• 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!

Private businesses should legally be allowed to deny service to anybody they want for any reason.

Lisa said:
Capitalism is the problem.
Click to expand...

What's your alternative? European nations are capitalist too.

Also you didn't answer my questions. Is it possible to carelessly allow poor people to immigrate while enacting expansive social safety nets? Can the money of billionaires have long term impacts on an economy that moves trillions annually?
 
dex4974 said:
Because nobody should be forced into a contract they don't want.
Click to expand...

Why not? Which services harm you personally to provide to everyone without having a good reason to not do so?

From my perspective the history regarding what you want was mostly used for evil purposes.
 
dex4974 said:
It's a bad precedent for government control and it's not a mutually voluntary contract.
Click to expand...

Seems to be working wonders actually. Before we adopted the current standard minorities were routinely harassed by businesses for no other crime than being the wrong kind of person.

So, I would want to see some real upside to roll that one back not some nebulous voluntary contract bull.
 
dex4974 said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah it's actually pretty funny that you think people want to go back to that when you can't give a good reason why we should.

What's the benefit to me to make you feel better that you aren't forced to do business with everyone? Given of course that I have absolutely no problem doing business with everyone.
 
Variant said:
Yeah it's actually pretty funny that you think people want to go back to that when you can't give a good reason why we should.
Click to expand...

I did, but I fully expected most of you to not care. Does anybody come here with the intention of changing minds? I'm just barking at the moon like the rest of you.
 
dex4974 said:
I did, but I fully expected most of you to not care. Does anybody come here with the intention of changing minds? I'm just barking at the moon like the rest of you.
Click to expand...

Well not with that argument you're not going to change anyone's mind. I'm supposed to just drop the last 60 years as if it never happened and start caring a lot about your desired freedom to use your business to discriminate?

Given that I don't need the freedom to discriminate, and I don't see a lot of positive uses of this particular freedom that you think you are due.

I'll pass. There doesn't seem to be anything in it for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
dex4974 said:
If some bakery owner wants to deny service to openly gay people, or if Cleetus the bar owner wants to deny service to people of color in his bar out in the sticks, that should be legally acceptable in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as they post it where anyone can see it before entering the store...where all the public can see it so they dont make a mistake and go in by accident.

I'd love to see this idea 'piloted.' I bet most businesses would be in for some very unpleasant consequences.
 
Lursa said:
I'd love to see this idea 'piloted.' I bet most businesses would be in for some very unpleasant consequences.
Click to expand...

The free market would probably put most of them out of business. Big Brother is not needed.
 
Lursa said:
Sure, as long as they post it where anyone can see it before entering the store...where all the public can see it so they don't make a mistake and go in by accident.

I'd love to see this idea 'piloted.' I bet most businesses would be in for some very unpleasant consequences.
Click to expand...

I think it would be an unobstructed and lighted 24x48 sign on the door in international orange lettering of 2" tall lettering on a white background clearly stating that the support discrimination and who will refuse to serve those who they do not agree with. I wonder how their profits will change after it is posted.? They will also pay 5% higher business taxes for this privilege.
 
Last edited:
dex4974 said:
If some bakery owner wants to deny service to openly gay people, or if Cleetus the bar owner wants to deny service to people of color in his bar out in the sticks, that should be legally acceptable in my opinion. If somebody is willing to limit their own sales because they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve somebody, they should be allowed to deny their service. Somebody that invested in and built their own business should not be forced by the government to do business they don't want to do. If I want to turn down your money I should be legally allowed to do that for any stupid or illogical reason that I want. Nobody should have legal grounds to sue me because I refused to do business with them. It is ridiculous that it triggers national outrage and people get sued over not providing their private service to individuals.

Personally I wouldn't purchase services from a business like that and I would encourage others to do the same, but the government shouldn't be involved. It's all about not giving the government precedence to exert more control over the private sector. The government always has a good reason when it takes us an inch closer to their complete control of our lives and decisions.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your sentiment however I would adjust it slightly by saying that only if the business in question is a sole proprietorship or family owned, if the business has a legal document ei partnership or corporation LLC ect. then they should be subjected to whatever civil rights laws and regulations there are. Sole proprietors and family owned have the full responsibility and risk of the business and therefor should be able to run it as they see fit. Business entities are created by government to protect the owners and therefor should be subject to government whims. Sole proprietors have no such protections.
 
dex4974 said:
Forcing a private business owner to conduct business they don't want to conduct is not protecting freedoms; it's the opposite. Nobody should have a right to do business with me. Nobody should be able to sue me for refusing to do business.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Freedom is not an absolute thing.

You don't have the right to yell 'fire' in a theatre.

Imagine what a child might think if she went to a store, and because she was black, the store wouldn't sell her candy.

Can you possibly imagine the damage you are doing to her and that doing this is callous, cruel, and uncaring.

In my view, your position is nothing less than criminal child abuse.

You do not have the right to operate a criminal enterprise.

