Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous grounds

Andalublue · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

rivrrat said:
I recognize that we have all the rights my country has granted us. I just don't agree with the stupid ones. Like the 'right to be served by someone against their will'. Or the 'right to invade private property against the will of the owner.'

Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam]Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I agree the government should not discriminate. But individual citizens have no 'right' to expect that from other individual citizens.

Well, according to the legislation we've been discussing, they do have that right, even if you don't like it

If I don't want you on my property for ANY reason, I can make you leave. By pretty much any means necessary depending on the state.

See above - Right to roam.

That shouldn't change just because I own a business. I should not LOSE rights when I own a business and every other person in the country should not gain the right to be served by me against my will.

It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.

The reason I used the 'right not to be offended' is because that's what this is all about.

Discrimination is more than just about causing offence. You put up a sign saying "I hate Europeans" and I will be offended, end of story. If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.

From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.

Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.

Ikari · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Andalublue said:
Well, the society of the United Kingdom has defined the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. In the US society has defined that you have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. You clearly don't like this, which is your prerogative. Are you saying that the only rights you recognise are those stipulated in the US Bill of Rights?

It's closer to life, liberty, and property; which are the corner stones to all rights.

Andalublue said:
You cannot grant or deny the right to be offended. I will be offended by whatever the hell makes me so. I will also maintain that Government may and must use legislation where necessary to ensure we do not have a society that victimises, discriminates unfairly or otherwise attacks the equal treatment of its citizens.

And I think you should do that your own damned self. But using government to infringe upon someone's property is not a just act. No one has the right to be served by absolutely everyone else. If someone owns a business, it's not your right to be a customer of that business. The business owner can decide for himself. That's how it is. If it's something the community doesn't like, y'all can not go there. If the business doesn't do business, the business goes away. And that's the proper way to elicit change in this scenario. But government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is nothing more than an act of tyranny.

rivrrat · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Andalublue said:
Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.

Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not much point in owning property there, then.

It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.

But it *shouldn't*.

If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.

No, it causes no harm at all. It just pisses people off, or hurts their feelings. If I refuse to sell you a donut at my donut shop, you can't seriously sit there and expect me to believe that "harms" you.

That gay couple had plenty of other places to stay since I'm quite sure that bed and breakfast wasn't the only place to stay in the country.

From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.

Yup.

Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.

Unjust implies government mistreatment. That is not what we're discussing.

Andalublue · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

rivrrat said:
Not much point in owning property there, then.

How might that impinge on your right to do what the hell you want on your property?

But it *shouldn't*.

You say shouldn't, I say should. Let's agree to disagree.

No, it causes no harm at all. It just pisses people off, or hurts their feelings. If I refuse to sell you a donut at my donut shop, you can't seriously sit there and expect me to believe that "harms" you.

That's disingenuous. If you owned the only pharmacy in town and refused to sell me my cancer drugs? If you were the sole local electricity supplier?

Yup.

Shame on you. But perhaps you liked things better when the minorities knew their place and when might really acted as if it was right, and got away with it.

Unjust implies government mistreatment. That is not what we're discussing.

In what dictionary does the definition of justice limit itself to the actions of government? Are you claiming that only government mistreatment can be defined as unjust?

unjust
• adjective not just; unfair.
— DERIVATIVES unjustly adverb. From the OED.

rivrrat · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Andalublue said:
How might that impinge on your right to do what the hell you want on your property?

What I want to do on my property is not have anyone else on it.

That's disingenuous. If you owned the only pharmacy in town and refused to sell me my cancer drugs? If you were the sole local electricity supplier?

What if? I'm not sure I see your point? Are people not free to move elsewhere if they're unhappy where they live?

Shame on you. But perhaps you liked things better when the minorities knew their place and when might really acted as if it was right, and got away with it.

Shame on me? Why do you think that I approve of discrimination just because I think people should be allowed to do it?

In what dictionary does the definition of justice limit itself to the actions of government? Are you claiming that only government mistreatment can be defined as unjust?

unjust
• adjective not just; unfair.
— DERIVATIVES unjustly adverb. From the OED.

I said it implied.

If you want to just use it as "unfair", well then I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve. So, there you are supporting unjust activities.

But seriously, unfair? That's the argument you want to use? It's unfair? I know you can do better than that. Nothing is fair to everyone, and it doesn't need to be. People need to get over the fact that there are some people who aren't going to like them.

alexa · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

MyOwnDrum said:
This is in England where a Christian B&B owner refused a homosexual couple accommodation. Should this be allowed or not? For those of you who haven't visited the UK, B&Bs are much more common over there and American style motels are rare. Many, many homeowners supplement their incomes by operating B&Bs in their homes.

Should they be forced to take in gay couples if it is against their religious beliefs?

Gay couple turned away from B&B by Christian owners | World news | The Guardian

When I was young they wouldn't let you share a room if you did not have a wedding ring and they did not believe you were married.

Since then things have changed.

I mean at that time they used to put up placards saying 'No Irish' or 'No Coloureds' and it was against the law to be gay.

Things have changed. In order to be a homogeneous society where all people were treated equally, not suffering for being different in a way which they could not change, we brought in laws to stop people acting out their prejudices.

Anyone living in the UK will need to follow them because we live under the rule of law.

If these Christians have an aversion to putting up gays then they possibly could make their establishment a Christian only one hoping that Christian gays will not bring them to court.

Otherwise they can find another way to earn their living.

ADK_Forever · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

alexa said:
If these Christians have an aversion to putting up gays then they possibly could make their establishment a Christian only one hoping that Christian gays will not bring them to court.

If these "Christians" feel so strongly about discriminating against their fellow men, and women, they could just stop charging people from staying there. Then it would legally be their "private residence" and they could discriminate to their Christian hearts' content. :doh

Andalublue · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

rivrrat said:
What I want to do on my property is not have anyone else on it.

Well, of course there are those who believe that if you buy a parcel of land then it is for you to do as you wish with it and behave as you will on it. Of course that's not true. You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing.

The fact that you buy a property does not mean that that property becomes irrevocably and unrestrictedly yours. You must still pay your taxes on it, maintain it according to local and national restrictions and you must still obey the laws of the land in which it lies. Whether you wish to accept these restrictions or not does not change that.

What if? I'm not sure I see your point? Are people not free to move elsewhere if they're unhappy where they live?

Absolutely. If property or business owners don't want to abide by the laws of the territory in which they own property, they may move to somewhere where the laws they dislike don't apply.

Shame on me? Why do you think that I approve of discrimination just because I think people should be allowed to do it?

I do believe you approve of it, because if you, and the rest of the society in which you live, decide that a certain set of behaviours are unacceptable, then you legislate against them. Those that disagree with such legislation may protest and seek to change those laws, but until that happens they must accept the consequences that their defiance of those laws brings.

If you disapprove of such discrimination then you, as a responsible citizen, have a responsibility to do something to challenge that discrimination. If you choose to accept that discrimination then you are complicit with it.

I said it implied.

If implication was all you were referring to, then why make the statement, "That is not what we're discussing"? True, we were not discussing government mistreatment. We were discussing injustice. You used government mistreatment as a straw horse to avoid discussing injustice. Now you're not being consistent.

If you want to just use it as "unfair", well then I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve. So, there you are supporting unjust activities.

You are claiming that forcing a business owner to treat his/her customers equally is unfair. I would suggest that most people wouldn't agree with you.

But seriously, unfair? That's the argument you want to use? It's unfair? I know you can do better than that. Nothing is fair to everyone, and it doesn't need to be. People need to get over the fact that there are some people who aren't going to like them.

Unfairness is an inexact term. It runs the spectrum from, "Mummy, he's got a bigger piece of cake than I have, that's not fair!" to "The unrepresentative presence of African Americans on death row points to a judicial system that is both prejudicial and unfair". 'Unfair' is neither a precise nor a flippant, easily-dismissed term. The extent to which unfairness is tolerated is a litmus test for a society. I suspect that the place where you draw the line of fairness and where I might draw that line are some considerable distance apart.

rivrrat · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Andalublue said:
Well, of course there are those who believe that if you buy a parcel of land then it is for you to do as you wish with it and behave as you will on it. Of course that's not true. You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing.

The fact that you buy a property does not mean that that property becomes irrevocably and unrestrictedly yours. You must still pay your taxes on it, maintain it according to local and national restrictions and you must still obey the laws of the land in which it lies. Whether you wish to accept these restrictions or not does not change that.

Well let's just say, I'm glad we don't have free roaming laws here.

Absolutely. If property or business owners don't want to abide by the laws of the territory in which they own property, they may move to somewhere where the laws they dislike don't apply.

Or, we can try and change the laws. And if people don't like the way a business owner does business, they can simply refuse to give them any more business.

I do believe you approve of it, because if you, and the rest of the society in which you live, decide that a certain set of behaviours are unacceptable, then you legislate against them. Those that disagree with such legislation may protest and seek to change those laws, but until that happens they must accept the consequences that their defiance of those laws brings.

If you disapprove of such discrimination then you, as a responsible citizen, have a responsibility to do something to challenge that discrimination. If you choose to accept that discrimination then you are complicit with it.

ROFL

No. Sorry. Disagreeing with an action is not a reason to legislate against that action. Not at all. There are MANY things I disagree with to my core, but would never - in a million years - try to remove someone's freedom to do them.

Obviously you're not familiar with the following quote and belief: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would never be so fascist as to think that everyone in the country should believe, speak and act the same way I do, or only in ways that I approve of.

If implication was all you were referring to, then why make the statement, "That is not what we're discussing"? True, we were not discussing government mistreatment. We were discussing injustice. You used government mistreatment as a straw horse to avoid discussing injustice. Now you're not being consistent.

No, I attribute "injustice" to the realm of the government and our JUSTICE system.

You are claiming that forcing a business owner to treat his/her customers equally is unfair. I would suggest that most people wouldn't agree with you.

No, I said it's not RIGHT to force someone to serve you against their will. Fairness has nothing to do with it. No one has the right to be served by someone else.

I additionally said that the business owner should not lose property rights simply by opening a business.

Unfairness is an inexact term. It runs the spectrum from, "Mummy, he's got a bigger piece of cake than I have, that's not fair!" to "The unrepresentative presence of African Americans on death row points to a judicial system that is both prejudicial and unfair". 'Unfair' is neither a precise nor a flippant, easily-dismissed term. The extent to which unfairness is tolerated is a litmus test for a society. I suspect that the place where you draw the line of fairness and where I might draw that line are some considerable distance apart.

In the private realm, between individuals, fairness is simply irrelevant.

Andalublue · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

rivrrat said:
Well let's just say, I'm glad we don't have free roaming laws here.

Well, that's called avoiding the question. I said, "You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing." What has this got to do with the Right to Roam?

Or, we can try and change the laws. And if people don't like the way a business owner does business, they can simply refuse to give them any more business.

Of course that's true. It just depends on whom you place the burden of change; the person doing the discriminating or the person being discriminated against. You seem more concerned about the 'rights' of the discriminator than those of the discriminated.

ROFL

That sounded like a rather nervous ROFL. I think you know that inaction in the face of manifest injustice IS complicity and that you are, therefore, complicit.

No. Sorry. Disagreeing with an action is not a reason to legislate against that action. Not at all. There are MANY things I disagree with to my core, but would never - in a million years - try to remove someone's freedom to do them.

If we were merely discussing the exchange of opinions between people then you might have a point. We are, however, discussing actions of one party against the interests of another. That's something beyond disagreement. The actions of the owners caused harm and damaged, to put it in US constitutional terms, the gay couple's "liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Obviously you're not familiar with the following quote and belief: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Obviously, I am familiar with Voltaire's quotation, but I fear you may be running out of straw horses. The freedom of expression is not at issue. Voltaire did not say, "I disapprove of what you do, but defend to the death your right to do it". I think he knew what he meant.

I would never be so fascist as to think that everyone in the country should believe, speak and act the same way I do, or only in ways that I approve of.

Then what commitment do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Should everyone be free to behave in whatever manner their own conscience (or lack of such) sees fit? What role do you see the law playing in your society?

No, I attribute "injustice" to the realm of the government and our JUSTICE system.

I think that is a narrow and insincere definition of justice. As with terms such as conservative, religion, law and liberal, justice may be written with a big or a small j and claiming otherwise is avoiding the matter.

No, I said it's not RIGHT to force someone to serve you against their will. Fairness has nothing to do with it. No one has the right to be served by someone else.

Do you think I am not reading your posts? You said, (Post 305) "I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve." If you are now claiming that you meant to say "not RIGHT" then please define the difference between "unfair" (Post 305) and "not RIGHT" (Post 309).

I additionally said that the business owner should not lose property rights simply by opening a business.

They don't lose any property rights (however you might define those) by so doing, they just accept new social responsibilities by doing so.

In the private realm, between individuals, fairness is simply irrelevant.

The owners had every 'right' to discriminate against gays by not inviting them into their private home. By opening a business they converted their 'private' home into a 'public' business and had to accept the change in status and responsibilities that such a decision brought.

rivrrat · Mar 31, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Andalublue said:
Of course that's true. It just depends on whom you place the burden of change; the person doing the discriminating or the person being discriminated against. You seem more concerned about the 'rights' of the discriminator than those of the discriminated.

No, I'm more concerned about the personal property rights of a business owner, regardless of whether or not they're pricks.

That sounded like a rather nervous ROFL. I think you know that inaction in the face of manifest injustice IS complicity and that you are, therefore, complicit.

Whatever you want to believe, dear. :lol:

If we were merely discussing the exchange of opinions between people then you might have a point. We are, however, discussing actions of one party against the interests of another. That's something beyond disagreement. The actions of the owners caused harm and damaged, to put it in US constitutional terms, the gay couple's "liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Hurting someone's feelings isn't causing harm or damage.

Then what commitment do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Should everyone be free to behave in whatever manner their own conscience (or lack of such) sees fit? What role do you see the law playing in your society?

What commitment? I don't commit anything to the government. I break the laws I disagree with if I want to. And try to change them. Should people be able to do what they want? Pretty much. As long as they're not causing physical harm to one another, stealing other's property, etc.

Hurting someone's feelings doesn't count as 'harm'.

I think that is a narrow and insincere definition of justice. As with terms such as conservative, religion, law and liberal, justice may be written with a big or a small j and claiming otherwise is avoiding the matter.

I said that's how I see it. And it is.

Do you think I am not reading your posts? You said, (Post 305) "I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve." If you are now claiming that you meant to say "not RIGHT" then please define the difference between "unfair" (Post 305) and "not RIGHT" (Post 309).

Holy ****, seriously? I was using the word YOU used as an example of how ****ing stupid it was. You wanted to use "unfair" or "unjust" so I applied it the same way you did but with MY argument.

They don't lose any property rights (however you might define those) by so doing, they just accept new social responsibilities by doing so.

Yes, they do. They lose the right to remove anyone they want from their property for any reason they want.

The owners had every 'right' to discriminate against gays by not inviting them into their private home. By opening a business they converted their 'private' home into a 'public' business and had to accept the change in status and responsibilities that such a decision brought.

And I disagree that they should lose rights when they open a business. I disagree with forcing a person to serve someone they don't want to serve. No one has a right to be served by someone else.

Andalublue · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

rivrrat said:
No, I'm more concerned about the personal property rights of a business owner, regardless of whether or not they're pricks...

This has been an interesting debate. I think I understand where you are coming from pretty well, and the kind of society you'd like to create, even if it isn't somewhere I'd care to spend much time.

Obviously, we don't agree on anything very much, nevertheless I'm glad to have had the exchange.

Thanks for taking the time to debate with me and good luck to you!

Andalublue

Vader · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

The votes in this poll show a very republicanazi stance on wanton discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. You are NOT allowed to do it. Accept this fact and move on.

Andalublue · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Vader said:
The votes in this poll show a very republicanazi stance on wanton discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. You are NOT allowed to do it. Accept this fact and move on.

What do you expect? This is DP, the FoxNews of debate forums.

TurtleDude · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Vader said:
The votes in this poll show a very republicanazi stance on wanton discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. You are NOT allowed to do it. Accept this fact and move on.

really?

so if you are a hot chick it is wrong to turn down the advances of some fat drunken slob who tries to pick you up at a bar--that is discrimination

is it wrong for Yale or Amherst to turn down applicants with a 2.0 average and bottom 25% SAT scores? that is discrimination

is it wrong for Coach K to offer Duke basketball scholarships to only HS all-Americans or "blue chip" rated recruits rather than slow short guys who cannot dribble?

we discriminate all the time and the government should not be in a position of forcing someone to serve someone else

it might be wrong, it might be stupid, it might even be bigoted but it should not be illegal

alexa · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
really?

so if you are a hot chick it is wrong to turn down the advances of some fat drunken slob who tries to pick you up at a bar--that is discrimination

this is personal choice and he should not be making advances anyway. There is nothing in our laws to stop a person doing that.

TurtleDude said:
is it wrong for Yale or Amherst to turn down applicants with a 2.0 average and bottom 25% SAT scores? that is discrimination

is it wrong for Coach K to offer Duke basketball scholarships to only HS all-Americans or "blue chip" rated recruits rather than slow short guys who cannot dribble?

Clearly this is to do with selection of the best and nothing to do with discrimination against. There is nothing in our laws to stop this.

TurtleDude said:
we discriminate all the time and the government should not be in a position of forcing someone to serve someone else

it might be wrong, it might be stupid, it might even be bigoted but it should not be illegal

speak for yourself.

These laws concerning businesses are about discrimination against something which is part of the person. Not some drunken state the person is in or whether the person has some kind of ability.

It is discrimination on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation.

These b & b owners could get over this as I have already said by opening a Christian only B & B.

They almost certainly could have got away with anyway if they had just said they were full up but they had to add insult and that is what got them arrested.

TurtleDude · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

You seem to think you can disprove an opinion with an opinion

I don't think the federal government properly has the power to tell someone who owns a business whom they have to serve

That I oppose such laws is not the same as saying I support gay bashing or racism. However, I do not believe the government properly has the power to tell someone they have to serve gays or blacks or whites or fat people or thin people or bikers etc. if a business makes stupid decisions based on bigotry, the market is going to give the business a rather painful lesson.

For example, if you don't serve gays in San Francisco or gun owners in Butte Montana chances are you are going to go out of business

Kushinator · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
really?

I see you are going out of your way to reach for something of any substance. Regardless, ill correct your failure to employ logic:2wave:

so if you are a hot chick it is wrong to turn down the advances of some fat drunken slob who tries to pick you up at a bar--that is discrimination

Discrimination in this regard pertains to business discrimination. A personal relationship does not (and should not) in no way compare to discussion at hand (your failed leap in logic), so to respond in any fashion other than :lol: is pointless.

However, if she is a prostitute, given the premise behind "business", she has all the right to deny a grotesque "heckler" if her being seen with him will negatively effect her status and demand from future clients. However, if the "client" tells her up front he'll pay double triple whatever, she can then make a rational cost benefit analysis. Her refusal of service out of "bigotry" counteracts the very reason she began selling her body in the first place (money! not the act of sexing a certain characteristic of guys unless it pertains to max profits).

is it wrong for Yale or Amherst to turn down applicants with a 2.0 average and bottom 25% SAT scores? that is discrimination

Nope. It is simple economics. Given that Yale will have more applicants with 4.0 GPA than they can admit in a given year, not allowing middle of the road students is a matter of quality assurance. Remember, you pay not for the quality of education (that is all on the student) but instead who you sit next to in lecture. Why would families want to pay 50k/yr to have their son or daughter sit next to a bunch of 2.0's with low study skills/desire to learn?

is it wrong for Coach K to offer Duke basketball scholarships to only HS all-Americans or "blue chip" rated recruits rather than slow short guys who cannot dribble?

Nope. But you fail on a (consistent basis) to consider the motivation behind opening up a top university, or a top notch basketball program. They do so to be of top quality, in which they can rightfully charge (Coach K is not cheep) the cost of attendance to be able to employ a top notch coach who can deliver on the promise to be great.

we discriminate all the time and the government should not be in a position of forcing someone to serve someone else

Again, another failure in logic. People discriminate on the basis of utility/profit maximization and doing so is not only legal, but ethically just. When you open your doors to the public in an attempt to pull profit, unless that person/group is negatively effecting your motive (profit), it only makes sense to serve them.

It is quite legal and just to discriminate (if you are a profit orientated firm) on the basis of money. Why? That is why you went into business in the first place.

it might be wrong, it might be stupid, it might even be bigoted but it should not be illegal

And that is where you are wrong. Until you and the others can present an argument that "not being allowed to be a bigoted firm" effects the said firms bottom line (you know, the reason they started the business), you will only be playing the "me me me, i want what i want" card. None the less, it is a lousy card to play.

TurtleDude · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

you seem confused and determined to engage in sophistry

if you are a libertarian you need to check out your philosophy

it is my opinion that the federal government only has the PROPER powers delegated to it to the constitution

I am at loss to find where the power to force a bed and breakfast to serve gays was delegated to the government

it also is MY OPINION that the sanctity of the right to contract or to control your own personal property TRUMPS laws that impose the contrary on people

let us see if your supposed logic is strong enough to refute that

alexa · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
you seem confused and determined to engage in sophistry

if you are a libertarian you need to check out your philosophy

it is my opinion that the federal government only has the PROPER powers delegated to it to the constitution

I am at loss to find where the power to force a bed and breakfast to serve gays was delegated to the government

it also is MY OPINION that the sanctity of the right to contract or to control your own personal property TRUMPS laws that impose the contrary on people

let us see if your supposed logic is strong enough to refute that

That is because not everyone on the board is from the US and the incident itself happened in the UK where there are such laws to stop people from acting out their prejudices.

It works just fine apart from for the odd bigot who gets caught.

TurtleDude · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

alexa said:
That is because not everyone on the board is from the US and the incident itself happened in the UK where there are such laws to stop people from acting out their prejudices.

It works just fine apart from for the odd bigot who gets caught.

do you think the passage of a law precludes further debate on an issue?

Kushinator · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
you seem confused and determined to engage in sophistry

if you are a libertarian you need to check out your philosophy

it is my opinion that the federal government only has the PROPER powers delegated to it to the constitution

I am at loss to find where the power to force a bed and breakfast to serve gays was delegated to the government

it also is MY OPINION that the sanctity of the right to contract or to control your own personal property TRUMPS laws that impose the contrary on people

let us see if your supposed logic is strong enough to refute that

A lame comment seeing as my political ideology stems from realism and not idealism. Due to this fact, i view liberty and freedom in a more - dare we say - sophisticated

manner than the general libertarian base.

If anything; the bed and breakfast owners were acting in a "non competitive" manner (notice i did not say anti-competitive). You and the rest cannot (and have not) been able to rationalize any particular reason to behave "non competitively" other than "i can do what i want".

In fact; i can think of a ton of reasons to be non competitive and not infringe on other peoples lives. Can you?

alexa · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
do you think the passage of a law precludes further debate on an issue?

No of course not but it makes no difference what the laws are in the US to us.

If people want to change this sort of thing they generally vote for the BNP.

TurtleDude · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

Goldenboy219 said:
A lame comment seeing as my political ideology stems from realism and not idealism. Due to this fact, i view liberty and freedom in a more - dare we say - sophisticated manner than the general libertarian base.

If anything; the bed and breakfast owners were acting in a "non competitive" manner (notice i did not say anti-competitive). You and the rest cannot (and have not) been able to rationalize any particular reason to behave "non competitively" other than "i can do what i want".

In fact; i can think of a ton of reasons to be non competitive and not infringe on other peoples lives. Can you?

lets cut the crap and stop the nonsense

the poll was SHOULD A B A B owner be allowed

My answer was yes

Not because it is a good business decision

not becuase the law says yes or no

Merely because it is my opinion that is the right of a property owner

now you can engage in all t he mental self abuse you want but you are never going to prove my opinion is wrong or that what I value--personal property rights over even business sense--is WRONG

you can disagree with it but stop pretending you can prove an opinion wrong

I was Ed Clark's campaign chairman for New Haven many years ago so I understand the true libertarian philosophy. I am sure he wouldn't support such a law

alexa · Apr 3, 2010

Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

TurtleDude said:
Merely because it is my opinion that is the right of a property owner

now you can engage in all t he mental self abuse you want but you are never going to prove my opinion is wrong or that what I value--personal property rights over even business sense--is WRONG

you can disagree with it but stop pretending you can prove an opinion wrong

No you put the right to be offensive and prejudiced above treating all members of society equally. That is all that this is about.

Nothing to do with property rights or business, that is just to hide behind.

Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous grounds

Should B&B owners be allowed to refuse gay couples?

Yes, they should be allowed to refuse anyone for any reason

The should be allowed to refuse if it violates their religious beliefs

They should be fined for discriminating against gays

They should lose their B&B license for discriminating against gays

Other, please explain

Hello again!

Goddess of Bacon

Hello again!

Goddess of Bacon

Hello again!

Goddess of Bacon

Hello again!

Goddess of Bacon

Hello again!

Hello again!

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

I'm not-low all the time

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

I'm not-low all the time

warrior of the wetlands