jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (11 posts)

Austin,TX - New Window Signs

  1. realtalk247 profile image67
    realtalk247posted 2 years ago

    Austin, Tx
    Stickers found “exclusively for white people” in the windows of several business.  The stickers explain “Maximum of 5 colored customers/colored BOH staff accepted.”  In case you are wondering what boh means, it means back of house operations at restaurants.  When I read this story I thought about the Woolworth Lunch Counter protest of racial inequality that occurred in 1960 in Greensboro, NC. 

    Is this 2015?  What is going on regarding race issues in America?  Our internal war regarding color threatens to tear the nation apart.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In all fairness, I heard that the proprietors of these shops may not have been responsible for the stickers, but it is some sort of stunt by rabble rousers. I guess that I will stay tuned....

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It appears you are right.

        This link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/1 … 04296.html also included this; "State Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) reposted what appeared to be Smith's photo on her own Facebook page Wednesday, and denounced those responsible for the “tasteless” act....

        ...Dukes said she has been in touch with city managers and officials. In her Facebook post, she called for readers to boycott Rare Trends "until 'some explaining' is done.”

        Says a lot about that Democrat Representative doesn't it?

        Several other articles also made the point this was an act of vandalism - not business practices or a new "movement."

        I suppose it would be nice to live in a world without nut cases and yahoos - but we are not there yet, and the OP should have done a little checking before posting.


        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          GA, I have plenty of legitimate beefs with right, I don't see the need to fabricate anything, nor support a democrat that does.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Likely a stunt, but it raises a serious point in relation to discrimination. Will legal decisions relating to "religious freedom" that allow business to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, mean we will see "we don't serve gays" stickers on businesses? And what if someone uses religion as justification for discriminating on the basis of color/race (as was to justify slavery and prohibition on interracial marriage)? Will racial discrimination be protected under "religious freedom" also?

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The Civil Rights of 1964, requires equal access and service at public accommodations. I am not concerned about the pranksters, as I know this even when they may not. As for discrimation based on sexual orientation, I doubt that it will be permitted.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          It already is.  How many priests will marry a straight couple but refuse to do the same for gays?  I've seen cases where bakers, making wedding cakes, refused to make one for a gay couple and got away with it.  Idaho allows landlords to rent based on sexual orientation now - the proposed law to prohibit that just went down in flames.

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That is problematic, but I don't consider churches public accommodations. Sexual orientation is not now considered the basis for an addendum on the 1964 Act, but with gay marriage so prevalent and made legal , you can bet that it will coming soon.

  2. realtalk247 profile image67
    realtalk247posted 2 years ago

    I heard these stickers were posted by unknown parties but regardless it's sad.

  3. FitnezzJim profile image82
    FitnezzJimposted 2 years ago

    Sometimes tasteless pranks should be treated as tasteless pranks.  However …
    Could a boycott reaction that harms a business lead to the pranksters being held financially responsible?  Is the person or group that calls for the boycott held responsible if the boycott results in loss to an innocent target?

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, FJ, how is it shakin? Nice to see you.

      I don't know if anymore can be done in the way of legal remedy that if graffiti were placed on the physical place of business. What is the charge, defacing private property and malicious mischief? The pranksters can't be held responsible for the reaction of, say, the black community if it chose to boycott, as that is their option with any merchant, to withhold its business. I wouldn't take remedy like a boycott lightly if it is not based on
      solid evidence of actual grievance. I am sure that most of the AA community would not either.