Sorry.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I tend to agree with your sentiment however I would adjust it slightly by saying that only if the business in question is a sole proprietorship or family owned, if the business has a legal document ei partnership or corporation LLC ect. then they should be subjected to whatever civil rights laws and regulations there are. Sole proprietors and family owned have the full responsibility and risk of the business and therefor should be able to run it as they see fit. Business entities are created by government to protect the owners and therefor should be subject to government whims. Sole proprietors have no such protections.
Click to expand...

Family businesses shouldn't have the right to break the law. Discrimination is and should remain illegal.
 
dex4974 said:
A private business owner shouldn't need to justify denying their service to anybody.
Click to expand...

Agree

That same business should be aware that social media is a powerful tool, and can be used when an individual is refused service based on bigotry and homophobia.
 
dex4974 said:
Believing businesses shouldn't be mandated into entering contracts does not mean I am advocating for some strawman scenario you're using to try to make a point. That's not how reality works.
Click to expand...
Reality is that these laws are in place and likely arent going anywhere anytime soon. If you operate a business, you are agreeing to abide by these laws, whether you like it or not.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
If those who sell are not allowed to refuse to enter into business with someone, can someone who is a prostitute in Nevada be forced to service a former abusive boyfriend or rapist? Could (say) a lesbian prostitute be forced to have sex with men?
Click to expand...
That is considered a business that is allowed to specialize, freedom to choose their customers based on their preferences. Just as individual tutors or nannies can discriminate, piano teachers and gardeners can discriminate, housekeepers and private cooks can discriminate. Businesses cannot discriminate. So a whorehouse may have to ensure they hire someone who is willing to pleasure anyone. This may seem like a contradiction, but then these are services that also could be seen as a real contract service, unlike transaction services of purchase of goods. These are businesses where you are being hired for individual service. Unlike being a waiter or manager at a restaurant or a clerk at a store, you are not selling things, but rather your individual service.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Lisa said:
I think it would be an unobstructed and lighted 24x48 sign on the door in international orange lettering of 2" tall lettering on a white background clearly stating that the support discrimination and who will refuse to serve those who they do not agree with. I wonder how their profits will change after it is posted.? They will also pay 5% higher business taxes for this privilege.
Click to expand...
They must put it in all advertising as well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dex4974 said:
Because nobody should be forced into a contract they don't want.
Click to expand...

You own a restaurant. Lets say you sell pulled pork sandwiches. Technically the contract would be a sandwich in exchange for money. Why does it matter if the patron was black, white, Latina, Latina, Asian, gay, trans, non-binary, Jewish, Catholic, one-eyed, or whatever? If you can afford to pay the tab, what difference does it make?

Are you also opposed to health inspectors and state/federal guidelines when it comes to health? Why should you be forced to follow rules by the government?

Your belief system unfortunately promotes an UNEQUAL society.
 
roguenuke said:
That is considered a business that is allowed to specialize, freedom to choose their customers based on their preferences. ..... Businesses cannot discriminate. .... This may seem like a contradiction,
Click to expand...

... Because it is. Is this the part where I'm supposed to accuse you off bigotry for not wanting to force these individual to serve anyone who wishes their services?

these are services that also could be seen as a real contract service, unlike transaction services of purchase of goods. These are businesses where you are being hired for individual service. Unlike being a waiter or manager at a restaurant or a clerk at a store, you are not selling things, but rather your individual service.
Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like "businesses I feel uncomfortable coercing in this manner don't count, and now I'm trying to think of a reason why." As a waiter, I was absolutely hired to provide my individual service. Ditto a photographer, a therapist, a wedding-cake baker, and so and so forth.
 
BrotherFease said:
You own a restaurant. Lets say you sell pulled pork sandwiches. Technically the contract would be a sandwich in exchange for money. Why does it matter if the patron was black, white, Latina, Latina, Asian, gay, trans, non-binary, Jewish, Catholic, one-eyed, or whatever? If you can afford to pay the tab, what difference does it make?

Are you also opposed to health inspectors and state/federal guidelines when it comes to health? Why should you be forced to follow rules by the government?

Your belief system unfortunately promotes an UNEQUAL society.
Click to expand...

Here is one problem.....it used to be that we (I am putting on my restaurant owner hat even though I am retired) could refuse service for any reason. Now what we have is that when customers dont behave and we try to get rid of them or otherwise adjust their behavior we get "You cant say that to me, I am black (or whatever)". The victim card is used as a free pass to do what ever they want like San Francisco Street People walking into a store and robbing it. Then of course if it is a white woman who is causing the issue she is likely to play the victim card too.

So it is only white men who must follow the rules.

That's discrimination of the worst kind.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Here is one problem.....it used to be that we (I am putting on my restaurant owner hat even though I am retired) could refuse service for any reason.
Click to expand...
Used to be in the 1950’s and earlier, but not since at least 1964.

Hawkeye10 said:
Now what we have is that when customers dont behave and we try to get rid of them or otherwise adjust their behavior we get "You cant say that to me, I am black (or whatever)".
Click to expand...
Business owners have always had the right to refuse service to disruptive customers.

Hawkeye10 said:
The victim card is used as a free pass to do what ever they want like San Francisco Street People walking into a store and robbing it.
Click to expand...
Purely idiotic assertion.

Hawkeye10 said:
So it is only white men who must follow the rules.

That's discrimination of the worst kind.
Click to expand...
Here, have a fake tissue to wipe away your fake victim tears.

90E3E7BB-C36D-434E-B60A-5D27C604B12F.jpg
 
cpwill said:
... Because it is. Is this the part where I'm supposed to accuse you off bigotry for not wanting to force these individual to serve anyone who wishes their services?



That sounds a lot like "businesses I feel uncomfortable coercing in this manner don't count, and now I'm trying to think of a reason why." As a waiter, I was absolutely hired to provide my individual service. Ditto a photographer, a therapist, a wedding-cake baker, and so and so forth.
Click to expand...
It is an exception made in the law because of the personal nature of those businesses. And nothing is more personal than sex.

Do you think the majority are simply going to go "oh you're right that is hypocritical of me, let's change that law to either allow everyone to discriminate or no one, even these types of individuals selling their services"? Not likely. Rational people recognize the need for certain exceptions in almost every law. This is one of those, whether you like it or not.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Sure, as long as they post it where anyone can see it before entering the store...where all the public can see it so they dont make a mistake and go in by accident.

I'd love to see this idea 'piloted.' I bet most businesses would be in for some very unpleasant consequences.
Click to expand...

Your post presents a great idea. When the biggoted business owners lobby the courts in order to throw gays or blacks out of his or her store, the court comes back with a compromise. Courts allow biggoted behavior but a visible sign must be placed in front of business and must be listed on home page of website.

Question on biggot business determining gay or color:

If the person orders online from a private service, do they have to facetime the owner?

If a person orders delivery, do they have to facetime? What if they use a decoy?

When a person walks in a biggot business how does the owner know the person is gay, is there a gay meter?

What if a black man walks in a business and he is light skinned and the biggot is unsure

What if a white man walks into a florida biggot business, this mans thrown out. Why? This white man is of European decent and has a very dark tan.

This whole thread is absolutely ridiculous, but it's been enjoyable debating such a foolish attempt to say government regulations are bad.

The problem when anti-regulation persons make a case, they forget about all the regulations that protect his or life and well-being.

Private business has a long history of harming Americans in the name of profit. Some examples:

Sweat shops during the depression with awful working conditions

Dupont chemical - teflon- and cancer

Banks and Wall street completed screwing up our economy due to under- regulation- greed

Our food is regulated

Humans need rules and regulation otherwise self interest will reign with many Americans

Humans need laws such as you can't kill someone over say a heated debate that turns into a physical fight

Self interest leads to who gives a sh***t about anyone else's well-being as long as I'm rich and can buy a new Yacht.

Don't get me wrong I believe in the free market, but a free market with constraint
 
Sand Castle said:
Your post presents a great idea. When the biggoted business owners lobby the courts in order to throw gays or blacks out of his or her store, the court comes back with a compromise. Courts allow biggoted behavior but a visible sign must be placed in front of business and must be listed on home page of website.

Question on biggot business determining gay or color:

If the person orders online from a private service, do they have to facetime the owner?

If a person orders delivery, do they have to facetime? What if they use a decoy?

When a person walks in a biggot business how does the owner know the person is gay, is there a gay meter?

What if a black man walks in a business and he is light skinned and the biggot is unsure

What if a white man walks into a florida biggot business, this mans thrown out. Why? This white man is of European decent and has a very dark tan.

This whole thread is absolutely ridiculous, but it's been enjoyable debating such a foolish attempt to say government regulations are bad.

The problem when anti-regulation persons make a case, they forget about all the regulations that protect his or life and well-being.

Private business has a long history of harming Americans in the name of profit. Some examples:

Sweat shops during the depression with awful working conditions

Dupont chemical - teflon- and cancer

Banks and Wall street completed screwing up our economy due to under- regulation- greed

Our food is regulated

Humans need rules and regulation otherwise self interest will reign with many Americans

Humans need laws such as you can't kill someone over say a heated debate that turns into a physical fight

Self interest leads to who gives a sh***t about anyone else's well-being as long as I'm rich and can buy a new Yacht.

Don't get me wrong I believe in the free market, but a free market with constraint
Click to expand...
In such a case, the rule wouldn't be to force the owner to adhere absolutely to his stated discriminatory policies, but rather to inform the public of his intentions to discriminate against certain groups so that everyone within the public can make an informed decision about whether to utilize that business. It should also have to be included in advertising.

The main premise of many libertarians and others who oppose public accommodation laws is that the market will force any discriminatory businesses to close or change their ways, which is a foolish assumption. It is especially ridiculous since many customers would not be aware of that policy when it comes to patronizing that business just because they may have refused to sell something to someone this time a couple years ago. Hell there was a business owner in the South who remained open and put out racist pamphlets all over his restaurants for decades, until he died after the Civil Rights Act. He went to court, and lost, several times in attempts to continue to discriminate, even citing his religious beliefs as his reason, right.

Access Denied

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/24/americas-most-political-food

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom