Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin: in voting, employment, and public services, such as transportation. Originally conceived to protect the rights of African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect the civil rights of everyone, and explicitly included women for the first time. It also started the Equal Employment Opportunity group.
In order to circumvent limitations on the federal use of the Equal Protection Clause handed down by the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause. Once it was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented in later years.


Origins
The bill had been exposed to President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963, in which he asked for legislation that would provide "the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves."
He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19. Mimicking the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to sue state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions.
Passage in Congress
Passage in the House of Representatives
The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee greatly strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, but was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.
It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in parliamentary politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.
Because of Smith's stalling of the bill in the Rules Committee, Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Committee. Only if a majority of members signed the discharge petition, the bill would move directly to the House floor without consideration by advocates. Initially Johnson had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, as even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, fifty signatures were still wanting.
On the return from the winter recess, however, matters took a significant turn. The President's public advocacy of the Act had made a difference of opinion in congressmen's home districts, and soon it became apparent that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.
The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130, and sent to the Senate.
Passage in the Senate
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.".
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
• The Original House Version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
• The Senate Version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
• The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
By party
The original House version:
• Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
• Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
• Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

 Around The Web:

Anyone could help me to understand this? I visited a restaurant in San Jose. At the counter, they have a poster at dominate location that says:

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone".

My question is, although it is the private property of the restaurant owner, does this violate the anti-discrimination law? Is it offensive to anyone? What are the cases that the owner refuse service to some one?

Don't get me wrong. I am not assuming this is not correct. I just want to have better understanding how freedom works in U.S.

My top two observation during my last few trips in U.S. are:
1. Freedom is all about the right to say NO in one's place.
2. Property is protected by walls, and in U.S. by laws.

I will talk about these two conclusions later. Anyone help me to understand this disclaimer? Obviously it is legal, and allowed, and this is not the first time I saw the sign. How come?

Posted by Jian Shuo Wang at June 16, 2006 11:07 PM

Comments
In my opinion I consider that sort of sign very offensive, hostile and 'smacks' of discriminatory animus. I don't see anything like that posted in restaurants and places of public accommodation in and around the US.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 12:32 AM
That restaurant in San Jose is inviting lawuits having a sign like that displayed. On its face it seems totally 'arbitrary' and 'capricious'.


I want to be able to walk into any restaurant open to the general public even if I am the color purple with green ears and be able to be served.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 12:39 AM
Oh! I forgot to explain this when you asked before, Jian Shuo. Sorry!!

You are right that it is common to see these signs in the US, and it relates to the freedom of the person who owns the business to set the "rules" for who they are willing to serve.

Do you know the "decision game" called "Rock/Paper/Scissors"? It's sort of like saying the right of the business owner "beats" the rights of the customer.

Some examples might be:

A bar (or an airline) can refuse to serve additional alcoholic drinks to patrons who are "drunk".

An "up-scale" (high class) restaurant can refuse to admit customers who are dressed "inapropriately" (for the atmosphere of the restaurant) in shorts and t-shirts.

Even some "casual" resturants will post signs that say "no shoes, no service" , or "no shirt, no service" which means that you cannot come in if you are barefoot, or wearing only shorts or a bathing suit. This would most likely be for reasons of hygene, or the aesthetic comfort of the other customers who might not enjoy eating next to someone else's hairy bare back.

So, those places which state "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" mean that they wish to be free to determine if a customer is "appropriate" for their place of business.

You might even see such a sign in a place like a convenience store, which is generally assumed to be open and welcome to every possible kind of customer. But, if someone comes in drunk and disruptive, the sign advises everyone that the owner or manager of the busines has the right to tell that person to leave without being served.

It might also apply to a "gang" or rowdy group of teenagers. Most places welcome the money that teenage customers bring to their business, but sometimes stores have trouble with poorly behaved teenagers disrupting their displays or upsetting more mature customers.

In that case it could easily be considered a form of "age discrimination" (illegal in the US) but for the protection of the business (ie: the comfort of the other customers who might otherwise leave without buying anything) the owners may decide to ask the teenagers to leave.

I believe that the rights implied by such a sign do not "beat" (or supercede) the rights involved in the basic freedoms of our country. It would be wrong and not legally allowed for a business owner to refuse service to a customer just because they are of a certain race or ethnicity, for example. Even the sign would not permit a business to turn away a woman wearing a head scarf because she "might be a terrorist" or someone of a racial minority because "we don't serve "those" people". But, if a person of any ethnicity is causing trouble, (might be intoxicated, or on drugs, or even just arguing loudly and disruptively with a companion) they may be asked to leave based on their behavior (not their appearance) , and the next step would be to call the police to report some sort of public disturbance.

Other readers may have more to add on this subject, but that has been my experience.

For the most part, everyone really is free to shop or do business wherever they wish. But it is also fair to give a business owner the right to refuse to serve someone who they feel would be bad for the business.

Does this make sense?

Posted by: Carroll on June 17, 2006 12:41 AM
They must have had that up there for a while. Places of business had to post those signs so they can refuse service to inappropriate people. This would include people not dressed appropriately, homeless people annoying other customers, etc.

It was required by the City so that business could avoid a lawsuit if they refused service. The general laws of the country are still in effect so I cant be refused service because of my race or religion but if I come in and I am sick or dirty or not wearing shoes I could be refused service.


San Jose had many homeless who would wander into restaurants looking for food or money. So this is what is behind this.

Posted by: Nick on June 17, 2006 12:41 AM
Nick,
so I am 'homeless' but have money to buy coffee and some scrambled eggs. I am entitled to eat even though I am homeless.

why should being 'homeless' be a basis for refusing me service in a restaurant? I want to eat and not 'sleep' in their place. give me a break.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 12:48 AM
Any private business can refuse to serve anyone they choose. Nothing wrong with that. However, they cannot discriminate people based on sex, race, religion, sex orientation, etc.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which grants many of the freedoms we enjoy in the US, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom is about practicing whichever the religion you choose; speaking your mind without worrying about retribution from the goverment; and the ability to peacefully assemble and protest.

Posted by: Dave G. on June 17, 2006 12:55 AM
Dave
the First Amendment ony applies to government action and not to private individual action.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 12:57 AM
It is usually for the restaurant operators to prevent rascal or 'unprefered' customer entering the premise for mischief, e.g. insulting staff, overdrinkings, fail to pay after servings or use the washrooms without patronage etc.

I saw some restaurants in US even hire security guards to pick out the 'prefered' customers.

JS, freedom does have a perimeter!

Posted by: stephen on June 17, 2006 01:12 AM
This is not against law. It simply stated their right under the law. I don't think it will hurt their business at all. As long as they provide good quality food and services, most customer will ignore such signs and visit them often. I bet this restuarant's business is pretty good...

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 01:13 AM
A sign like this doesn't offer any explicit or implicit implication of intention to discriminate. It only serves to state owner's right. Yes, under many conditions, the owner is legal to refuse service to anyone who may disrupt the restuarant's business. Or they can even refuse services to someone who the owner doesn't like. Nothing like that is against law. We are so accustomed to the concept that "Customer is the King...". But that concept is only a good business concept, it has nothing to do with legal system. Theoretically speaking, if the business is so good, the customer doesn't have to be the king. However, in order for a business to be good, the enterprise needs to treat customer well. This is only a good business conduct, but never a God endowed duty in any social system.

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 01:20 AM
Jqian
the sign is pretty sweeping in its avowed declaraton of intent--we reserve the right to refuse service to 'anyone'. It is not limited to any specifically defined 'objectionables'.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 01:35 AM
Bovemanm,
Yes, I can see that. As a private business owner, I think they do have the right to refuse service to 'anyone'. But that doesn't mean they will actually refuse service to anyone. If indeed an incidence happens, the owner can be summoned to the court resulted from a lawsuit from a customer. The owner may win or lose depending on specific situations. But the owner won't win or lose because of this sign. The owner may even have a much higher chance of winning the case because of this sign. Nonetheless, this sign is legal.

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 01:43 AM
actaully I think that sign is stupid because it doesn't serve a meaningful purpose and something like that is not reasonably needed to help protect the owner's protectable interest in his restaurant establishment. If a customer comes in and is drunk, he or she can be refused service without that sign. Moreover if a customer becomes disruptive and unruly, he can be asked by management to leave. If he refuses to leave, the police can be called. the sign isn't necessary and is really stupid.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 01:43 AM
Bovemanm,
What is your point? Of course the First Amendment applies to the government, and not the individual.

It says the government shall not interfere with rights of the people in the US (unlike another unmentionable government).

Posted by: Dave G. on June 17, 2006 01:58 AM
Yes, I agree that sign may not be necessary. You can say it's stupid. All I have said is that the action by the owner to post this sign is legal. I understand in many cases that a legal action may be not be wise in business, or even stupid to hurt its business.

My gut feeling is that this sign does serve some purpose that only the owner knows. We from the outside may not know the reasons. The owner may have an enemy or he may have had some bad experience in the past. Obviously, I think this sign is not hurting the restuarant's business.

All I like to say is that we should not read too much into this. It's absolutely legal to do that in most civilized country, just like putting up a no-trespassing sign in your front yard. It's gonna alienate your neighbors, but nonetheless, very legal to do so...

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 02:01 AM
It is the city's bylaw that require business to post a sign as caption before they can verbally to decline customer at their discretion. Got it?

Posted by: stephen on June 17, 2006 03:57 AM
Jianshuo,
Freedom is a nice thing as long as it doesn't hurt other people. The US may have more restrictions on freedom than China, but we natives take that for granted. We don't have the freedom (that is, the Right) to hurt other people or take their things, and there are a lot of freedoms we don't have because of imagined worries that it will interefere with someone else's freedom. So you can't smoke wherever you want, you can't drive wildly on the road, you can't make a lot of noise in a theater, you can't block a doorway, sit in the middle of the street, take off your clothes in public, and in many states you can't marry whomever you want, because people have been convinced that it will hurt their own marriage if your choice is the same sex as you are.

Carroll explained the sign well.

Posted by: zjemi on June 17, 2006 04:47 AM
Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sets out a prohibition on discrimination in public places, such as hotels and restaurants. You cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (sexual orientation is NOT included).

The sign gives a measure of protection to the owners to throw out someone who, while not necessarily violating a law, is interfering with their business. Someone who smells like they haven't showered in months and disgusts others, someone who yells and berates the staff, etc. The sign, with the laws, basically says "yes, this is a public place for people to come in and eat, but you do not have unlimited rights to be a jerk on my property."


Posted by: Andrew Leyden on June 17, 2006 06:23 AM
Dave
the point is why cite the First Amendment when we're dealing with a sign in a restaurant open to the public? it is not a public school or government court house cafeteria sign. Simply put, there is no government action, period.

Posted by: Boveman on June 17, 2006 08:34 AM
I still fail to see any good and useful purpose for that sign. I knew a restaurant owner once who hated kids and he put signs up 'NO KIDS ALLOWED' why did he do that? because he thought kids were messy and sloppy. he simply didn't want kids messing up his carpet and restaurant by dropping food and spilling their drinks.

needless to say, that restaurant owner who obviously didn't want kids in his restaurant eventually went out of business.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 08:45 AM
Thanks for everyone's explaination. How impressive to get 20 really high quality and informative comments in just 10 hours. This is great.

I think I am much clearer about the propose of the sign and how it works. It seems to me, that by law (American law), people have basic rights no matter where they are, whether it is on the public streets, in anyone else's private property, they have basic rights. However, in many places, like in this restaurant, the "additional" rights are limited, and the owner can execute their rights of the ownership.

Can I explain it this way, that anyone cannot be discriminated around the country, no matter where they are. Anyone has the right not to be beaten, not to be killed, and not to be taken away their own private belongs, no matter where they go, even by entering this restaurant. However, by entering this restaurant, v.s another one, you have to agree that if the owner don't like you, you have to leave. This "Don't like" cannot be based on gender, race, nationality, since it is your basic rights, not the "extended right".

Is it correct?

Posted by: Jian Shuo Wang on June 17, 2006 09:35 AM
As far as I am concern, this sign is very offensive and sickening. In China, the last resort to resolve the dispute or argument is using legal means, the first is using persuasion with smile and the second is using the reasoning, then the third (the last) is resort to legality. In other words, legality is the last means to settle any dispute. In USA, the culture foster a lot of people become arrogant and behave asinine, so while any little thing unpleasant occurred which deviate the store clerk or store owner's expected norm, then, they would immediately take a rough or even brutal approach to solve the dispute such as throw the customer out of the store. This is very unfortunate thing. Majority of American don't give a damn about friendly persuasion and reasoning. The only thing they know of is lawsuit to settle the dispute. That sign speaks volume about the mindset of American society as a whole. A lot of time, too much so-called freedom just draw the worst out of human beings and those human beings become impatient, and worse, become animal-like and reacting with animal instinct---to kick customer out of his or her little store. This also speaks about America, that is why America is the most violent nation in the planet. They have very short and quick temper. Every little thing deviates from their way of operation, they don't want to be bothered with and a lot of time, they'll deal with fists and violence and even lawsuit. Nothing else.

Posted by: Flchao on June 17, 2006 09:53 AM
Flchao,

The comments you expressed here resulted from your misunderstanding of American culture. Silicon Valley happens to be pretty much violent free in everyday life. I lived there for many years and I can attest it with my own life experience. All the impression you got is probably from American movies. They are just movies, make believe. Posting a sign like that only buys some legal insurance to the business owner. It by no means suggests that crime is so out of control that business owner has to do that kind of thing. I hope you can be like JSW, have a chance to visit this peaceful country and understand how different it is different from the "movie culture".

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 12:22 PM
Flchao,

The comments you expressed here resulted from your misunderstanding of American culture. Silicon Valley happens to be pretty much violent free in everyday life. I lived there for many years and I can attest it with my own life experience. All the impression you got is probably from American movies. They are just movies, make believe. Posting a sign like that only buys some legal insurance to the business owner. It by no means suggests that crime is so out of control that business owner has to do that kind of thing. I hope you can be like JSW, have a chance to visit this peaceful country and understand how different it is different from the "movie culture".

Posted by: jqian on June 17, 2006 12:24 PM
I have been living in a few States in the United States. This sign is quite common. It states the restaurant has the right not to serve you, it does not imply any intention to discriminate againist you.

For most restaurant owners, this is just a warning for people with un-acceptable behaviors. For most ordinary customers, the sign is not relevant at all.

No restaurant owner is stupid enough to discriminate against others based on sex, race, etc.... Unless if he or she wants to go out of business very quickly.

Freedom should comes with limit or boundary; no one should exercise his or her own freedom at others' expenses. If my friends and I dressed up for a speical event in a restaurant, I surely don't want to see the other guys sitting at the next table wearing nothing but only short pants and talk dirty loudly and in a drunk mode at the same time.

Posted by: Billy on June 17, 2006 01:11 PM
There is a heated dispute going on right now over a sign at Geno's Italian restaurant in Philadelphia which says: 'THIS IS AMERICA-WHEN ORDERING SPEAK IN ENGLISH'. I saw a picture of Geno's front window displaying that sign above another sign which says 'WE RESERVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SERVE ANYONE'

Geno's sign has created an uproar among some and legal action apparently is going to be initiated against Geno's.


"The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Mary Catherine Roper, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, who said Geno’s “has a right to express its opinion, however offensive. ... But there are specific limitations on places of public accommodation, because they are supposed to be available to everyone.”

A city councilman quoted in the paper said the signs were “divisive and mean-spirited.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13272368 /

Philly officials eye eatery’s English-only sign
City agency expected to file complaint against cheesesteak owner’s effort

PHILADELPHIA - City officials are expected to file a complaint Monday against an English-only ordering policy at Geno’s Steaks, one of Philadelphia’s best-known cheesesteak joints that has entered the national immigration debate.

Situated in a South Philadelphia immigrant neighborhood, Geno’s has posted small signs telling customers, “This Is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING ‘SPEAK ENGLISH.’”

“We’re alleging that the sign itself is enough of an unwelcoming message that it may violate the Fair Practices Act,” Rachel Lawton, acting executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Owner Joseph Vento, 66, whose grandparents struggled to learn English after immigrating from Sicily in the 1920s, said he posted the sign about six months ago amid concerns over immigration reform and the increasing number of customers who could not order in English when they wanted Philly’s gooey, greasy specialty — fried steak, sliced or chopped, in a long roll, with cheese and fried onions.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 01:31 PM
democracy and freedoms
words always used by governaments to impose their own tailor made of concept of imposed power.

now the label clearly state " 'WE RESERVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SERVE ANYONE " fair if used for troublemaker or for who may ruin my business income, but if i advocate the concept of liberty, it even mean, i dont like you because simply i dont like you so i dotn serve you, please leave my premises or i call the police, then u can sue me, but with a good lawyer i will even win money back for the time u make spend engaging a lawyer... at coming to court..

i find it wrong to expose and allow business to show it, as allow the manager a full arbitrary concept of who shall be served according to their preferences that can be racist, politcal, of prejudice, unfair, undemocratic, based on religion, cult etc....
the only thing i have to do is facing a court is to say the guest who i refused to serve on that moment was disrupting my business, therefore i refused to serve him/her, that is my motiv, judges/courts can not say i am wrong, even if by reality i did because it was muslim or black or asian o lesbian or gay etc..

the similar arbitrary concept which US gov so call themselves Freedom defenfer... the same arbitrary concept that make the majority of the world look at USA no more as concept to copy but as an aggressive and oppressing power... and this become more evident credo day after day from asia to africa, east europe to the mediterranean... middle east to south america...
et caraibbeans

cheers


Posted by: Gerry on June 17, 2006 04:52 PM
I think any restaurant owner is entitled to deny service to unrepentant commie supporters such as blothug wangjianshuo and taiwanese gook Jerry Yang.

Posted by: bellevue on June 17, 2006 05:56 PM
Gerry, you fabricated the foundational facts by opening up with the following statement:

"words always used by governaments to impose their own tailor made of concept of imposed power."

that restaurant sign has absolutely nothing to do with government or government power but is a sign put up by the owner of a private business.

don't throw government into the pot because it is not there and shouldn't be there.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 17, 2006 09:51 PM
Billy
you wrote:
"I have been living in a few States in the United States. This sign is quite common. It states the restaurant has the right not to serve you, it does not imply any intention to discriminate againist you."

Unfortunately and from a hostorical perspective, I think the San Jose restaurant sign is somewhat reminiscent of the signs once used many years ago in the Deep Southern States such as Mississippi which read: "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SERVE NEGROES" or 'WE DON'T SERVE NI_ _ERS."

Those signs obviously had a glaring intent to discriminate against people of African ancestry.

I am not suggesting that the restaurant owner in San Jose has any intention of discriminating against people based on skin color but it should be apparent that his sign message can spark in some negative memories of the past.

Even the public display of the Confederate Flag in America today is objectionable to many African Americans because it sparks memories of the past of slavery and open racial discrimination.



Posted by: Fish828 on June 17, 2006 11:42 PM
Yes, the "freedom" here doesn't give you the freedom to do anything you want to do. It is more about giving your the freedom to protect your won rights. That is why most often one actually won't feel very "free" in a sociaty because everyone has freedom ;) "Freedom is all about the right to say NO in one's place". So you are absolutely right:-)

Posted by: valley nomad on June 18, 2006 05:43 AM
'Freedom' is great but there are limits even here in the US. for example, freedom of speech doesn't give someone the right to yell *Fire!* in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire just as a joke. a lot of people can get hurt and even killed in a stampede.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 18, 2006 06:34 AM
Jian Shuo
you posted an interesting topic which evoked many different reactions and opinions. Keep them coming,

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 18, 2006 06:58 AM
one final thought on that San Jose restaurant sign. As far as I am concerned, the restaurant owner should modify his sign message to make it reciprocal and it should read as follows with a happy face at the end of it:

'WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO EAT HERE AND TO REFUSE OUR SERVICE. "

that modified sign would make me feel better about eating there.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 18, 2006 07:13 AM
Bovemanm, you are clearly unaware of the cultural and legal context of that kind of sign.

Posted by: Micah on June 18, 2006 10:00 AM
Micah
are you suggesting that I lack culture? if that kind of a restaurant sign is supposed to imbue people with a special culture, then I guess I must lack cutlure.

obviously no classy or fine restaurant would post a sign like that.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 18, 2006 10:53 AM
yep, I admit it. I lack the culture to suffer the indignities of a sign like that as a payng icustomer.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 18, 2006 11:01 AM
Well, a fancy restaurant without such sigh in display still reserve such legal rights, as long as it is legal in that state.

Posted by: bellevue on June 18, 2006 11:04 AM
"There is a heated dispute going on right now over a sign at Geno's Italian restaurant in Philadelphia"

I've been following this myself as a business owner, and it's just plain stupid what Geno's is doing here. He's losing a ridiculous amount of business to competitors, not just Hispanics but also many whites and blacks who really don't care for such controversy and just want to go somewhere to eat. There may be some Ku Klux Klan blowhards who show up for a while to support the restaurant, but over the long term, Geno's has permanently lost an enormous amount of business.

When I hire people for my retail shops, job applicants who can speak Spanish have a big advantage in getting the jobs. In fact, for the 17 recent job positions for which I was hiring, 14 of the new hires were able to speak Spanish-- including the most high-paying positions like managers and buyers-- while the other 3 are in the process of learning Spanish themselves. I'm doing this for basic business survival, not as any political statement-- so much of our customer base is Spanish-speaking that, if we don't have Spanish-speaking employees and Spanish labels in our stores, then those customers will go somewhere else that does have them, and we'll go out of business. In fact, about 40% of the retail shops in my area have recently gone out of business, and the vast majority of them were English-only in their employees and signs. They didn't survive. In contrast, the businesses that provided Spanish services are now thriving. Note also, that I'm in the Midwestern US mostly in Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky, yet Spanish is crucial here. For companies in the Southwestern states, New York, Florida, New England and New Jersey, you absolutely have to have Spanish or you won't survive. Even lawyers at law firms and doctors at hospitals are needing fluent Spanish to get hired.

Posted by: Pete on June 18, 2006 08:47 PM
Also-- Jian Shuo Wang, this is a little off-topic but I had a question myself. I was at a business conference recently where an international consultant was speaking-- he's one of these people that gives advice to American businesses, on where to invest abroad.

Anyway, he said something that shocked me quite a bit. Many of us have been planning investment in China for a while, but this consultant-- who used to be a Chinese investor himself-- is now advising all of us to avoid investing in China and to focus instead on Latin America, India and Vietnam. The reason for his advice, he stated, is China's One Child Policy-- he said China should get rid of it immediately, within maybe two years, or the investment consultants in the USA are going to recommend that US companies pull all their money out of China.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but he's a very important and respected retail business consultant, and he said that China now has the world's worst demographics, possibly the worst in history, due to the One Child Policy. He said the policy has caused China's birth rate to plummet rapidly to about 1.6, way below replacement level very suddenly, causing a rapidly aging population with too few young workers to support the senior citizens. In fact, he said China is getting old before getting rich, thus getting old faster than any other country in history. He also said the problem's even worse since some minorities in China (like the Muslim Uighurs if I recall correctly) do not have to worry about the Policy, only the ethnic Chinese, so the Muslim population in China rises rapidly while the Chinese fall in population, leading to further ethnic conflict. Moreover, he said that due to One Child Policy, China now has a massive excess of boys to girls, which can lead to wars in later decades. He said that due to the One Child Policy, China will probably suffer a massive economic collapse by about the year 2025.

He said that China should instead focus on better education and health care, which would naturally reduce birth rate while improving the Chinese economy, while discontinuing the One Child Policy. He said Chinese population should stabilize gradually to replacement, not fall rapidly like this.

Now, I'm raising this issue, because frankly, I don't know whether he's right or not. I always thought the China One Child Policy was applied only in the big cities like Shanghai, not in the countryside, so people in rural and suburban China, and in the small cities, can still have large families with many kids. Also, I thought people who wanted more than one child could easily overcome the policy, just pay a small fine or hide their kids or something. In other words, I thought China still had a relatively high birth rate.

But now, this consultant has gotten me concerned. I myself have been planning to invest about $10 million in China, and my fellow businessmen at the conference wanted to invest as well, so this is possibly $1 billion that we're planning to invest in China, but now we're unsure whether to do it. Honestly, if that consultant is correct, then we're not going to invest in China. But, I'm not sure if he is correct.

This is your chance to prove him wrong. If I don't hear any refutations of that consultant, then I'm changing my plans, and I won't be investing in China. But if you can convince me he's wrong or that the One Child Policy is changing, then I'll put my money back into the Chinese retail market. I just need better information, and I figured that you might know something.

Posted by: Pete on June 18, 2006 09:01 PM
sticking to the sign message of that San Jose restaurant owner, a friend acquaintance said this about it:

"this sign would be illegal in France because it would be considered as a sale refusal which is forbidden by the rules about commercial competition , but if a motivation is displayed, for example: we serve only correctly dressed poeple ( suit ant tie ) it would be legal. but a motivation like: we serve only whites or left handed or people who do not wear glasses would be considered discriminatorial."


Posted by: Bovemanm on June 19, 2006 12:09 AM
Pete
that is a very eye-opening post you made about the feedback you received from that International Business Consultant. I too would be very interested to see what Jian Shuo Wang can come up with in possible rebuttal of that assessment.

come on Jian Shuo, show us that Business Consultant's assessment is pure hog-wash and that China's future is rock solid, safe and secure. We don't want Pete and his investor associates to lose over a billion dollars.

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 19, 2006 12:33 AM
Jian Shuo Wang
Please start a new Post on the topic Pete raised...'Assessment and Projections for China's Economic Future over the next 20 years'

Posted by: Bovemanm on June 19, 2006 12:53 AM
一项儿童政策。


如果它导致足够的女孩，一项儿童政策优良是。 女孩是需要的。 男孩需要女孩。


Posted by: Bovemanm on June 19, 2006 02:09 AM
as for the effects of the One Child Policy.

as for me personally I wouldn't want to be part of a group of 50 to 100 guys pursuing one (1) girl. that kind of a lopsided ratio would cause me to go completely *dizzy* and depressed. Operating under those odds would make me see an *ugly* girl as beautiful.

no, I would badly suffer playing under those percentage odds


Shrek7

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 19, 2006 03:02 AM
Mr. Pete
I've heard that new businesses starting up in China must be prepared to lose a lot of money before they can start making any. As Confucius said: "Money does not come out of the air. One must put money into the ground before it can grow."

Shrek7

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 19, 2006 09:39 AM
Jian Shuo Wang,

OK, now I'm *really* worried. A friend sent me a link that further talks about some concerning things regarding China's One Child Policy, from a business perspective:

http://tinyurl.com/kq838

Look, this is very serious, and I'd like to have more solid, knowledgeable, accurate information on this. I don't know whether this article is right or wrong, but if it's true, then the One Child Policy-- if it continues for several more years-- is going to be doing tremendous damage to China's economy within about 15-20 years, and if true, then I and thousands of my business colleagues are not going to be investing in China. We'll be putting our money into places like India and Vietnam instead. I actually think the One Child Policy was a smart idea for China for a while, as it slowed population growth and probably helped China's environment and urban planning to proceed at a more manageable pace back in the 1980's. But it's not supposed to be a permanent policy, and if this article is correct, then the Policy is doing more harm than good.

As Shrek7 was pointing out, it takes years-- in fact, often more than a decade-- for a business, especially if invested in a foreign country, to become profitable. For us to feel confident about investing in China, we have to feel confident about the economy's long-term prospects there, and if the One Child Policy continues, we're not going to have that confidence. Again, I'm still not sure how accurate that article is, but if it is accurate about the effects of the Policy, there are three big concerns that we as foreign investors in China have to worry about:

1. The elderly-to-worker dependency ratio. China and all other countries do have to stabilize their population, for the sake of the world environment, we understand that. But when stabilizing a large population, the best way to do it is similar to the best way that you stop a car in a snowstorm, if it's skidding on ice on the road-- you do it gradually so that you come to a smooth stop and then keep moving on the road. If you slam the brakes on too fast, then you skid like crazy and flip over, off the road.

We're worried that with the One Child Policy, China has slammed the brakes on too fast, with China's population aging faster than any other in history. The One Child Policy focuses too much on sheer numbers and not enough on the population and age distribution-- you need to have a reasonable number of young workers, and not too great an excess of retired elderly. I realize that China can do things like raising the retirement age (to, e.g., 72 or so) and encourage people to work longer while they're healthy before receiving pensions, also helping elderly people to stay healthy and productive, but you still need a decent ratio of young workers to have a good economy. As the economy and education improve, people prefer small families and the population stabilizes gradually, anyway.

If the One Child Policy has indeed sent the Chinese birth rate plummeting to 1.6 or 1.7 suddenly and creating a vast excess of elderly, then this is obviously not a formula for a healthy economy-- if China is filled with hundreds of millions more retired elderly than young workers, then the country's savings would be depleted and business would grind to a halt. As businesses especially in the retail sector (dependent on consumer savings and spending), we're not going to invest our money into such a country.

2. The male:female ratio. This article and others, are implying that in much of China, the male:female ratio at birth has hit something like *130:100* due to the One-Child Policy. For rural families especially, if they're forced to have only one child, then they'll want a boy to help out on the farm-- whereas if they can have more children, they don't worry about this so much since they'll have roughly equal numbers of boys and girls.

If true, this is unacceptable and it could be disastrous for China in about a generation, and we won't invest our money there. Societies in history with large excesses of men or women have almost always been politically and economically unstable-- you really need to have a roughly 50:50 ratio of each sex. Otherwise, China in 15 years for example, might be having a massive excess of young men to young women, with the result being that hundreds of millions of young Chinese men wind up not being able to find a woman to marry. Societies like this almost always have massive social problems when they have millions of embittered young men without partners-- higher crime, increased warlike tendencies, depression, generalized social dysfunction. I realize that people can partially make up for the imbalance by e.g. importing brides from places like Vietnam, the Philippines or Korea, but this is a very limited solution. A society with this sex imbalance is probably not stable, and it's not a good place to invest our money.

3. The differential birth rate problem. The consultant warned us that Xinjiang is a "demographic and political time bomb" since the Han Chinese are subject to the One Child Policy while the Muslim Uyghurs are not. So the Han have only one child per couple, while the Muslims have 5 or 6. I once read an article on this and history has shown how dangerous it is. Serbia lost Kosovo because the Serbs were having only one child while the Albanian Muslims were having 7-8 kids per couple. Shiite Muslims have a much higher birth rate than other groups in Lebanon which has made them close to a majority. The US Southwest is re-acquiring its Mexican and Latino culture and character since Latinos have a much higher birth rate than whites. (Southwestern states like California, Arizona and Texas were actually part of Mexico for many centuries, but the US invaded Mexico in the US-Mexican War and seized half of Mexico's territory in 1848, which is why those territories are now part of the US.)

With the selective One-Child Policy, according to this consultant, China is producing its own Kosovo in Xinjiang. It would be a much better idea to have a uniform policy for everyone, also try and integrate more Uyghurs into the larger economy and make them less reliant on agriculture, help them find good jobs both within and outside of Xinjiang, and so on.

The result? If these articles and the consultant's warnings are true, then the One Child Policy, if continued for several more years, is forcing China into a massive demographic, economic and political crisis in a few decades, and we're not going to invest our money there. We'll put our money into places like India instead.

Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers of English-speakers that India has. English proficiency is by far the single most overrated and useless factor in attracting foreign investment. As retailers especially, we couldn't care less whether workers in India or China become fluent in English or French or German or whatever-- obviously, we'd be hiring mostly among the local people, and we'd be selling our products to them in the local languages and dialects, whether Mandarin in China or Hindi, Bengali, Tamil or the other local languages in India. Training more English-speakers in China would do absolutely nothing to help increase confidence among us foreign investors.

On the other hand, we do care a lot about demographics in China over the next 20-30 years, and India, for all its flaws, has much better demographics than China, if these articles are true. India's population growth is also slowing rapidly, but at a more gradual pace overall than China, and it's due to voluntary measures-- like better education and availability of contraceptives-- in India, rather than forced measures like the One Child Policy, which don't necessarily help to increase wealth but force population growth down too fast. Thus, India is starting to look like a better place for us to invest our money in the coming decades, unless China soon changes the One Child Policy.

It's funny, because as I've been writing this, another old friend of mine has written to suggest that the articles on the One Child Policy *are* flawed. He's confirming my initial hunches-- that the Policy really doesn't apply much to rural regions, that the Policy is not really enforced much, that wealthy urban couples just pay the fine and have 2-3 kids if they want, that people just hide their kids or migrate if they have e.g. 5 or 6 in the countryside. He also says that China's true fertility rate is much higher than the official figures since the official numbers underestimate it-- rather than 1.6-1.7, it's more like a little above 2.1, at replacement levels. If he's right, then maybe things are OK. But I admit, I'm frankly confused right now. And the truth is, most of my business colleagues have been hearing the very scary things about the One Child Policy from the consultants and the articles, and if the One Child Policy goes on for a couple more years, they're going to lose confidence in China and invest their money elsewhere.

Please don't ignore this post, please don't shuffle it around or disregard this issue as unimportant and talk about trivial things. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars (or Euros) in investment here from US and European companies. We'd like to invest a lot of it in China, but the One Child Policy is making us nervous. Honestly, a lot of us are confused and we hear a lot of contradictory information. How does the policy actually work? Can you chart out myths and truths about it? If the One Child Policy has forced fertility down too rapidly and caused China's population to age too fast-- which would be a very bad thing, as I explained above-- are the Chinese authorities in the process of changing and loosening the policy, to encourage voluntary small families (and better economic growth and infrastructure improvement) instead? I'd greatly appreciate clarification here.

Posted by: Pete on June 19, 2006 04:36 PM
Well, I always tell my employees who are complaining about one problem or another, that when they're done complaining, they should try to be productive and suggest solutions. I guess that applies to me as well, so in the spirit of trying to be mildly productive and offer helpful ideas, I'll put myself in the shoes of a Chinese policy planner-- please feel free to use this for a separate topic if you want.

I admit that I don't have all the information here and I'd like to have more accurate data. But if I were consulted to draft a population, immigration, development, environment and nutritional policy for China-- which stabilizes population but preserves economic growth and the environment (while encouraging investment from people like us)-- the following 5 ideas are what I would suggest:

1. Instead of the forced One Child Policy, set up voluntary measures to encourage small families instead. Help to improve education throughout the country even in the rural areas, encourage more people to study advanced subjects at university, to become wealthy, to start towns and cities. Better education and economic improvement naturally lead people to have smaller families, down to replacement level stabilization. Furthermore, this would help China to become wealthier with a better-educated population.

2. Invest in pro-environmental technologies like reforestation, renewable energy sources, enriched crops with nutrients (like the "Golden Rice" that has extra Vitamin A), more energy-efficient technologies that require less electricity to deliver higher output, re-utilization of industrial wastes, vaccines and desalination of seawater. Minimize pollution of water sources and reduce the amount of lead in pipes and homes-- which causes intellectual deficits and brain damage in children. The cleaner, less polluted and healthier China is, the more effective the Chinese economy will be. These will help China to have a firm, sustainable industrial economy and help to cushion the effects of rapid economic growth, while increasing health and providing for clean water, air, fruits, vegetables and grains for the population.

3. Provide more incentives for China's vast population of emigrants in the US, Europe and Australia-- including highly educated people who have graduated from top universities-- to return home to China and apply their skills to strengthening China's economy. Many of the "sea turtles" have been returning, but far too few. China has been losing too many of its best-educated and most capable young people abroad, and this, again, discourages us foreign investors from putting money into China. However, if more of these overseas Chinese are lured back in-- with e.g. offers for nice jobs with high pay, their own labs and start-up capital for companies-- then they'll boost China's economy tremendously, boost up creativity, help initiate Nobel Prize-winning work and innovative projects, and other big benefits. This sort of thing further helps to stabilize China's population in the best way, while maintaining strong economic growth.

4. Encourage educated Westerners-- as well as 2nd-generation and 3rd-generation Chinese and other Asian immigrants in the USA, Europe and Australia-- to work or even settle in China. Help to spread Chinese language education at Western universities and provide overseas scholarships to talented Westerners to study and work in Chinese schools and companies, especially if they're familiar with Mandarin. Again, this sort of thing can help to bring in further talent to help solve Chinese ecological and demographic problems more effectively.

5. Finally, and also very important-- try to provide incentives and rewards for immigration of skilled workers from elsewhere in Asia to study, train, work, settle and start families in China, and assume Chinese citizenship. In particular, developing countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, South Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and Burma have an enormous skilled talent pool that likes to go abroad for further education or even immigration, but current Chinese laws bar these skilled people from studying and working in China, where they could be a tremendous resource for the Chinese economy and their own. Vietnamese engineers, Filipino nurses and doctors, Thai businesspeople, Korean scientists, Burmese metalworkers-- I've met these people and lots would like to work in China, but because of Chinese immigration restrictions, they can't enter China or gain Chinese citizenship, so they go to Western countries in place of China. This is a tremendous loss of talent and human capital for the Chinese economy, which should instead be attracting such people.

Instead, China should open up its immigration laws to skilled workers from other Asian countries, who could meet shortages in the Chinese economy while getting extra training in Chinese universities and businesses. Obviously, China would also benefit from further encouraging Chinese language acquisition in these countries. In turn, these migrants from elsewhere in Asia would help their home countries by sending remittances back home, while using their extra training and returning home (in some cases) or staying in China and helping to foster business partnerships between China and their home countries.

I've read some other ideas like this, e.g. a "responsible family initiative" that's been floating around, but I think this sort of a proposal helps to both stabilize population and maximize economic growth while protecting the environment, health and nutrition for the people. Again, I'm just a guy with my own partial information set here, but I genuinely admire China and would like the country to succeed-- both for the country's own sake and as a potential market for foreign investment. China could really become a model country, an example of how to grow and develop successfully, and hopefully some of my own suggestions might prove helpful for this.

Posted by: Pete on June 19, 2006 04:47 PM
Pete, while I think your questions and a possible discussion about this could be very interesting, I do wonder why someone, who is about to invest billions, of dollars/euros, is asking something like this in a public reaction on a blog... I mean, wouldn't it be more wise to go to China by yourself and find these things out for yourself? With that kind of money, there should be somewhat available for decent researches and not let everything stand or fall by the answer of just one man.

Don't get me wrong, maybe you are getting these researches from others as well but the way you've put it here, it is more like you will let everything stand or fall by Jian Shuo's answer. It is something which would not be very wise in my personal opinion. It should take up to months, even years, of planning and researching if you don't want to lose a great deal of money.

Posted by: Jie Lun on June 19, 2006 08:20 PM
Pete
You have raised a very good assortment of points, questions and ideas about investing in China's booming economy. Unfortunately, I believe that you will not receive a significant amount of reliable data to be able to make a fully informed decision. Without reliable numbers to work with, risk factors become substantially elevated. I personally do not like 'high risk' investments and need to know what I am getting into before I leap.

Confucius also said: "He who leaps without first tieing his gym shoes will trip and fall."

Shrek7

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 19, 2006 11:33 PM
so sorry for that misspelling in what Confucius said. correct English spelling is 'tying', not tieing. Confucius was not only very wise but a very good speller.

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 19, 2006 11:45 PM
Pete wrote:

"I always tell my employees who are complaining about one problem or another, that when they're done complaining, they should try to be productive and suggest solutions."

the above is absolutely correct. Henry Ford once said: "Don't find a fault, but find a remedy."

if you can't make things better, then it isn't a fault. Let's talk 'solutions' and not just 'problems', including taking care of my purple skin and green ears.

Shrek7

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 20, 2006 12:11 AM
I agree with the sign as a business owner--only to protect other customers and my staff. I have pointed to the sign only once in 16 years; I had a customer loudly and threatening to become physical towards another customer due to religious beliefs. So I showed him the sign and asked him to leave. He was not happy and will most likely not return--but I am very okay with that. He was harassing a customer in a discriminating way.

I am not sure this how all business owners use the sign--but to me it allows me to excuse a customer who is discriminating against anther customer or staff or mistreating another customer or staff in an extreme manner and ask them to leave. I agree this should be done with or with out a sign. But it was nice to point to the sign as I quietly asked him to leave.

If any customer treats other customers or staff in an extremely negative manner, it is a way for our staff to know management supports refusing service. AGAIN ONLY IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.

In the same note, we need to realize we are here to provide service and there may be difficult customers. The sign should only be used for those rare times. Even those times, the sign may mean nothing as the customer would be extreme regardless of a sign.

I do not think it is the sign we should be discussing but rather if it is used appropriately.

Posted by: SJD on June 21, 2006 07:57 AM
Hello

Posted by: Jake on June 21, 2006 02:13 PM
SJD
I guess a restaurant Owner could also post a sign saying 'ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK-THE ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT LIABLE IF YOU ARE INJURED ON A SLIPPERY FLOOR OR ANY OTHER DEFECT ON THE PREMISES'. Personally I think it's very bad PR for a business owner to convey these negative messages.

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 22, 2006 02:13 AM
SJD
I guess a restaurant Owner could also post a sign saying 'ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK-THE ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT LIABLE IF YOU ARE INJURED ON A SLIPPERY FLOOR OR ANY OTHER DEFECT ON THE PREMISES'. Personally I think it's very bad PR for a business owner to convey these negative messages.

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 22, 2006 02:17 AM
i was refused service and kicked out of a walmart because they didnt like how i looked. they assumed i was there to steal stuff because im a mexican teen. thats wrong. i just wanted to buy some jewelry for my lady but now i wont support walmart in anyway.

Posted by: mexican-american teen on June 24, 2006 01:04 PM
Mexican-American Teen:

Many stores and their security personnel pay particular attention to teens entering their store and almost have a knee-jerk reaction that they are there to try to shoplift.

Posted by: Shrek7 on June 25, 2006 01:01 AM
Amigo-teen: Wal-mart will lose this kind of case, every time. Sue them. They are reponsible for at least 20% of our trade deficit.

And I can guaranttee you that it won't happen in most of their stores. The security guy often is an amigo, tambien!

Posted by: bellevue on June 25, 2006 06:17 PM
Shrek7 you raise an interesting comment. However, I can see by your comment that you have little experience in a business environment regarding legalities. Anyone can sue regardless of the sign. There is a big difference between the two signs you suggest according to the legal society. Actually if you have a wet floor you are required to post or protect the area. Again what is important as how a business runs the business and treats the customers. I decided to take down the sign.

This comment is not directed towards Shrek7---but rather this is my two cent opinion--if it is even worth that much. I think people often spend more time acting like a victim and calling racism/ageism without looking at the whole big picture. I know this sounds negative--not my intent. But I guess I still have those rosy colored Polly Anna glasses we loose during childhood... I want it to be a perfect world where we all just get along regardless of skin, religion, and age (all ages seem to have issues). I know this is not realistic--but I have found those people who usually cry fowl, cry fowl not because of a true fowl but because they often find fault in others more then most. I agree there are times when fowl should be cried and action taken ! ! But stop and think. Amazing how we are all so afraid of being sued--that we post signs. Or how quick are we to suggest "sue them". When did we become such a litigious culture and worse why are we all so quick to cry fowl. I know it is not a perfect world-- but maybe if we spend more time looking inward and fixing our own misjudgments of others--maybe less signs and less suing would occur??? But then again, there would not be this discussion either huh..

Posted by: sjd on July 1, 2006 03:25 AM
It is against federal law to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. In addition to this, states have their own laws against discrimination. California, for example, has the Unruh Civil Rights Act which provides broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners, such as for unconvential dress or sexual preference.

So basically this sign is just that, a sign. It has no legal backing whatsoever. If a business says they're open to the public, then they are open to the public. This is now a private club that can discriminate however it wants.

Posted by: bdog on August 13, 2006 10:30 AM
**not a private club**

Posted by: bdog on August 13, 2006 12:23 PM
The first amendment prohibits discrimination in place that provide public accomodation (restaurants, hotels, motels) and there are some exceptions for people who own limited numbers of rental units. Generally, individuals are free to discriminate to their hearts content, whether right or wrong - we can pick our friends, where we live, where we shop, etc. In the long run, all of us need to know that discrimination (or bias) is part of who we are, but should NOT be part of how we do business.

Business can't post a "we reserve the right..." sign that lists all possible reasons. First, restaurants and other places of public accomodation *have* to obey the law. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc. Second, how could a restaurant owner list all the possible reasons that might cause this situation to occur? Some measure of freedom must be given the business owner in deciding what type of person might be undesirable, negatively affect business, disturb other customers, etc. Finally, there are some types of "classes" that are not protected under the law - "homelessness" isn't a protected class. Neither is "gang member".

Whether a business posts this sign or not, they still have the right to eject "undesirables". That may not make everyone happy, but it's a fact and it's generally the law.

Posted by: dwork on August 21, 2006 07:14 AM
The remarks about Americans...If you look at the picture of the sign, in the back there is Chinese writing, which means this sign is posted in a Chinese restaurant...

So much for blaming Americans. And, if you don't like it here in America, find someplace else to live.

We are not as you write. There are but a handful, just like every country out there, that paint a bad picture for all.

Posted by: jf on August 26, 2006 10:25 AM
I CANNOT BELEIVE THAT A SIGN "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" HAS CREATED SUCH AN ISSUE!! THE SIGN IS MEANT TO WARN PEOPLE WHO MAY BE A PROBLEM. I MANAGE A SMALL WIRELESS BUSINESS AND WE GET VERY ANGRY CUSTOEMRS AT TIMES. PEOPLE TEND TO GET VERY ANGRY WHEN THEIR CELL PHONE DOESN'T WORK. I HAVE SUCH A SIGN IN MY STORE BECAUSE I'VE HAD PEOPLE YELLING AT ME AND CUSSING AT ME EVEN THROWING PHONES AT ME BECUASE THEY WENT OVER THEIR MINUTES. I DO NOT MAKE THE RULES, I JUST INFORM CUSTOMER'S OF THEM. THE SIGN GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO SEND ANYONE AWAY WHO MIGHT BE USING FOWL LANGUAGE OR THROWING THINGS AT ME. IT IS NOT AT ALL MEANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY RACE OR ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. WHITE , BLACK, ASIAN, WHATEVER!! IF YOU ARE BEING A JERK....I WILL NOT HELP YOU. OF COURSE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IS OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, BUT WILL NOT TOLERATE REDICULOUS BEHAVOIR.

AND THOSE WHO THINK THIS SIGN IS REDICULOUS ARE PROBALY CUSTOMER'S WE WOULDN'T WANT TO BEGIN WITH. BUT, AS LONG AS YOUR NOT BEING AN ASS, WE WILL PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICE TO YOU.

Posted by: KATIE on August 30, 2006 06:30 AM
Short & sweet, Carroll hit the nail right on the head. I won't reiterate those points, as they were well-stated & you can all go up & read everything for yourselves. Thanks for that eloquent explanation.

As for Nick, the self-professed "homeless" guy, . . . dude, do you LOOK "homeless" . . . because, I mean, COME ON! How the hell would a business owner be able to TELL you are HOMELESS in order to refuse to serve you FOOD!? That was the most idiotic thing I have read. Besides, you can't be that bad off, considering you said yourself you have money for food & you are also able to access the internet somehow. You are the most well-off "homeless" person I have ever encountered! Good for you, Nick. Now, quit bitching about not being served for being "homeless," & find a shower or a comb & I bet things would look up for you in that respect.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 2, 2006 08:15 AM
I too have been troubled by these RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE signs. I lived in the deep south until the mid-60s and I know what such a sign meant then and there. I was dismayed to see it (and so frequently) when I came to the northwest. I wondered how residents of this area could possibly tolerate these signs with such obviously (to me anyway) odious connotations. I do not know the legal history or standing of these signs. I have concluded that they were not based on anything similar to the motivations of their southern counterparts. Perhaps they are based on local/state laws that give a business owner/manager "legal cover" if they exercise the "right" and to discourage suits against businesses by granting their actions a presumptive legality. I doubt that they enlarge substantially a businessman's rights that exist under other civil/criminal laws. Their effect may be more psychological for the businessman and customer--the one a "comfort zone" of to act within and to the other a "heads up" notice. These laws/signs certainly do not restrict (much less override) federal/state/local civil rights guarantees of individuals (theoretically). Twenty five years after moving to the northwest my feelings about these signs have changed from repugnancy to sadness. Sadness that the level of decency/discourse/demeanor in this country had not advanced to some new level but, apparently, had disintegrated to such a point that (more and more) businessmen felt it necessary to display such signs to feel comfortable in conducting ordinary daily transactions with the public. Sad also that the "legal cover" the signs project also provides even the smallest justification (though false) for contemporary discriminatory behavior like many of you cited in varous parts of the country. Do we really need signs that were conceived in the most contemptable period of social relations (abuse) in this country to guide us in the conduct of ordinary business life today and perhaps perpetuate/encourage beliefs of a minority that have not made the mental transformation to a more civilized/tolerant/less selfrightous inner life? Todate the practical answer apparently is yes. And that is sad.

Posted by: Larry on September 2, 2006 02:36 PM
The reason that sign is in most stores, etc.. is so when someone comes in and is rude, jumping in line, loud, offensive and disturbing other customers they may not be served and asked to leave... would be a good rule to keep rude and obnoxious chinese out of a nice quiet store.


Posted by: Sherwood on September 4, 2006 11:48 PM
Very interesting topic. Retiree from Bell System, community servant, prison ministeries, feed the hungry, scholarship fundraiser. I had the following experience

Called a fast food restaurant that I have frequented since their inception in our City. They had phone off hook a bit over an hour before closing. Got in car and drove there, soon after leaving, the phone was put back on hook and my cell phone was ringng their phone until I arrived on their parking lot, about 5 minutes before closing. I stated, "wow, you all must have been busy tonight". I told them that I was going to call in an order for the 25 bonus pieces that was promised from an order of 300 pieces the week before. (Good relationship with second owner). However, I said, since you are about to close, I will buy 12 or 15 pieces ... whatever you have. The manager there, of which developed a dislike a year ago due to on a couple occassions buying chicken and there were a piece that had bruised blue veings or just a burned look. I asked to have it replaced. However, he said, "there will be no free pieces tonight.

Also, added, if I had known that the 300 piece order for you last week, you would have never got the order. (Mind you, the second owner friend delivered it to the Church for the feed for me), he said because I don't like you and that you are ignorant. He said, you can tell (John doe - the second owner if you will), it won't do any good. Furthermore, I am going to call the police. I immediately asked, "What is your problem"? He said, I don't like you, you are ignorant. I went on to tell the one helper, I will take just the chicken, and will overlook this ingrate, and irate manner in which I am treated, due to my years of business friendship with the owner family. He told them, you are off my clock, don't serve her. I proceeded to call 911 to see when the officers would arrive, due to my having to get back to the work project we were on to feed the people.

This guy is obviously a pathelogical liar, and even down the second owner. The officers could not believe that there was no hostitility on my part. Yet, the one went in the back and talked with this fellow. He came out and got a piece of paper and wrote a ban and bar and let this fellow read it to me. No reason was cited, and they later stated, just don't give them your business.

Since, I have located the second owner and have a meeting with him and one of the community leaders. This is unbelieveable to be yelled at and slander without a cause and his accusations of me, he was the epitome of. As a community servant and in the top of my thesis program, volunteering for many worthy causes, a follower of the Holy Word, to have such a defamer, there should be strong Law against such poor role modeling and hostility in front of his nervous employees. They kept looking at him strangely and yet, they were afraid to speak up

This restaurant does not have this sign and is open to the public of all backgrounds.

Comments are welcomed.

Great Outreach Avenue.o

Posted by: Rahe on September 12, 2006 01:32 PM
I've done a fair amount of research on the rights of a business owner to refuse to serve customers (I'm a law clerk). The general rule is, a business owner has that right unless they are a common carrier or a public utility. Meaning, there are certain services that are deemed so important, the people who run them are less restricted in who they can refuse to serve. However, they can certainly cut off the folks who don't pay (though that ability itself may be subject to certain restrictions).

But, as for the rest of the businesses out there, those that hold themselves out to the public for business can refuse to serve anyone, subject to federal, state, and local law. For example, the CRA and ADA are countrywide, so such business owners can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, etc. State law can be even more restrictive--California's law prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and even dress. Cities might have similar ordinances as well.

Not that it's relevant here, but a business that doesn't hold itself out to the public has a lot more freedom refuse whoever it wants (like a private club). But they need to be careful--it doesn't take much in the way of crossover in the public realm to lose this "private" status and the freedom that comes with it. Having a liquor license could do it.

By the way, signs don't really affect business owners' rights and liabilities. I think they're more for psychological effect. I'd like to see a business owner in court allege that they're not responsible for an injured customer who slipped and fell on their floor. "But, your honor! We had a sign!" They'd be laughed out of court...if judges laugh, and I haven't seen one laugh yet. But they'd lose anyway. All the same, the sign like the one you showed may be effective as a reminder to the customer, but it has zero effect legally. If they didn't post it, they could still refuse service to anyone, so long as it didn't amount to discrimination of a legally protected class of people.

Posted by: TH of MN on September 30, 2006 04:02 AM
"Meaning, there are certain services that are deemed so important, the people who run them are less restricted in who they can refuse to serve"

Oops...I meant MORE restricted. Good thing I'm not practicing yet ;-)

Posted by: TH of MN on September 30, 2006 04:05 AM
As another answer mentioned, this kind of sign has a history. Up until the 1964 Civil Rights Act businesses were free to discriminate against blacks, American Indians, and other minorities by refusing to serve them or allow them to sit indoors. Before the Act passed many business owners argued that businesses were private property and the government had no right or authority to set rules for them. Passage of the Civil Rights Act made discrimination in businesses illegal but throughout the South many stores and restaurants put up these "we reserve the right" signs to show their defiance of the law. These signs are particularly associated with Lester Maddox, who was elected governor of Georgia after becoming a celebrity for being "forced" to sell his restaurant when he refused to serve blacks.
Today I don't know if these signs have the same intention. Some businesses probably put them up just to be able to turn away rowdy customers. I would be interested to know how African-Americans respond when they see these signs and if they think there is a hidden message implied.

Posted by: Laura on October 4, 2006 08:52 AM
Ok, I've always found the sign somewhat offensive but never really thought that much about it. After an incident today at my shop my views regarding the sign might have changed.

Two young males in baggy clothing came into the store. Their race did not catch my attention but their style of dress. I run a tennis shop and someone wearing baggy jeans and baggy t-shirts is not the normal attire of a tennis player. These same two gentlemen came in yesterday and spiked my attention but I had more staff to keep an eye on them so they left. Now I really hate doing this because it is profiling but I also have to keep track of my inventory and can't afford to have alot of theft. We had already had 4 pairs of shoes stolen in the last two weeks so I'm a little edgy. Well one of them keeps my distracted today while his buddy proceeds to take 2 pairs of shoes out of the boxes and shoves them in the front of his rather large pants. I know this because of the funny way he walked when he left. I could have tried to stop them before they left but I was by myself and didn't want to be accused of stopping someone because of their race. Well I checked they shoe section immediatly after they left and there I found the 2 empty shoe boxes. Now I do believe in due process but at this point I'm thinking instant capital punishment isn't such a bad idea! The police took a report but it was their suggestion that caused me to post here.

The police suggested I post the "right to refuse service" sign in my shop so if these two gentlemen should decide to try this again ( I have no doubt they will, once they find an easy target they seem to return) I can point to the sign and ask them to leave. It's either that or hope I can call the police while they're stealing and pray that a patrol car is in the area.

In closing I think that while the sign is somewhat offensive, it really is a necessary evil. It's a shame that a few who don't know how to behave themselves or have common courtesy around others have made this so.

Posted by: Tommers on October 6, 2006 08:58 AM
Ok. maybe some one can help, For 8 yrs I have been going to a local restaurant near were I work for lunch with a group of my co workers. Never a problem, always paid and left in a timly manor{had to get back to work} we went like we sometimes do on fridays and the manager said we could not eat there any more. It seems that somebody, maybe in a different department ordered some pizza's and never picked them up. Can they discriminate and refuse service because of were I work? It is easy to tell because of my uniform.

Posted by: mike on November 2, 2006 02:39 AM
I think mostly when people post signs like that, they are just trying to protect there business enviroment by someone who might cause unwanted damage to the property and the business it self. The sign is kind of rude but it only for stupid people who might cause disruptions for the business to regulate properly. As far as the legality go I suppose if its a personal property they can do watever they want and say watever they want because of freedom of speech how ever they cannot discriminate on the bases of race,religion,sex. Since all these things hold a stronger ground within all societies.

Posted by: John on November 11, 2006 06:42 AM
The right to refuse service to anyone is not a form of discrimination. Any owner of a private business can perform services and/or provide products to any person(s) they choose. If the owner considers someone rude, smelly, unsightly or otherwise offensive to their main clientele they have the right to refuse service. This does not apply to race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. There are ways around that though.

Posted by: Zachary Lovett on November 29, 2006 01:56 AM
I haven't read all the replies, but I can't believe some of them.

The right to refuse service is a fundamental part of private property rights, as well as the right of association, both which used to be highly valued in the US. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Increasingly, the US is being filled by hypersensitive candy-ass losers, finding offense everywhere they look.

Posted by: Ken C on December 6, 2006 06:12 AM
Any busness can refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory (against a protected class) reason. Exceptions are "public utilities", and in cities where the city charter specifies that a business must be open to all, and agreeing to the charter is a requirement to do business within that city.

Posted by: tony on December 8, 2006 09:13 AM
Its very simple... you as an owner reserve the right to refuse service to anyone WHO: Is offensive/agressive in any way towards you and/or your customers.

The article above represents the thoughts and opinions of the author and does not represent in any way the official position of chefed