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