• 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!

Its ok for a business owner to refuse to do business with...

I support business refusal to do business with:

  • Total voters
    38
Apocalypse said:
It's the law and it should be the law.

Homosexuals are human beings, and human beings do not deserve to be handled differently by other human beings simply because they are from a different sexuality, that's disgusting and that should be against the law.
Click to expand...
I agree that human beings deserve dignity and respect, but to say something should be a law because the behavior is something you, I, or even a majority of the public finds repugnant is not enough. What is the compelling interest? In other words, fraud is illegal because it harms people, child molestation is illegal because it harms people, assualt & battery are also illegal because they harm people. Being told you aren't welcome somewhere doesn't provably harm people, it may offend them(completely justified), it may anger them(completely understandable). But has it harmed them or society and if so what is the concrete proof?
 
Apocalypse said:
It's the law and it should be the law.

Homosexuals are human beings, and human beings do not deserve to be handled differently by other human beings simply because they are from a different sexuality, that's disgusting and that should be against the law.
Click to expand...

I think homosexuals are humans with the same rights as everyone else. No more no less. There is no right to be served by a business. But you do infringe upon that business owners property rights. So all things being equal, what is disgusting is that some can excuse the infringement of rights because something makes them feel bad and they're too lazy to get off their asses and handle it properly.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I agree that human beings deserve dignity and respect, but to say something should be a law because the behavior is something you, I, or even a majority of the public finds repugnant is not enough. What is the compelling interest? In other words, fraud is illegal because it harms people, child molestation is illegal because it harms people, assualt & battery are also illegal because they harm people. Being told you aren't welcome somewhere doesn't provably harm people, it may offend them(completely justified), it may anger them(completely understandable). But has it harmed them or society and if so what is the concrete proof?
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly believe you have misunderstood my post.
That I find it disgusting is one thing, that I believe it should be against the law is - as I have explained - because it harms people.
 
Ikari said:
I think homosexuals are humans with the same rights as everyone else. No more no less. There is no right to be served by a business. But you do infringe upon that business owners property rights. So all things being equal, what is disgusting is that some can excuse the infringement of rights because something makes them feel bad and they're too lazy to get off their asses and handle it properly.
Click to expand...
I can't bring myself to place the owner's property rights above the individual's rights to be treated equally.
 
disneydude said:
The thread on the B&B has me intrigued. I'm curious how people would feel about other scenarios.

Please answer the following scenarios:

It would be OK for a business to refuse to do business with:
Click to expand...

They should be permitted to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason at any time.

However, when it comes to hiring policies for companies that hire more than 25 employees, they should be subject to EOE regulations.
 
Apocalypse said:
I can't bring myself to place the owner's property rights above the individual's rights to be treated equally.
Click to expand...

I can't bring myself to place invented rights over base rights such as property.
 
I voted for all but "none of the above." Businesses have a right to not provide a service to someone based on their racism, discrimination, or hatred for Christians (racism may be a stretch). However, doing this would be a stupid business decision and another business that accepts those people will make more money. The market can fix itself, it doesn't need government restricting the rights of business owners.
 
Apocalypse said:
I wholeheartedly believe you have misunderstood my post.
That I find it disgusting is one thing, that I believe it should be against the law is - as I have explained - because it harms people.
Click to expand...

Who does it harm? And how?

Surely you're not suggesting that someone getting their feelings hurt is "harming" them?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Yes....I'm speaking on a moral level not a legal level.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then regardless of what you mean by 'doing business with', the answer is 'anyone'.
 
rivrrat said:
Who does it harm? And how?

Surely you're not suggesting that someone getting their feelings hurt is "harming" them?
Click to expand...
If a person rapes you, and you do not get any diseases as a result of the act, and the act itself did not cause you any physical damage, is it safe to say that you were not harmed at all?

Surely you can understand that some laws exist to prevent physical harm while others exist to prevent mental harm - it's only reasonable, no?
 
Apocalypse said:
If a person rapes you, and you do not get any diseases as a result of the act, and the act itself did not cause you any physical damage, is it safe to say that you were not harmed at all?
Click to expand...

No, you definitely infringed upon property rights if nothing else.
 
Ikari said:
I can't bring myself to place invented rights over base rights such as property.
Click to expand...
Equality is something treasured by each and every civilized nation.
Equality means that a person would not be treated differently simply because of his gender, color, race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, etc.

That you choose to place the owner's property rights above the value of equality is extremely disappointing, but it is your own opinion.
The law says otherwise, and its reasons are sourced in one of the most important values of democracy.
 
Ikari said:
No, you definitely infringed upon property rights if nothing else.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I assume you do not believe in the existence of a mental damage.

So what about sexual harassment laws, why do they exist?
Property rights, too?
 
Apocalypse said:
Equality is something treasured by each and every civilized nation.
Equality means that a person would not be treated differently simply because of his gender, color, race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, etc.

That you choose to place the owner's property rights above the value of equality is extremely disappointing, but it is your own opinion.
The law says otherwise, and its reasons are sourced in one of the most important values of democracy.
Click to expand...

Equality is not treasured, competition more often is. Competition isn't equal. Should a high school drop out have the same probability of landing a job as head researcher in a government lab as a Ph.D. physicist? No. The reason? They're not equal, it's not an equal system. One can very obviously out perform the other. It's based on ability. There are many forms of discrimination and inequality that we use and accept and which are helpful in some aspects. What we have done instead is to create a list of "protected classes" and granted privilege to that. Yet everything should be based in the rights of the individual. You don't have the right to be served by every business if that business chooses not to do business with you. You are free to take your business elsewhere, free to protest, free to raise public awareness; but not to force people to behave with their property outside their will when they have not infringed upon the rights of others.
 
Ikari said:
Equality is not treasured, competition more often is. Competition isn't equal.
Click to expand...
Just guessing, but I think he means equality under the law.
 
Ikari said:
Equality is not treasured, competition more often is. Competition isn't equal. Should a high school drop out have the same probability of landing a job as head researcher in a government lab as a Ph.D. physicist? No. The reason? They're not equal, it's not an equal system. One can very obviously out perform the other. It's based on ability.
Click to expand...
You have probably misunderstood, as I have no intention to debate and/or argue about earned traits.
I am speaking about equality by birth - deciding not to serve a person because he was born to a couple of Gypsies is one example.
You don't have the right to be served by every business if that business chooses not to do business with you. You are free to take your business elsewhere, free to protest, free to raise public awareness; but not to force people to behave with their property outside their will when they have not infringed upon the rights of others.
Click to expand...
A business owner may choose not to do business with you, just as a company owner may choose to fire you.
The issue raises when the reason to the action is based entirely on a born difference; such as gender, race, religion, etc.

I do not think that you understand the true meaning of the value of equality, and the actual reason as to why such laws even exist.
 
Apocalypse said:
You have probably misunderstood, as I have no intention to debate and/or argue about earned traits.
I am speaking about equality by birth - deciding not to serve a person because he was born to a couple of Gypsies is one example.
Click to expand...

There's no equality of birth. You think Paris Hilton had to work for her money? You think she had to go through the effort and channels someone born to the lower or middle class must go through to be successful? Birth doesn't guarantee anything and it's not equal either.

misterman said:
A business owner may choose not to do business with you, just as a company owner may choose to fire you.
The issue raises when the reason to the action is based entirely on a born difference; such as gender, race, religion, etc.

I do not think that you understand the true meaning of the value of equality, and the actual reason as to why such laws even exist.
Click to expand...

Why? Atheists can't get elected to office just because of their religious lean. Should there be court order to put them into office? I understand the ideal of equality, but I also understand well the concept of rights. And while I can understand the creation of the laws, it was all stuff we could have done ourselves; without infringing upon the rights of others.
 
Ikari said:
Why? Atheists can't get elected to office just because of their religious lean. Should there be court order to put them into office?
Click to expand...
As I thought, you have completely misunderstood my position.

That atheists should have an equal opportunity as anyone else to reach the presidency does not mean that someone should be put there merely because he's an atheist.
 
Apocalypse said:
As I thought, you have completely misunderstood my position.

That atheists should have an equal opportunity as anyone else to reach the presidency does not mean that someone should be put there merely because he's an atheist.
Click to expand...

But we don't have equal opportunity as anyone else. How is this different from you case? If a business doesn't want Christians say to frequent their store (despite the fact that in this country, that would mean you'd have no consumer base), they don't have equal opportunity to go buy from that store. So you'd endorse a law which forces the business owner to accept the Christians as customers. Why can there be no law to force voters to accept atheist candidates?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
But we don't have equal opportunity as anyone else.
Click to expand...
Then the answer is one simple statement that goes like "you should".
So you'd endorse a law which forces the business owner to accept the Christians as customers. Why can there be no law to force voters to accept atheist candidates?
Click to expand...
Did I say that he has to accept them as customers?
He simply cannot reason his refusal with their religion, that's discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Then the answer is one simple statement that goes like "you should".
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we don't. And we'd never get the laws to force it either.

Apocalypse said:
Did I say that he has to accept them as customers?
He simply cannot reason his refusal with their religion, that's discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You will punish through legal means the discrimination. That means you will force them to accept them as customers or bring down the force of government upon them.
 
Ikari said:
Perhaps, but we don't. And we'd never get the laws to force it either.
Click to expand...
Never is a strong word, and you'd never be able to predict such a thing.
Yes you did. You will punish through legal means the discrimination. That means you will force them to accept them as customers or bring down the force of government upon them.
Click to expand...
I will state this again; if the reason is the customer's race, religion, gender, ethnicity, color, etc - it is wrong and it will be punished.
If he simply refuses to serve a gay customer from a reason that has no relation to his sexuality - it is completely fine.
 
Apocalypse said:
Never is a strong word, and you'd never be able to predict such a thing.
Click to expand...

There will be no way to completely rid yourself of affects caused by serendipity of birth.

Apocalypse said:
I will state this again; if the reason is the customer's race, religion, gender, ethnicity, color, etc - it is wrong and it will be punished.
If he simply refuses to serve a gay customer from a reason that has no relation to his sexuality - it is completely fine.
Click to expand...

As I said, you'd force them to accept them as customers. As you've just admitted. If someone doesn't want gay people in his store, you'd force them to accept them in their store. Thank you for admitting it.
 
Ikari said:
There will be no way to completely rid yourself of affects caused by serendipity of birth.
Click to expand...
We were speaking about a president who's an atheist not being allowed to get into office because of his religion.
As I said, you'd force them to accept them as customers. As you've just admitted. If someone doesn't want gay people in his store, you'd force them to accept them in their store. Thank you for admitting it.
Click to expand...
Unless you're being deliberately ignorant, you have made a grave mistake here in drawing assumptions from my posts.

I will paraphrase it again:
If a person is gay and the owner chooses to refuse to serve him for a reason that is not the customer's sexuality - it is okay and the owner would not be forced to serve the guy.

If a person is gay and the owner chooses to refuse to serve him for a reason that is the customer's sexuality - it is wrong and the owner would be fined.

Conclusion:
1) An owner would not be forced to serve a gay person.
2) An owner would have to pay a fine if he'll discriminate against a gay person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom