It's good politics to insist all white Christians are intolerant terrorists who would lynch or crucify anyone with a different skin tone or religious background than them but I just don't see any real evidence of it.
Wake up on the "histrionic drama queen" side of the bed this morning?
Must be, because this nonsense bears absolutely no relation to what I actually said.
There are very, very few businesses who refuse service to people because of ethnicity, religious practices, etc. and I just don't believe that is because a law was passed.
No, it's because a law was passed and enforced and the enforcement of that law sculpted behavior.
See how that puts the horse before the cart?
First the law came, then behavior began to change as a result of the law, then the idea that it's not cool to discriminate against people followed suit.
You might be more familiar with it as the concept of acculturation.
Kind of how schools were forcing kids to say prayers that they may or may not have believed in until a law was passed saying that forcing kids to pray in school was illegal.
First the law came, then the behavior changed, and though we're still working on it opinion began to change.
The only thing these laws do is force an extremely small minority of the people to do business with people they would rather not do business with and I'm just not sure where you draw the line.
Boo hoo hoo.
People have to sell stuff to people they may not have a strong personal afffinity for.
Poor little shop keeps.
:roll:
Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store...
If you reread my post you'll note that I've already conceded that they would.
My concern is that those other choices might be impossibly oppressive in terms of expense or time and distance involved.
If you can prove to me that this would absolutely not be a concern for anyone, anywhere in America then I'll happily let it go.
And please note that proving it to me will actually require objective proof, not just your opinion.
...but it's your fictitious story so let's assume they don't. Would the result on this Muslim family be any different if instead of not serving Muslims he moved his only game in town to a more lucrative spot or retired? Is it safe to say you believe the vet should be forced to work against his will until someone else comes along to provide for this Muslim family?
So your contention would be that he wouldn't sell his business, or that another enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't recognize the need in the market for a grocery store and fill the void?
Maybe you'll buy that but I've got much to much faith in capitalisim to accept it.
It's perfectly plausible that a given micromarket might only support one grocery score due to economies of scale preventing two from competing.
But it's simply preposterous to presume that the market forces wouldn't answer an opportunity for needs to be met.
That vet would have sold the business prior to retirement and he'd have invested the proceeds in an immediate annuity that's now funding his retirement.
Irrelevant.