• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you patronize a business that discriminated against a race?

Would you patronize a business that discriminated based on race?

  • Nope

    Votes: 70 90.9%
  • Yep

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • Total voters
    77
if there is no victim.....meaning that no rights are violated or no threat to the public......it cannot be illegal.
So by this otherworldy "logic", since there are "no" black slaves in the US, slavery is no longer illegal, since "all" previous slaves are long past, and present "victims" do not exist.
 
You know exactly what discrimination is referring to, you admitted such when you said you did not want govt telling you cannot discriminate, the whole context of the debate is about sexual, racial, religious discrimination, and not about "taste". You argument is simply looking for a semantic diversion from its avocation of said discrimination.

Pathetic.

I'm not looking for any kind of out, I've described precisely what my beliefs are on this issue: I think racism is wrong, it's ugly, and I don't like it...but I think we're a much less racist country today than we were 50 years ago, which is a good thing, and I think we're ready to get the anti-discrimination laws off the books because we don't need them anymore.

Yes I did understand what you meant by "discrimination," I just don't like seeing the English language get butchered when what you're really talking about is racism and racial segregation. Using the right words helps make your case.
 
Pathetic diversionary BS.

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

No, there you go with words again. Slow down and think. I didn't advocate for racial discrimination....I think racism sucks. I advocated for getting anti-discrimination laws off the books because I think they've served their purpose and are not needed anymore.
 
Why would anyone discriminate based upon ethnicity? It is beyond disgusting, and supporting such a business having that right is well words fail me.
 
I'm not looking for any kind of out, I've described precisely what my beliefs are on this issue: I think racism is wrong, it's ugly, and I don't like it...but I think we're a much less racist country today than we were 50 years ago, which is a good thing, and I think we're ready to get the anti-discrimination laws off the books because we don't need them anymore.
Yes, because making racial discrimination legal again is a sure fire way to eliminate racial discrimination.

Yes I did understand what you meant by "discrimination," I just don't like seeing the English language get butchered when what you're really talking about is racism and racial segregation. Using the right words helps make your case.
Yes, because everyone knows that racial segregation and racism is not discrimination, that this discussion is not about racial discrimination, and advocating for businesses to be able to practice racial discrimination.....is not about discrimination!

Any more muddying you want to engage in?
 
I didn't advocate for racial discrimination
Uh huh...

I would not. I suspect most peoe would agree with me. Which is why such discrimination should be legal...the market will weed out the racists on its own


Not much, right now, you have folks, like yourself, advocating the legality of racial discrimination in public accommodation...just like defenders of Jim Crow.
Yeah, I don't like the government being able to tell a business who they can or can't serve
 
So by this otherworldy "logic", since there are "no" black slaves in the US, slavery is no longer illegal, since "all" previous slaves are long past, and present "victims" do not exist.

slavery is an illegal action by law on people, because engaging in such a practice, it violates the rights of people....it is a criminal action.


discrimination by government is a unconstitutional action, because the constitution says that government cannot engage in such a practice, because it violates .....equality under the law.....which equality under the law applies for government only...not people.

discrimination is not a crime...because their is no rights violates.....rights violations are criminal law, discrimination is administrative law/regulations, and regulations are created to protect the public health and safety.

does discrimination against a person violate a person rights....no...does discrimination violate the public health and safety of the people....no.......therefore there is no victim for government to act for.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because making racial discrimination legal again is a sure fire way to eliminate racial discrimination.

Yes, because everyone knows that racial segregation and racism is not discrimination, that this discussion is not about racial discrimination, and advocating for businesses to be able to practice racial discrimination.....is not about discrimination!

Any more muddying you want to engage in?

Alright buddy, I'm done with this discussion. Your entire argument amounts to you playing the race card and calling me a racist, when I think I've pretty clearly spelled out what my position is in previous posts.

I have no interest in defending the straw man arguments you keep setting up. Adios.
 
I wouldn't personally patronize any business that I knew discriminated for any reason. I live in a very large city and there's nothing I want or need to buy that I can't buy in dozens or hundreds of different places. And one of the best parts of living in this city is the diversity of businesses and their owners.

Toronto is about as diversified as it gets.
 
I think I've pretty clearly spelled out what my position is
Yes, you did...


I didn't advocate for racial discrimination
Uh huh...

I would not. I suspect most peoe would agree with me. Which is why such discrimination should be legal...the market will weed out the racists on its own


Not much, right now, you have folks, like yourself, advocating the legality of racial discrimination in public accommodation...just like defenders of Jim Crow.
Yeah, I don't like the government being able to tell a business who they can or can't serve
 
Straw, the argument was whether racial discrimination was ILLEGAL. It certainly is.

in order for law to act someone must file a complaint......what is the complaint?

rights violation.....no...because discrimination is never criminal law.

was it a threat the public health or safety,.no...... who was defraud, stole from, , who was harmed or killed ..no one.
 
Straw, the argument was whether racial discrimination was ILLEGAL. It certainly is.

Not quite.

Some racial discrimination is illegal. Other forms of racial discrimination are official policy.
 
Anyone who spends a penny at a racist establishment is supporting racism..
 
Anyone who spends a penny at a racist establishment is supporting racism..

What is a "racist establishment"? Is a university that selects its students on the basis of racial quota a "racist establishment"?
 
What is a "racist establishment"?
Is a university that selects its students on the basis of racial quota a "racist establishment"?



If you can't figure that out all by yourself, I doubt that anyone on this planet can help you.

IOW: you've got a problem which time will solve.
 
If you can't figure that out all by yourself, I doubt that anyone on this planet can help you.

IOW: you've got a problem which time will solve.

Seems like an easy solution: everything I call racist is racist. A bit simplistic for me.
 
If it was legal .....

If a business -- any business -- decided to put a sign in their window saying "No [insert any race here] Allowed", would you still patronize that business?

Anonymous poll.

I shop where I want to shop because it has the best value, best quality for the price, convenience, etc. I'm too damn old to make purchases a political statement for me.

The only time I decide not to spend money with some business is if they are cruel to animals in some way. Other than that, I don't give a **** what they do or what they stand for.
 
If it was legal .....

If a business -- any business -- decided to put a sign in their window saying "No [insert any race here] Allowed", would you still patronize that business?

Anonymous poll.

No. Though I will give a caveat being totally honest.

If it was a service industry business, and they had a sign indicating they'd disallow those who english isn't a first language, or indicating that they would not hire an individual they felt was not fluent/understandable enough in English....I may actually be more inclined to patronize their establishment.

I drive 15 extra minutes to a farther away Home Depot typically, because the majority of the workers at that one seem to generally be English as a first language speakers...where as the one closest to me is typically filled with employees who are unbelievably difficult to communicate with.
 
Seems like an easy solution: everything I call racist is racist. A bit simplistic for me.

Lots of things seem simple to those who are totally out of touch with reality.



Come back and tell us all about it 30 years from now after massive demographic change reduces the GOP to a minor, regional party

The clock is ticking.

No one can stop time, and/or change.

:lamo
 
There are places it does - today. It's done informally.

But the business being able to do it at all is a threat to society because the damage done to society by the act is undeniable. Just one business doing so, openly or otherwise, represents a threat to the targeted race collectively when that race is a minority.

That's why it would be a great experiment. Some state should provide, upon request, a different business license (no more cost, etc) for those that desire to not serve someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, anything.

The only stipulation is that they MUST post a sign where clearly visible to the public stating whom they will not serve. If they dont have the special license and post the sign, then they cant discriminate.

I threw this out as a hypothetical in a thread on businesses not wanting to support gay weddings. (And yes, I realize even today many businesses to discriminate without doing it blatantly).
 
Back
Top Bottom