Arizona SB1062 Discrimination Law

[TenEightyOne]

Yeah, Apartheid isn't even remotely comparable.

I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm or if you're saying that apartheid really isn't remotely comparable to a system where a bar owner can insist on white-only customers?

My point remains, it isn't morally right to say that such a situation should be the case. @Keef seemed to imply that he thought it was, I asked for clarification.

In fairness my understanding of business taxation across the US isn't strong enough for an argument on the subject, I was trying to illustrate what a business is. If you are open, you are open. You can't choose who you allow to walk through the door based on their race, gender or creed. You seem to be suggesting that that's okay?

@Keef that explanation was helpful, thank you.

To explain logically; you say to me that it is okay for someone who runs a business (I'm staying with the bar owner) to let a white customer in and then refuse a black customer. In this example both customers are male, of the same apparent wealth and age, new to town and unknown to the bar owner.

Logically there is no difference between them except the colour of their skin. To allow the bar owner to discriminate when his only objection is the colour of the black man's skin (which you seem to support his right to do) doesn't require any further logical explanation as to why it's wrong.

Lots of countries have wiped out heinous institutional apartheid, racism, sexism, segregation, and continue to work to do so. Saying "We're America, that's how we are!" isn't an acceptable excuse.

 

[CarBastard]

Denying somebody recognition is the first step towards dehumanization...and we all know how that ends. Sure, a business is may be as private as a home is but a home isn't meant for servicing others. A business' reason of being isn't only it's owner, it's also it's customers, the people it brings a service to. Denying somebody a service because of his sexual identity or preferences is just as absurd as doing so because of his race: both are things that don't necessarily mean that the person in question should be frowned upon or rejected and both are things that won't change; it's a rejection towards the person and not his/her circumstances, it's a challenge to somebody's dignity on a personal and fundamental level and it cannot be allowed.

I may be frowned upon and denied entrance at a country club because I'm from the middle class, ok, I'm being denied because of my circumstances and not entirely because of who I am, it's nothing personal because, after all, I'm not the money I have. But if I was to be denied entrance because I am gay that would be because of who I am, something personal because my sexual identity is fundamentally constitutive of my character. What if gay people where denied entrance to a drug store because the owner "has strong religious convictions"? Is that in any way humane? What's next?

It's ********. This earth belongs to humans and god's law means squat here. Personal beliefs are no valid reason to reject the laws and the common minimum morality that is required for living in a civilized society. I had the luck of choosing the mainstream sexual orientation, of being able to express it in public, of being able to live with my girlfriend and have sex with her as we please without having entire crowds with torches and pitchforks trying to kill us while we live our lives in love. But what if I hadn't? What if something as fundamental as being able to live my sentimental and sexual life as I see fit was taken away from me? What if entire states were denying me dignity just becase I am what I am? Doesn't that ring a bell and remind you of the darkest episodes of mankind's history?

In any way, Arizona won't keep that law for long if it ever gets approved. The pro-gay movement has never been stronger and business who openly reject gay people will likely get boycotted into oblivion. If they don't listen to reason, they'll listen to money, that's for sure.

 

[Tornado]

I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm or if you're saying that apartheid really isn't remotely comparable to a system where a bar owner can insist on white-only customers?

Apartheid was a government enforced discrimination of whites and blacks in every aspect of South African life; with the main goal pretty much specifically tasked with keeping the (majority) black population of South Africa from having any ability to have power in the government (even going so far as to strip blacks of their citizenship and forcibly relocating them to areas deemed more appropriate). It was so extreme that Bedford Forrest would take pause; and even the harshest Jim Crow laws didn't go that far.


Some Duck Dynasty-looking douche not letting black people into his hole in the wall with woodchips on the floor isn't in the same time zone of being the same thing.

 

[Keef]

My point remains, it isn't morally right to say that such a situation should be the case. @Keef seemed to imply that he thought it was, I asked for clarification.

In the interest of clarification, yes I do think it is morally right.

Humans have three fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property. This means they have a right to exist and defend their existence, etc.; they have a right to freely make decisions for themselves, etc.; they have a right to work, earn and do with their earnings as they please such as saving or spending and allowing or disallowing others to use it.

Since every person has these same rights, that means these rights should not be infringed by another person. It is wrong to harm the life of another person. It is wrong to restrict their ability to make their own decisions. It is wrong to steal their property or enter it without permission.

Currently, US law bans businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, disability, etc. This is morally wrong because it violates the property rights of the business owner. His property rights include deciding who gets to enter and use his property. The law doesn't allow him that freedom.

Further, he can't choose to do that even out of spite for the law because of the threat of punishment. So not only is the law a violation of his right to property but also of his right to liberty, for denying him the freedom to choose how to govern his own property.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apartheid was a government enforced discrimination of whites and blacks in every aspect of South African life...

Some Duck Dynasty-looking douche not letting black people into his hole in the wall with woodchips on the floor isn't in the same time zone of being the same thing.

And this bill is a state enforced piece of legislation that allows the hilarious racist scene you conjure up your next sentence.

It's okay to exclude black guys in comedy scenes of no social importance to you, that's really great

@Keef ; you say "Currently, US law bans businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, disability, etc. This is morally wrong".

That's a disgusting attitude, you should be ashamed of yourself as a person. A business is a service, not a home. I agree with the your right to stop people coming into your home, when you agree with a business doing it you're simply a racist, that's all there is to it in my opinion.

 

[Imari]

You can't use any indecent criteria to pick and choose customers..

Why not?

Who chooses what is indecent criteria?

I think it's indecent that you're trying to force racists not to be racist. If white supremacists want a place to go and be white supremacists without black people in there, it's hardly your place to tell them what to do with their business. Because, you know, it's their business.

You cannot, and should not, legislate against people being assholes. Everyone has the freedom to be an asshole, as long as they're not infringing anyone else's rights. And no one has the right to be on another man's property without his permission.

Note that I don't think that racists being racist, or homophobes being homophobic is good behaviour, but as long as they're not violating anybody else's rights I don't think that's gives the rest of us permission to violate theirs.

Tree'd by @Keef, who is explaining all this much better than I can.

 

[Exorcet]

I may be frowned upon and denied entrance at a country club because I'm from the middle class, ok, I'm being denied because of my circumstances and not entirely because of who I am, it's nothing personal because, after all, I'm not the money I have. But if I was to be denied entrance because I am gay that would be because of who I am, something personal because my sexual identity is fundamentally constitutive of my character. What if gay people where denied entrance to a drug store because the owner "has strong religious convictions"? Is that in any way humane? What's next

I don't see the difference.

In any way, Arizona won't keep that law for long if it ever gets approved. The pro-gay movement has never been stronger and business who openly reject gay people will likely get boycotted into oblivion. If they don't listen to reason, they'll listen to money, that's for sure.

Most likely.

If you are open, you are open.

I can't deny service to the KKK or Taliban because I'm a business?

To explain logically; you say to me that it is okay for someone who runs a business (I'm staying with the bar owner) to let a white customer in and then refuse a black customer. In this example both customers are male, of the same apparent wealth and age, new to town and unknown to the bar owner.

What if it's not a bar. What if it's a facility for people who have been the victims of racism. They're in a predominately white country, some of the people have suffered traumatic experiences due to racism and they may not feel comfortable around white people. Should they be forced to be in contact with white people by law (this business must not turn down white people who apply to be employees)?

Logically there is no difference between them except the colour of their skin. To allow the bar owner to discriminate when his only objection is the colour of the black man's skin (which you seem to support his right to do) doesn't require any further logical explanation as to why it's wrong.

I see no logic in the bar example either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Lots of countries have wiped out heinous institutional apartheid, racism, sexism, segregation, and continue to work to do so. Saying "We're America, that's how we are!" isn't an acceptable excuse.

There argument isn't that blankism belongs in America. It's that freedom based on rights belongs in America (And the world).

 

[Tornado]

And this bill is a state enforced piece of legislation that allows the hilarious racist scene you conjure up your next sentence.

Yes. A state enforced piece of legislation that allows private property owners to better (but not consistently, as Danoff pointed out earlier) exercise their private property rights. Not a state enforced piece of legislation that directly presides over the usage of public property, private property and actual aspects of daily life, which is what Apartheid and "Separate But Equal" both were.



I note you're not actually attempting to understand the distinction.

That's a disgusting attitude, you should be ashamed of yourself as a person.

 

[Keef]

Yes. A state enforced piece of legislation that allows private property owners to better (but not consistently, as Danoff pointed out earlier) exercise their private property rights. Not a state enforced piece of legislation that directly presides over the usage of public property, private property and actual aspects of daily life, which is what Apartheid and "Separate But Equal" both were.

I think there's a difference between something being enforced and something being allowed. American segregation and apartheid were enforced under threat of punishment. In my perfect little world, discrimination would be allowed because there would be no law pertaining to it at all. I believe this Arizona legislation is also allowing discrimination given certain criteria, not actually enforcing anything.

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're still confusing private property and a business that is open to the public. I see what you're saying but it is not morally right in much of the world to allow businesses open to the public to choose their customers based on race, gender, creed. Those are not attributes that offend public decency, they are not attributes that necessarily render customers unable to use services except those specifically tailored for particular physical types/needs.

Apartheid was state-led segregation and discrimination (by definition), I wasn't sure what more I can say about it?

This bill allows conditions on-the-street that will be akin to apartheid, with support for such actions provided by law.

That renders the difference between enforcement and empowerment pretty much moot, in my opinion.

EDIT: @R1600Turbo ... yay, the bill's dead

 

[Danoff]

You're still confusing private property and a business that is open to the public.

These businesses aren't open to the public - they specifically exclude members of the public that are gay.

I see what you're saying but it is not morally right in much of the world to allow businesses open to the public to choose their customers based on race, gender, creed.

But they're not open to the public because they exclude customers based on race, gender, and creed.

Apartheid was state-led segregation and discrimination (by definition), I wasn't sure what more I can say about it?

This bill allows conditions on-the-street that will be akin to apartheid, with support for such actions provided by law.

The only thing that has any link with apartheid is exactly what you're advocating - the use of government force to prevent individuals from behaving as they want to. Anti-discrimination laws are government force regarding what you're allowed to do with your body and property. Apartheid was also government force regarding what you're allowed to do with your body and property. That's the only similarity worth discussing here. Freedom vs. force.

 

[Tornado]

I think there's a difference between something being enforced and something being allowed. American segregation and apartheid were enforced under threat of punishment. In my perfect little world, discrimination would be allowed because there would be no law pertaining to it at all. I believe this Arizona legislation is also allowing discrimination given certain criteria, not actually enforcing anything.

I agree with this (I really only said "state enforced" because TenEightyOne was trying to be a smartass), but I will say that in a way it is (or, rather, was) still enforcing something simply by nature of only allowing discrimination on religious justifications. What about Patrick Bateman 80's Guy-style homophobia?

You're still confusing private property and a business that is open to the public.

Being "open to the public" does not cause a business to not be private property. What if I work out of my home?

Those are not attributes that offend public decency, they are not attributes that necessarily render customers unable to use services except those specifically tailored for particular physical types/needs.

Public decency is whatever the public decides is "proper" at the time. There is no moral factor in such a direct democracy. Constantly bringing up Apartheid and de jure segregation to bolster your argument sinks it by themselves; because their are still places where those things are proper.

Apartheid was state-led segregation and discrimination (by definition), I wasn't sure what more I can say about it?

Something that shows understanding of the differences between the two, perhaps.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apartheid IS state-led segregation and discrimination; "a policy or system of segregation or discrimination based on race".

In South Africa's case it was enforced by the NP state. In Arizona's case it would have been empowered in state law, and enforced in court. That's not a difference that sinks the argument in my opinion, but I'm happy to drop mention of apartheid and get back to just calling it racism.

I understand that a business can be private property in the sense of ownership but open to the public means exactly that, without discrimination based on race, gender or creed because wider society no longer finds these types of discrimination to be acceptable.

@Danoff tries to get round that by saying "But they're not open to the public because they exclude customers based on race, gender, and creed.", that's not a valid argument because that in itself constitutes a racist selection.


@Keef seems to be saying that it's somebody's right to publicly act in a racist manner (see the bar owner example) if they choose to do so, because that's their right.

 

[Keef]

You're still confusing private property and a business that is open to the public.

I already explained the difference between private and public property. Private property is owned by people whereas public property is owned by the government. Almost all businesses in the US are owned by people and are therefore private.

Your argument sets a precident that would mean if a private business owner wants to shut down for a week to go on vacation with his family then he's effectively discriminating against everybody who would otherwise be doing business with him. Surely you understand that that's a ridiculous idea. His business is private, he does what he wants with it, and therefore he can shut down and go on vacation if he pleases and everybody else just has to wait until he gets back.

@Keef seems to be saying that it's somebody's right to publicly act in a racist manner if they choose to do so, because that's their right.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're not an idiot but idiots have rights too. There's nothing wrong with being an idiot as long as you don't infringe the rights of others. Coming and going as you please in and out of somebody else's property is most certainly not a human right.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I already explained the difference between private and public property. Private property is owned by people whereas public property is owned by the government. Almost all businesses in the US are owned by people and are therefore private.

Your argument sets a precident that would mean if a private business owner wants to shut down for a week to go on vacation with his family then he's effectively discriminating against everybody who would otherwise be doing business with him. Surely you understand that that's a ridiculous idea. His business is private, he does what he wants with it, and therefore he can shut down and go on vacation if he pleases and everybody else just has to wait until he gets back.

No, I think you're being disingenuous.

Closing your doors for a week to go on holiday, you're closing to the public in general. Not having a "no blacks" week.

I really really do understand the difference between public and private property as you refer to it. Privately owning a business that is open to the public is what I am talking about.

It is not widely accepted by society that a business owner can define his own "public" on the basis of race, gender or religious identity.

Arguing the toss for state/personal property isn't relevant. The business owner and staff are still socially and legally accountable for their actions regardless.

 

[Tornado]

Apartheid IS state-led segregation and discrimination; "a policy or system of segregation or discrimination based on race".

In South Africa's case it was enforced by the NP state. In Arizona's case it would have been empowered in state law, and enforced in court. That's not a difference that sinks the argument in my opinion,

Except one is state enforced segregation across the board. Public places. Private places. Government representation. Whether you like it or not, it was the law.

The other one merely allows discrimination when conducted by private businesses for a specific reason that is claimed to be constitutionally protected anyway. It's a very, very, very important distinction, because:

but I'm happy to drop mention of apartheid and get back to just calling it racism.

Racism is not, and furthermore cannot be, illegal; and is a wholly distinct thing from segregation (either de jure or de facto) or Apartheid (which was de jure segregation).

I understand that a business can be private property in the sense of ownership but open to the public means exactly that, without discrimination based on race, gender or creed because wider society no longer finds these types of discrimination to be acceptable.

It is not widely accepted by society that a business owner can define his own "public" on the basis of race, gender or religious identity.

The word your looking for in this case would be "mob rule", then. Nothing whatsoever to do with morality as you claimed earlier and refused to defend.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mob rule via a democratic process of election, judgement and creation of law. It's called modern society. Fortunately for the world most of society is managing to move on from some of the hateful times of the last century.

Racist thoughts aren't illegal, racist expression is, thank goodness.

Hopefully people like you who publicly express the belief that somehow the law should protect your right to act in a racist manner will eventually exist only in history books as an important lesson for decent society.

 

[Imari]

I really really do understand the difference between public and private property as you refer to it. Privately owning a business that is open to the public is what I am talking about..

I love how in the space of two sentences you can claim that you understand, and prove that you don't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I love how in the space of two sentences you can claim that you understand, and prove that you don't.

You don't understand who the public are, or what private means? A privately owned business that is open to the general public. You find that impossible?

 

[Tornado]

Mob rule via a democratic process of election, judgement and creation of law. It's called modern society. Fortunately for the world most of society is managing to move on from some of the hateful times of the last century.

It's funny that you say things like this when legislated xenophobia, usually with a religious component, which absolutely sails through various "modern" legislatures (France as a recent high profile example), is at an all time high in the past decade or so.

Racist thoughts aren't illegal, racist expression is, thank goodness.

I'm not sure which Europeanland country I'm supposed to assume you live in, but I would be shocked if that was true even there. It certainly isn't in America.

Hopefully people like you who publicly express the belief that somehow the law should protect your right to act in a racist manner will eventually exist only in history books as an important lesson for decent society.

Yeah. Down with individual rights! Rah rah rah!

 

[Keef]

Closing your doors for a week to go on holiday, you're closing to the public in general. Not having a "no blacks" week.

I really really do understand the difference between public and private property as you refer to it. Privately owning a business that is open to the public is what I am talking about.

I'm not being disingenuous. I am sincerely proposing to you a scenario that makes sense within your argument. You've not yet provided me with any logical justification for your views. But within the context of what you've said so far, closing a business because you want to is effectively discriminating against anybody who wants to use that business. Customers are people too, right? Just like blacks, gays, or whatever. If a business owner closes his business for a week surely he is discriminating against customers. You should provide me a logical explanation of the difference between the group "customers" and the group "blacks" because I'm not seeing a difference with respect to your argument. They both seem like groups of people to me.

It is not widely accepted by society that a business owner can define his own "public" on the basis of race, gender or religious identity.

Rights don't have to be widely accepted. They exist as a consequence of logic and reason, whether people are aware of them or not. There are numerous laws in the US which support human rights that are not widely accepted, such as self defense. In the US it's mostly legal to carry a gun and is legal to shoot and kill somebody if they endanger your life. But these laws are not necessarily widely accepted - society in the US is split about 50/50 on gun issues.

Privately owning a business that is open to the public is what I am talking about.

This statement shows that you don't understand the concept of property rights. A private business is not always open to the public. It is open to whoever the owner allows to come in. In fact, it can be closed to the public permanently. It's still a business and it's still privately owned. The two ideas of it being privately controlled yet open to the public are totally incompatible. Unrestricted public access is a violation of property rights and I already explained why that is the case.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's funny that you say things like this when legislated xenophobia, usually with a religious component, which absolutely sails through various legislatures (France as a recent high profile example), is at an all time high in the past decade.

I'm not sure which Europeanland country I'm supposed to assume you live in, but I would be shocked if that was true even there. It certainly isn't in America.

Yeah. Down with individual rights! Rah rah rah!

Difficult to quote France as a hotbed of liberalism, that's for sure. There are different issues there though and they're more aimed at being able to control migration which is a big issue for France with her open Mediterranean coast.

I quite agree, down with the individual right to express racist thoughts, you're finally becoming of this century

I didn't suppose you to assume anything, but racial discrimination is illegal in the country I live in, in all those nearby, and in the United States where this bill was, eventually, vetoed.

EDIT: Who would you say Walmart is open to? Who do they refuse?

I'm not being disingenuous. I am sincerely proposing to you a scenario that makes sense within your argument. You've not yet provided me with any logical justification for your views. But within the context of what you've said so far, closing a business because you want to is effectively discriminating against anybody who wants to use that business. Customers are people too, right? Just like blacks, gays, or whatever. If a business owner closes his business for a week surely he is discriminating against customers. You should provide me a logical explanation of the difference between the group "customers" and the group "blacks" because I'm not seeing a difference with respect to your argument. They both seem like groups of people to me.

They are, and as I tried to explain to you it isn't illegal to discriminate against your entire customer base by closing the doors for a week. Why would it be?

If you had a week when you didn't allow black customers that would be racially-based discrimination and would be illegal and, in the view of wider society, morally wrong.

Saying that rights don't have to be widely accepted can be true, but in the case of rights based on race, gender or religion I believe it to be fair to say that it is widely accepted that such discrimination is wrong.

 

[Danoff]

I really really do understand the difference between public and private property as you refer to it. Privately owning a business that is open to the public is what I am talking about.

No, seriously, it's not open to the public. It's open to the people that the business owner chooses. Have you ever seen a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That's specifically not open to the public.

If you pay your child to rake your leaves, is your child's leaf raking service open to the public? Should they be allowed to choose whose leaves they rake? Aren't they discriminating in favor of their family? Now your child decides to expand his business and begins raking the entire street's leaves, what about the next street? And the one after that? Why is your child allowed to discriminate in favor of your street? What if your neighbor is mean to your child? Does he have to rake your neighbors leaves if the neighbor wants it just because he's doing the rest of the block?

See... this is the nature of business. No business is "open to the public". They're all individual contracts exchanging service or goods for money, each entered into on its own terms. There is no such thing as "open to the public". It's a notion created by people who want to make rules to govern other peoples' business.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, seriously, it's not open to the public. It's open to the people that the business owner chooses. Have you ever seen a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That's specifically not open to the public.

If you pay your child to rake your leaves, is your child's leaf raking service open to the public? Should they be allowed to choose whose leaves they rake? Aren't they discriminating in favor of their family? Now your child decides to expand his business and begins raking the entire street's leaves, what about the next street? And the one after that? Why is your child allowed to discriminate in favor of your street? What if your neighbor is mean to your child? Does he have to rake your neighbors leaves if the neighbor wants it just because he's doing the rest of the block?

See... this is the nature of business. No business is "open to the public". They're all individual contracts exchanging service or goods for money, each entered into on its own terms. There is no such thing as "open to the public". It's a notion created by people who want to make rules to govern other peoples' business.

I think the leaf-raking falls outside the type of business that I specified, that isn't a business that has an open door which can be used by the public. You'd also have to certificate every customer your child worked with if they were under 16 so the vetting would be done for you.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a business notice that doesn't exceed statutory right. The business can enforce that rule all it likes but when it does so illegally (ie turning black customers away) then its sign is no protection. It is the type of business that is open for the general hoi-poloi to approach and enter. It cannot bar customers at the door based on race or gender.

 

[Tornado]

Difficult to quote France as a hotbed of liberalism, that's for sure. There are different issues there though and they're more aimed at being able to control migration which is a big issue for France with her open Mediterranean coast.

So xenophobia (which from what I've seen from the laws passed by these more enlightened societies is "treat people who act/look Arab differently from white people") is alright so long as they can try to justify it. Such is the price of modern society, I suppose.

I quite agree, down with the individual right to express racist thoughts, you're finally becoming of this century

Who cares about freedom of speech anyway.

I didn't suppose you to assume anything, but racial discrimination is illegal in the country I live in, in all those nearby, and in the United States where this bill was, eventually, vetoed.

Racial discrimination is not the only outlet of expression of racial thoughts.

 

[Keef]

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a business notice that doesn't exceed statutory right. The business can enforce that rule all it likes but when it does so illegally (ie turning black customers away) then its sign is no protection.

So the business is allowed to turn anybody away...except black people. Isn't that reverse discrimination?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So the business is allowed to turn anybody away...except black people. Isn't that reverse discrimination?

One could see it that way if one was being obtuse, but of course I didn't say that. I said that if you turned a black customer away then that would be illegal. The business can turn anyone away and that person is allowed to seek legal redress if they feel that they were turned away illegally. Many reasons could be held to be against the law including turning a customer away because of their race.

EDIT: Oh, good spot. EG, not IE.

So xenophobia (which from what I've seen from the laws passed by these more enlightened societies is "treat people who act/look Arab differently from white people") is alright so long as they can try to justify it. Such is the price of modern society, I suppose.
.

That probably belongs in another thread, but I'd say that the US has the right to protect herself against illegal migration and, providing the rights of any prisoners are upheld to deal with them judicially and/or through deportation.

The French laws are, in brief, anti-migration laws. In her case most migrants are from North Africa or the Middle East, in the case of the US the migrants are mostly Central or Southern American, or so I believe. Having laws to deal with illegal migration is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Keef]

One could see it that way if one was being obtuse, but of course I didn't say that. I said that if you turned a black customer away then that would be illegal. The business can turn anyone away and that person is allowed to seek legal redress if they feel that they were turned away illegally. Many reasons could be held to be against the law including turning a customer away because of their race.

So, being that black people fall under the category of "anyone", and since "anyone" can sue the business if they think they were discriminated against, why is it illegal to turn away blacks? Couldn't they just sue the business if they felt they were discriminated against, like everyone else can do?

Alternatively, if it can be seen that way doesn't that mean there is a fault in the logic? Obviously the logic is not sound if a person can argue reverse discrimination simply by nitpicking, which is what I did because that's how you find faults in logic.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, being that black people fall under the category of "anyone", and since "anyone" can sue the business if they think they were discriminated against, why is it illegal to turn away blacks? Couldn't they just sue the business if they felt they were discriminated against, like everyone else can do?

Yes, and the business would be found to have comitted a criminal act when brought before the court. That's how legal sanctions work.

I could murder somebody in the street and be perfectly innocent. I wouldn't be guilty until found so before the law.

In answer to your other question; it's illegal to turn away blacks because of the Civil Rights Act.