• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Businesses have no right to hinder commerce unless a customer is harming the business. A free-flowing economy is the healthiest, which makes for a stronger nation. Keep your personal biases at home.

So remove the obligation for liquor stores to discriminate by age, after all, they're hindering commerce by discriminating against over a quarter of the population.
 
The Christian bakers refused, and now are out of business. Reality mugs you again.


See #1

See #1

No, you can't say no. See #1. Your facts aren't facts, you just think they are.

Your facts aren't facts. Melissa's Cupcakes is still in business. They're running it out of their home
 
How does abortion fit in with this law? How about birth control? Someone shows up at a drug store wanting to buy condoms. But the person behind the counter doesn't want to sell them to you based on his/her religion. How about selling prescriptions to divorcees? Or atheists?

This will get shot down in the courts, but it will be interesting to see how far this does and how much damage Pence will do to his state before it gets overturned.
 
I see you are okay with coercion and force.
A redundant statement as coercion includes the use of force, but yes I support correct application of coercion in many, many ways.
 
OK, if you want to avoid the point, that's fine. But again, there is no harm when you make a choice as a consumer. When a business discriminates it is the opposite of choice and the harm is easily identifiable.

How? If someone doesn't provide you a service they have not altered your condition. How were you harmed?
 
A redundant statement as coercion includes the use of force, but yes I support correct application of coercion in many, many ways.
Coercion doesn't always require force. What is the correct application of coercion?
 
A libertarian dictatorship? That would like a war between pacifists.
Libertarians who subscribe to Anarcho-capitalist beliefs do indeed support libertarian dictatorships. If you're going to slap "Libertarian" into your lean you'd do well to at least know a little bit about how it works because you make all 'Tarians look bad on this forum.
 
It is a public business.
So you favor repealing all Civil Rights laws that pertain to color. Hey why not throw in disabilities as well?

A business is obligated only to those with a stake in it. If I, as a customer, can refuse to shop at a store owned by Christians, why can't black people refuse to serve me because I'm white?

And why do medical services get a pass?

Because they're a tad more important than buying lipstick.
 
We've moved passed this. You may want to read the thread and catch up instead of trying to drag everyone backwards.
So basically you don't have a response. Thanks.
 
Healthcare is a service. A privately owned hospital is absolutely a business.

There are public hospitals.

Healthcare is not just another service. Forcing a critically sick or injured person to seek out the hospital which does not discriminate against them or to leave a hospital at which they were turned away because they are __________ (fill in the blank), could have life threatening consequences. Even if a person is not in critical condition, getting to another hospital could be a barrier to a necessary service and that person's health could suffer.

The three hospitals in my general area are all private and operated by the same corporation. I would have to travel almost an hour to the nearest not-for-profit hospital. To permit discrimination in healthcare related services is unconscionable.
 
Last edited:
What is the correct application of coercion?
They are numerous. One example is to coerce a business to allow the free-flow of commerce when there is no demonstrable harm, under threat of revoking their business license.
 
A business is obligated only to those with a stake in it. If I, as a customer, can refuse to shop at a store owned by Christians, why can't black people refuse to serve me because I'm white?

Because the people have delegated to the govt the power to regulate businesses but not the power to regulate shoppers.
 
They are numerous. One example is to coerce a business to allow the free-flow of commerce when there is no demonstrable harm, under threat of revoking their business license.
So.... The exact opposite of Liberty. Got it.
 
Libertarians who subscribe to Anarcho-capitalist beliefs do indeed support libertarian dictatorships. If you're going to slap "Libertarian" into your lean you'd do well to at least know a little bit about how it works because you make all 'Tarians look bad on this forum.

:roll: I was not aware a community based around voluntary interaction and membership was a dictatorship. Maybe you can enlighten me on this incredibly bizarre conclusion of yours.
 
Because the people have delegated the power to regulate businesses but not the power to regulate shoppers.

Ok then. I'm calling for the end of customer discrimination. People should be forced to shop at certain stores a certain number of times each week and spend a certain amount of money to ensure the market is unhindered, and no-one is discriminated against.
 
Ok then. I'm calling for the end of customer discrimination. People should be forced to shop at certain stores a certain number of times each week and spend a certain amount of money to ensure the market is unhindered, and no-one is discriminated against.

And if you convince enough people, you can get a constitutional amendment passed enabling such laws. That's how it works in a constitutional democracy

Good luck.

in the meantime, you're SOL
 
I'm curious - do those who promote the right of owners in businesses to discriminate and choose who they'll accept as customers differentiate between a business where an owner is simply selling a product as opposed to one where the owner is selling him/herself? Is there a difference in your minds between a coffee shop owner selling coffee and muffins and a catering service preparing and serving food at an event?

The reason I ask is because I see a large difference and if we're talking strictly about the sale of a product "off the self" then I would say that no discrimination of any kind should ever be allowed. However, if we are talking about the sale of oneself - in effect, contracting the owner as an individual to perform a particular task unique to the particular customer, then I would personally be more receptive to declining the contract. But still I would personally be opposed to being allowed to decline the contract based on the client's person rather than on the terms of the contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom