• 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.

D

dex4974

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
6,593
Reaction score
1,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
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.
 
Last edited:
And I disagree. In my opinion you have a childish, irrational paranoia and lack of understanding of issues. In your little Libertarian world, injustice would thrive. We need citizens to have a better sense of morals and civics. Protecting people's freedoms is not the road to tyranny by the government, and the government is not the only threat to freedom.
 
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...

A racist message if i have ever read one. I bet yo are a WASP.
 
independentusa said:
A racist message if i have ever read one. I bet yo are a WASP.
Click to expand...

So do you have a real argument you'd like to present other than just calling me a racist?
 
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...
A privately owned business that serves the public cannot refuse service based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin/ethnicity, etc..

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Definition, Summary & Significance - HISTORY

Although I agree with your sentiment that you wouldn’t patronize a business that would discriminate, I disagree that such a business should be allowed to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner. Doing so would allow all types of prejudice/bigotry a “safe space” that they most certainly do not deserve.
 
This refuses to recognize the reality of how our system works. We are all interdependent on each other for much of our necessities and even just our wants. Only so many businesses can operate at a profit in a certain area. It is a finite thing. If such discrimination is allowed, those businesses could easily just all agree to deny service to certain customers, particularly minorities who dont provide a significant portion if their business. It wouldn't matter if the rest of their customers didnt like it, because most would place their needs/wants above social justice, especially if every business refused them service.

It can be seen with those who attempt to boycott places like Target, yet almost every business nowadays has the same policy of basically they dont care, dont judge, dont discriminate when it comes to transgenders using restrooms of choice. How many of those claiming to boycott Target over that shop at Walmart with the same basic policy?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Craig234 said:
And I disagree. In my opinion you have a childish, irrational paranoia and lack of understanding of issues. In your little Libertarian world, injustice would thrive. We need citizens to have a better sense of morals and civics. Protecting people's freedoms is not the road to tyranny by the government, and the government is not the only threat to freedom.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Privately owned businesses could not exist without the taxpayers dollars that build and support the infrastructure that allows them to function. Thus personal prejudice should not allow one to refuse service to those who have made it possible for the business to exist.
 
roguenuke said:
If such discrimination is allowed, those businesses could easily just all agree to deny service to certain customers, particularly minorities who dont provide a significant portion if their business. It wouldn't matter if the rest of their customers didnt like it, because most would place their needs/wants above social justice, especially if every business refused them service.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe anything more than an extreme minority of small businesses would deny sales and profit for the sake of prejudice? Even in the 50s most business owners had more sense than that. What you're suggesting could happen is completely ridiculous and implausible.
 
dex4974 said:
Forcing a private business owner to conduct businesses 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...

Not all that concerned with civil rights, I take it?
 
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...


ss1.jpg
 
j brown's body said:
Privately owned businesses could not exist without the taxpayers dollars that build and support the infrastructure that allows them to function.
Click to expand...

Government could not exist as is without the taxes extracted from private businesses and individuals. Also I don't agree with your premise anyway. Private interests would create vital infrastructure in the absence of a government to do so. It is ridiculous to force somebody through law to do business with and take money from somebody when they don't want to.
 
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.
Click to expand...

No one is forced to open a business. If you don't like the rules you're required to own and operate one then don't.

:shrug:

dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As you established earlier that's your opinion. Thankfully the majority feel otherwise.

dex4974 said:
It is ridiculous that it triggers national outrage and people get sued over not providing their private service to individuals.
Click to expand...

I happen to find it ridiculous when people who say they aren't bigots or racists get bent out of shape on behalf of bigots and racists.

:shrug:

dex4974 said:
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...

You don't want the government involved in business? Who regulates international trade if you need foreign supplies? Who prints, manages and regulates all that money that your customers pay you with? Who insures the bank you deposit that money into when you make a sale? If you don't want the government involved fine, but my tax money goes to providing all those things so if you're rejecting government the next time you want to sell something I hope you are batering goats or sheep for payment instead of cashing in that government printed, tax payer supplied, legal tender.
 
dex4974 said:
Anytime you want to actually formulate an argument against the points I made I'm ready.
Click to expand...

I just did but apparently you are cognitively impaired or something and it went right over your head.
 
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...

That's basically saying "No niggers allowed in Louisiana!"

Because that's what would happen.

And what happens if I open a pharmacy, and refuse to sell to white people in NYC?
 
dex4974 said:
Government could not exist as is without the taxes extracted from private businesses and individuals. Also I don't agree with your premise anyway. Private interests would create vital infrastructure in the absence of a government to do so. It is ridiculous to force somebody through law to do business with and take money from somebody when they don't want to.
Click to expand...

Theory =/= reality.
 
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...

We have been down this road before, and it resulted in "no colored allowed" signs showing up. We do it again on the back of such a ridiculous argument and we will see "no gays and lesbians allowed" signs showing up (as well as whatever else Christians decide to be bigoted about going forward.)

We may not like why we need public accommodation laws and civil rights laws but the reality is without it injustice would see an uptick, yet again.

This is not about government inching closer to "complete control of our lives and decisions," this is all about dealing with how asinine people can be with their beliefs to the point of repeating what history has already shown us of what ignorance can do to a society and economy.

We have no choice but to turn to the government to deal with manufactured reasons to create then exclude secondary classes in our society.

Open a history book, it was not pretty and there is no valid argument to go back to that utter stupidity.
 
j brown's body said:
Privately owned businesses could not exist without the taxpayers dollars that build and support the infrastructure that allows them to function. Thus personal prejudice should not allow one to refuse service to those who have made it possible for the business to exist.
Click to expand...

This;
If they want to discriminate then they should be cut off from public services. Hard to run a business with one power or roads leading up to it.....
 
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...

So you're okay with black people having to carry around a Green Book in order to get food/gas/lodging/medical attention/busing? Good luck with that narrative.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
A privately owned business that serves the public cannot refuse service based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin/ethnicity, etc..

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Definition, Summary & Significance - HISTORY

Although I agree with your sentiment that you wouldn’t patronize a business that would discriminate, I disagree that such a business should be allowed to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner. Doing so would allow all types of prejudice/bigotry a “safe space” that they most certainly do not deserve.
Click to expand...
I agree with the law but i think its often aplied incorrectly. Everytime someone who fits one of those catagories does not translate as to them being discriminated because of that. We need a better standard of proof.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
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...

What about larger companies. Gas and electric, can they discriminate in your world view?
 
Welcome to the rhetorical skill of the left.


dex4974 said:
So do you have a real argument you'd like to present other than just calling me a racist?
Click to expand...
 
Master Debator said:
No one is forced to open a business. If you don't like the rules you're required to own and operate one then don't.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

This doesn't address the point. I'm aware that per the law people have no choice but to follow what has been mandated.

Master Debator said:
As you established earlier that's your opinion. Thankfully the majority feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

Another non-argument from the Master Debator.

Master Debator said:
I happen to find it ridiculous when people who say they aren't bigots or racists get bent out of shape on behalf of bigots and racists.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Maybe you're just missing the point. Some people actually take issue with the government exerting control over the private sector regardless of how nice their excuse is. It's possible to do a bad thing with good intentions. Your retreat into "You're a racist!" is quite telling of your lack or argument, though.

Master Debator said:
You don't want the government involved in business? Who regulates international trade if you need foreign supplies? Who prints, manages and regulates all that money that your customers pay you with? Who insures the bank you deposit that money into when you make a sale? If you don't want the government involved fine, but my tax money goes to providing all those things so if you're rejecting government the next time you want to sell something I hope you are batering goats or sheep for payment instead of cashing in that government printed, tax payer supplied, legal tender.
Click to expand...

I'm not an anarchist. I think the government has some role and some necessity, but it's a fine and dangerous line that must be scrutinized constantly. Mandating that a private business must do business with somebody they don't want to do business with is not necessary or justified.
 
Craig234 said:
And I disagree. In my opinion you have a childish, irrational paranoia and lack of understanding of issues. In your little Libertarian world, injustice would thrive. We need citizens to have a better sense of morals and civics. Protecting people's freedoms is not the road to tyranny by the government, and the government is not the only threat to freedom.
Click to expand...

Lets say the law was erased today. Give me the name of a business who would hang a "no blacks allowed" sign on their front door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom