Skip to main content

Does everyone have the right to loiter? Or does it just apply to black folks?

The nerve of Starbucks for kicking two black guys out of one of their shops. No matter what the actual circumstances are, many people think this is a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

I can see the day when some convenience store owner gets accused of anti-black discrimination because he insisted on being paid for the chocolate bar.

"We wasn't doin' nuthin'. We was just grabbin' a few chocolate bars and this shopkeeper called the cops!"

Desmond Cole, Matthew Green, Andray Domise, (all of whom have blocked me on Twitter,) and a raft of other race-obsessed "activists" will be emboldened enough to declare that expecting to be paid for goods and services is just another example of "white supremacy."

What I would like to know is this, is it Starbucks corporate policy that anyone can occupy space in their stores, and use the washrooms etc. even if they have no intention of purchasing any product?

If this is indeed their policy, then yes, denying two black men the right to loiter in one of their stores, while allowing everyone else to loiter there is compelling evidence of racial discrimination.

If not, it's pure BULLSHIT!



It occurs to me, that the more the malevolent left accuses conservatives and libertarians of being racists, the more liberty there will be in honest discussion about racism.

At some point, those on the "right" will have to make a critical decision. Having been accused of being "racists" for every opinion they have, upon any topic under the sun, the libertarians & conservatives will come face to face with a crucial choice.

They will either have to abandon their advocacy of free markets, free speech, freedom of association, property rights, equal rights, and keeping one's earnings from the maws of the likes of Kathleen Wynne,

Or,

They will have to yield to the left, shrug their shoulders, and confess.

"Yes. I guess I am a racist."

But...

"I still believe in free markets, free speech, freedom of association, property rights, equal rights, and keeping one's earnings from the maws of the likes of Kathleen Wynne."

(Sorry.)

Comments

  1. Someone rang my door bell the other day and asked the use my washroom. I told the person to get the fuck off my property. He happened to be black.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please feel free to leave your comments, insults, or threats.

Popular posts from this blog

Uber in Hamilton Update: Maria Pearson, Don't Delete This One.Molly A cabbie friend of mine told me that she had recently received a follow-up call from her council rep, Maria Pearson - Ward 10, over a recent licensing issue. After some small talk, the councilor asked my friend, I'll call her Molly, how things were going in the Hamilton taxi business now that Uber had been formally exempted from Hamilton's "old category" of taxi licensing bylaws. Molly told her that things were really bad. Then Molly suggested that if Maria wanted more information on the Uber impact, that she should talk to "Hans." Maria replied, "Hans Wienhold?" Molly: "Yes." Maria: "Oh. I just delete his emails." When I heard this I laughed. First, Maria feigns interest in the plight of Hamilton's cabbies (probably just fishing for a vote, IMHO,) and then, when offered a source of information on the Uber impact, Maria unconsciously intimates th…
Fluid Law and how Uber Successfully Exploited It The guy almost gets the story. One thing he misses, though, is how Uber, with its "Madison Avenue" strategy is able to exploit the natural, systemically inevitable, corruptibility of most politicians. This whole Uber phenomenon would not have been successful at all, given that taxi regulations already exist, unless they could get the politicians on board, and convince them, or persuade them to pretend they actually believe, that Uber was not in the taxi business. Hence, Uber taxis are exempt from existing taxi regulations. Most people would interpret this state of affairs as a tilting of the playing field, which it is. The sleazebags at Hamilton's City Hall came up with the term, "New Licensing Category" in order to facilitate Uber's circumvention of the existing taxi bylaw. "New Licensing Category" is nothing but a code word for tilting the playing field in favour of a politically sexy fad. I…
Cab Drivers Endure Verbal Abuse Friday, October 6, 2017 A group of rowdy young males approached the taxi stand at about 10:00 P.M. looking for a taxi ride to Guelph Line and Upper Middle Road in Burlington, a distance of 18.2 Km. The spokesman for the group offered the driver $20 for the ride. An 18.2 Km. ride in a taxi would run approximately ($1.80/Km X 18.2 Km + $3.90 =) $36.65 at the non-Uber taxi tariff rate mandated by the City of Hamilton for non-exempt (I.E. non-Uber) taxis. The same ride in an Uber taxi, at non-surge pricing would run ($2.50 + $2.80 + 18.2 Km X $.90/Km) = $21.68. As is so typical of younger Canadians, raised and educated in Ontario's liberal dominated "Me First" culture of entitlement, the rider became indignant and intimidating when the driver refused to match Uber's rate and break the law. The millennial then taunted all of the non-exempt cabbies who were present by announcing he would take a tariff-exempt Uber taxi instead. Some …