• 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!

Would you patronize a business that discriminated against a race?

Would you patronize a business that discriminated based on race?

  • Nope

    Votes: 70 90.9%
  • Yep

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • Total voters
    77
so some hospitals may refuse to cure a black guy ? just a question.52 users approve this ? interesting.and how can it be legal in this century,thats another question:shock:
 
I know it still happens. I just hate to think that we haven't evolved to the point that this would still be a problem.
So is your ultimate argument that we have evolved enough to not need anti-discrimination laws.....even in light of volk here arguing that businesses should be able to discriminate?
 
I know it still happens. I remember in the late 80s, a local Hardee's (it may be a Carl's Jr to you) ended up shutting down because a cook in the kitchen had HIV. They had a note posted on the door, said that the Dept of Health made them do it. Back then, a lot of misinformation scared a lot of people and made for a lot of bad policy. Anyway, the sign was posted, business fell off and the store ended up shutting down. :shrug:

I don't agree with any kind of discrimination, for any reason. I just hate to think that we haven't evolved to the point that this would still be a problem.

Technically kicking out stinky people is discrimination. I however support discriminatory practices against stink.
 
Yes, Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination.
That was not the point, the point is you think the discrimination came from govt and was forced upon business, it wasn't, not even in Antebellum South. You have it all backaswards as per usual.
 
Technically kicking out stinky people is discrimination. I however support discriminatory practices against stink.
No, it is not what we are talking about, but it is tell of where your argument level remains, ie adolescent.
 
So is your ultimate argument that we have evolved enough to not need anti-discrimination laws.....even in light of volk here arguing that businesses should be able to discriminate?

Let me repeat my last line, in my last post. I thought it was pretty clear.


I don't agree with any kind of discrimination, for any reason. I just hate to think that we haven't evolved to the point that this would still be a problem.
 
:roll:

i guess who don't wish to mention slavery in the north?
Let me get out my translator and change this to standard English.....just a moment...

Oh, yes....I think you are making my point, bigots, racists and their supporters....exist in all parts of the US. The conversation today is proving that.
 
Let me repeat my last line, in my last post. I thought it was pretty clear.


I don't agree with any kind of discrimination, for any reason. I just hate to think that we haven't evolved to the point that this would still be a problem.
I got it the first time, and you seem to still ignore my point, those who advocate for discrimination exist in large numbers and are not afraid to state their case.
 
Chick-a-FillA got more popular due to their bigotry becoming public knowledge and businesses refusing to serve married or engaged gay people raised big bucks on-line from sympathizers. There is no reason to assume that he market will weed out bigots.

Nothing to do with race
 
Um, because of legal penalty, not from pure market standpoint.

The point still is, your "market" solution was not the cause of the ending of Jim Crow, in fact, the economic policies of the South produced slavery, and that ideology caused Jim Crow, the ideology can rear it's ugly head anytime someone spouts off with "I don't like govt (other people) telling me I cannot discriminate against niggers, faggots or anybody else I hate".

You ought to get your head out of the 1960's, that kind if racism is rare anymore
 
Let me get out my translator and change this to standard English.....just a moment...

Oh, yes....I think you are making my point, bigots, racists and their supporters....exist in all parts of the US. The conversation today is proving that.


actually i am making a point, because you said this:


Of course....and it was the Dixie govts that came up with slavery....it was forced upon the Plantations!

when slavery existed in the north as well as the south....but you knew that, you just wanted to be bias.:2razz:
 
Everything to with discrimination.

You use the word "discrimination" incorrectly, you know that? To discriminate means to recognize a distinction between two things. To call someone a "discriminating gentleman " would be a compliment.

The civil rights crowd running around yelling "that's discrimination" just sound ignorant. /rant
 
actually i am making a point, because you said this:




when slavery existed in the north as well as the south....but you knew that, you just wanted to be bias. (sic)
I confirmed your point that bigots and racists existed (and still do ) everywhere in the US, but being context free, you still missed the point. The point was that the laws allowing discrimination (slavery) were largely influenced by BUSINESS interests who wanted the cheap labor. The argument that it was not a market driven law is a complete ignoring of the history.
 
You use the word "discrimination" incorrectly, you know that? To discriminate means to recognize a distinction between two things. To call someone a "discriminating gentleman " would be a compliment.

The civil rights crowd running around yelling "that's discrimination" just sound ignorant. /rant
You know exactly what discrimination is referring to, you admitted such when you said you did not want govt telling you cannot discriminate, the whole context of the debate is about sexual, racial, religious discrimination, and not about "taste". You argument is simply looking for a semantic diversion from its avocation of said discrimination.

Pathetic.
 
That's what I'm assuming. A business would never survive.

I disagree with your conclusion. While it may not be popular, it might serve enough of a niche to actually prosper.
 
I confirmed your point that bigots and racists existed (and still do ) everywhere in the US, but being context free, you still missed the point. The point was that the laws allowing discrimination (slavery) were largely influenced by BUSINESS interests who wanted the cheap labor. The argument that it was not a market driven law is a complete ignoring of the history.

yes there still are bigots and racists, which is not against the law to be one...as some people would like for it to be.
 
I'm sure you think you have a point there. Just because something is legal doesn't mean I endorse it.
Pathetic diversionary BS.

This is the debate, you advocate for racial discrimination by business:

Not much, right now, you have folks, like yourself, advocating the legality of racial discrimination in public accommodation...just like defenders of Jim Crow.
Yeah, I don't like the government being able to tell a business who they can or can't serve, and I think the public has evolved enough over the years to where any business that wanted to discriminate by race would find themselves broke very quickly

I don't think anti discrimination laws are American, and they're not needed anymore
 
yes there still are bigots and racists, which is not against the law to be one...as some people would like for it to be.
Again , the CONTEXT is that the ACTIONS of bigots is illegal, and folks are arguing that businesses should be allowed to practice illegal, racist actions.
 
Again , the CONTEXT is that the ACTIONS of bigots is illegal, and folks are arguing that businesses should be allowed to practice illegal, racist actions.

if there is no victim.....meaning that no rights are violated or no threat to the public......it cannot be illegal.
 
Yeah, I know -- I know all about the Civil rights movement, but do you honestly believe that, had all those in the fight not fought and died for civil rights, we'd still be where we were beforehand?

I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that we've evolved, and that in 2015, we wouldn't have white's only lunch counters.

Probably not whites-only, but "no gays or Muslims allowed" is likely to happen.
 
Probably not but I would respect their right to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom