of his religious beliefs.

That prompted a Facebook post from Clark, hailing the decision as a "win for freedom of speech and freedom of religion," according to the Argus Leader newspaper, which reported on the since-deleted post.

Some Facebook users began questioning Clark's post, prompting the state lawmaker to respond to one.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants," Clark wrote. "If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice."

Clark deleted the post on Tuesday, acknowledging that he had "jumped in on it a little bit too fast," the Leader reported.

He later apologized for the comment in an email to a reporter for the Leader.

"I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments," he wrote. "I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

In an interview with the Leader, Clark said that he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it's truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn't be able to use their minority status to bully a business."

He said that it would ultimately be up to the consumers to decide whether they want to patronize a business or not.

"The vote of the dollar is very strong," Clark said.

---

Antifar posted...

Rep. Michael Clark (R)

mystery solved
---

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.
---

"I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments," he wrote. "I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."


Except the time you did advocate for that...
---

shockthemonkey posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

We know you agree.
We know that you know an entire area can choose to discriminate and leave people helpless.
We know that you know that your argument is shit.

But isnt it too early for shitposting about how youre cool with discrimination?

I'm not cool with discrimination mister put words in my mouth. I am cool with private businesses not serving customers they don't want to, and I'm also cool with the consequences that may happen as a result.
---

if ppl dont want to be discriminated against maybe they should just try being white+straight
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

Antifar posted...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

---

If you don't want to be told not to discriminate, don't open a business to the public.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Antifar posted...

Rep. Michael Clark (R)

mystery solved

Came here to post this.

Also,

Antifar posted...

Clark deleted the post on Tuesday, acknowledging that he had "jumped in on it a little bit too fast," the Leader reported.

So basically he is not sorry, he is just sorry he was quicker to say how he really feels than his fellow republicans, thus opening him to backlash.

Reactionaries gonna react.
---

Also the ruling in favor of the bakery only said that the Colorado Courts didn't take into account the religious rights of the bakery enough when making their decision... Not that ultimately it is OK or not.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

We know you agree.
We know that you know an entire area can choose to discriminate and leave people helpless.
We know that you know that your argument is shit.

But isnt it too early for shitposting about how youre cool with discrimination?

I'm not cool with discrimination mister put words in my mouth. I am cool with private businesses not serving customers they don't want to, and I'm also cool with the consequences that may happen as a result.

You literally said you're cool with it. I bolded it for you.

And then the slippery slope begins, "any state should be able to discriminate vs anybody, as long as there are other states that will take those people" soon follows.

Worthless poli troll with no future

Dude is sticking hard to the religious freedom aspect, but that literally has nothing to do with denying service based on color of skin, which is what he jumped to when challenged. So obviously this isn't actually about religious freedom, at least to him.
---

Yikes

Trash tier state
---

Relevant, I guess: http://redpanels.com/282/

So which religions forbid people from serving people of color? Cause he seems to imply that discrimination is justified by religious freedom.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

So which religions forbid people from serving people of color? Cause he seems to imply that discrimination is justified by religious freedom.

Mormonism.

And it's only a matter of time before the evangelicals & "prosperity gospel" people interpret some obscure scripture with the purpose of justifying just that too

BJ-blazkowics posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

So which religions forbid people from serving people of color? Cause he seems to imply that discrimination is justified by religious freedom.

Mormonism.

And it's only a matter of time before the evangelicals & "prosperity gospel" people interpret some obscure scripture with the purpose of justifying just that too

They already did in the past. They came up with some stupid explanation that black people have the mark of Cain (their dark skin), so it's ok to enslave them. It wouldn't surprise me if some idiot tried to revive that line of thinking.
---

Master_Bass posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

So which religions forbid people from serving people of color? Cause he seems to imply that discrimination is justified by religious freedom.

Mormonism.

And it's only a matter of time before the evangelicals & "prosperity gospel" people interpret some obscure scripture with the purpose of justifying just that too

They already did in the past. They came up with some stupid explanation that black people are the descendents of Cain so it's ok to enslave them. It wouldn't surprise me if some idiot tried to revive that line of thinking.

yes, they talk about "mud races", it's disgusting

Master_Bass posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

So which religions forbid people from serving people of color? Cause he seems to imply that discrimination is justified by religious freedom.

Mormonism.

And it's only a matter of time before the evangelicals & "prosperity gospel" people interpret some obscure scripture with the purpose of justifying just that too

They already did in the past. They came up with some stupid explanation that black people have the mark of Cain (their dark skin), so it's ok to enslave them. It wouldn't surprise me if some idiot tried to revive that line of thinking.

I thought it was the son of Noah, Ham, who covered his naked father who had gotten drunk and passed out. When Noah woke up and found out what he had done, he cursed Ham's descents to be slaves. Ham was allegedly dark-skinned, so that was used as justification for slavery of Black people.
---

Oops, I missed this one. Searched "South Dakota" and "people of color"
---

CableZL posted...

"I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments," he wrote. "I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."


Except the time you did advocate for that...

But he deleted it so it doesn't count

>_>
<_<
X_X
---

This is why I'm disappointed in the Supreme Court. They had the opportunity to end this, but instead they ruled in favor of companies and fundamentalist nutbags

republicans wont be happy until a hospital can legally leave a dying man on the street to suffer a slow and agonizing death because they are gay.

legal discrimination is the first step on their path
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

This is why I'm disappointed in the Supreme Court. They had the opportunity to end this, but instead they ruled in favor of companies and fundamentalist nutbags

You do realize this was the GOP's plan all along? They refused to allow Obama to appoint Garland after Scalia died. Which is pretty much unconstitutional... and so we ended up with Gorsuch.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

A thriving racist business should not be deemed acceptable just because muh free marketz

He probably wants to live in a sundown town
---

Wait so according to the US's Civil Rights Act a Christian baker is allowed to refuse a gay customer but not the reverse? Wtf?

parkman32 posted...

Wait so according to the US's Civil Rights Act a Christian baker is allowed to refuse a gay customer but not the reverse? Wtf?

Being gay isn't a religion... yet.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

We know you agree.
We know that you know an entire area can choose to discriminate and leave people helpless.
We know that you know that your argument is shit.

But isnt it too early for shitposting about how youre cool with discrimination?

I'm not cool with discrimination mister put words in my mouth. I am cool with private businesses not serving customers they don't want to, and I'm also cool with the consequences that may happen as a result.

So you also support people being sued for millions of dollars?
---

Discrimination is bad mmkay
---

shockthemonkey posted...

HylianFox posted...

parkman32 posted...

Wait so according to the US's Civil Rights Act a Christian baker is allowed to refuse a gay customer but not the reverse? Wtf?

Being gay isn't a religion... yet.

What?

The more apt way to put it would be that being gay isn't a federally protected class... yet.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

The free market allowed Jim Crow to exist for a century before the government forcibly integrated schools and businesses throughout the South. The Civil Rights Movement didn't win because white Southerners came to their senses and accepted that blacks were people just like them. Segregation was ended because US Marshals forced it to end at gunpoint. The free market had nothing to do with it.
---

CW_McGraw posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

The free market allowed Jim Crow to exist for a century before the government forcibly integrated schools and businesses throughout the South. The Civil Rights Movement didn't win because white Southerners came to their senses and accepted that blacks were people just like them. Segregation was ended because US Marshals forced it to end at gunpoint. The free market had nothing to do with it.

Also, sundown towns still exist in the US.
---

I say let them. Let people expose themselves for being racist or bigots. Makes it easier on where to shop or eat. Then those guys probably go out of business.
---

lilJoe457 posted...

I say let them. Let people expose themselves for being racist or bigots. Makes it easier on where to shop or eat. Then those guys probably go out of business.

The sad thing is, in some areas a move like that would actually boost business.
---

why don't black people vote for republicans?
---

CW_McGraw posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I agree. Private businesses should be able to turn down any customer for any reason, so long as there are comparable services. It's called capitalism, and if people don't like what a business is doing they can give the next guy money. Of course if someone goes out of business for doing scummy shit that's fair, next too.

The free market allowed Jim Crow to exist for a century before the government forcibly integrated schools and businesses throughout the South. The Civil Rights Movement didn't win because white Southerners came to their senses and accepted that blacks were people just like them. Segregation was ended because US Marshals forced it to end at gunpoint. The free market had nothing to do with it.

Times have changed and we're in the age of information. There's always someone else who will take your money and the businesses that do scummy shit will be ousted. Also Jim Crow laws went far far deeper than simply turning down customers, I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Times have changed and we're in the age of information. There's always someone else who will take your money and the businesses that do scummy s*** will be ousted. Also Jim Crow laws went far far deeper than simply turning down customers, I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up.

It gets brought up because historically, the free market hasn't been the answer to stopping this kind of thing. The free market has actually allowed such discrimination to flourish.
---

lilJoe457 posted...

I say let them. Let people expose themselves for being racist or bigots. Makes it easier on where to shop or eat. Then those guys probably go out of business.

I guess it sucks being a minority and not having the power of numbers on your side.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Antifar posted...

"If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice."

Antifar posted...

"I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."

This sounds like some folks on CE the last few days.

I'll come to bat for this guy on this.

Not wanting something to be illegal =/= supporting something.

If someone wants to paint their gentials green with lead paint and them smash them against a brick wall inside their own house then that's their choice, but I wouldn't advocate for it.

The Libertarians raise a valid point, if a businsess has truly egregious policies then why does the government need to step in? Why can't the consumers just go to the less assholey businsesses that don't do the same policies?

I wouldn't shop at a store that didn't serve people.

Reminds me of a Polish shop I used to know that refused to serve anyone who wasn't Polish. What happened? Someone pegged the untapped market and a better Polish shop opened down the street and did more businsess than them. Only the assholes went to the former one.
---

He shouldn't have to make a gay wedding cake. Serving him is fine, but making a cake that is against their religion is not.
---