Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!sb1!sb6!diy From: diy@sb6.UUCP (D. I. Young) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING Message-ID: <162@sb6.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 11:06:51 EDT Article-I.D.: sb6.162 Posted: Fri Jun 15 11:06:51 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:39:01 EDT Lines: 94 Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I saw those signs in restaurants where I was not allowed to eat in. Please try to remember that this was something that *I* experienced, it's not second- hand info. My homeroom teacher explained to my high school class that that was a way that the shop owners were trying to get around the Civil Rights Bill, which in effect said that we (blacks) could not be denied something simply because we were black. So in high school I had to learn not only the things they were taeching academically, but also that somehow I was just as equal a human being as a white kid my age. "Hey I CAN go into Edward's dept. store and no longer drink out of the 'COLORED' water fountain." Again, these are real and vivid memories of things I experienced. You might note my statement regarding the Civil Rights Bill, and you may say "Aha! The Civil Rights Bill is NOT a BLACK civil rights bill." And you would be right. But when I said that I was remembering that the MAIN REASON THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL was signed was after a whole lot of marching and burning done by blacks during the 60's, when the "WHITE ONLY" signs were removed from businesses. A local visit to your library might give you some pictures as well as well as other info. Much has been ballyhood about the Reagan administration's retrenchment on civil rights issues, and as far as I'm concerned it's about true. I admit that I thought I made a mistake one time when I overheard a conversation in my office among some of my co-workers, all white. I heard a statement to the effect that his admnistration was finally going to stop this shit and put "them back in their place". The mistake I made was in not realizing they were talking about blacks AND women. It wasn't until a little deeper in the conver-- sation when I heard the satement "...blacks want *everything*..." (emphasis their's) that I realized what was going on. My mistake, I did not deal with these guys directly ("What do you mean by putting blacks in their place?") but nevertheless wondered just what they menat by everything. So we have a rash of news stories about the Justice Department and/or the Supreme Court reversing this law or amemnding that law or taking this position on civil rights contrary to previous administrations or appointing people to "INDEPENDENT" commissions who agree with their point of view. We have the situation regarding the King bill and the communist accusations, and after it was publicly known that Hoover waged a smear and harrassment campaign against King ("WHY DON'T YOU JUST KILL YOURSELF AND MAKE IT EASIER") we get the president respond to a question about his feelings by saying "We'll know in 35 years won't we?" So the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the "last hired, first fired" issue really didn't surprise me. But when I think that Reagan, if re-elected, may be appointing new members to the Supreme Court, and I think about the mood of the country as I see it and feel it (based on my everyday social contacts as well as what I read/hear in the news) I see adefinite drift towards my high school days. Attitude is what I'm talking about. I read this morning where the Baptists have passed a law wherein women will NOT be allowed to be ordained as ministers. This is the NATIONAL group, folks. I read a lot of articles in this newsgroup that more often than not start with "Why should I..." and I remember the things that Meese has said and if Reagan wins they'll try to get him the Attorney General's job and then Reagan would be in a position to appoint new members to the Supreme Court...whew!! So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986 mination suit, that would say "That business/ real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please." It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people. It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me. The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my apartments so I should run it as I please!!! do you see what I'm getting at? So, if you think I'm just paranoid, please don't flame against me but please reassure me, and I hope to hell that I *am* wrong, but I see the "Separate but equal" days returning. Two incidents come to mind: a recent event here in Georgia where some black kids were denied admittance to a Boy Scout troop and they were told that it was the organizatoion plans to start "one for them" in the near future. And there is the case of the black lady who was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution who was involved in a similar situation, although I can't remember the details. I won't guess at the details because instead of talking about the thrust of tmy article someone will flame about my screwing up the facts of the DAR incident. But I do remember it was along the lines of "I don't mind you doing this, but do it with your own". And that's not good for anyone and not good for the development of the country. a lot more I could say, but I think I've both vented my spleen :-) and also offered my comments on something I feel that's happening that ain't so good for EVERYBODY!!! dennis