• 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

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,293
Reaction score
31,695
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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, I remember a few years back Maurice's restaurant in South Carolina (famous for this Carolina style mustard based bbq sauce) started handing out literature at the restaurants advocating separation of race. That alone was enough to get Wal-Mart, Food Lion, etc to stop selling his sauces and for several others to boycott him and his restaurants. Really, it's just a bad business decision to even advocate for any kind of discrimination.
 
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 I wouldn't.
 
Nope. Most wouldn't, but that's still not good enough reason to allow said discrimination, as many libertarians/conservatives would argue.
 
I don't think you'd find many people these days who would.
 
Nope. Most wouldn't, but that's still not good enough reason to allow said discrimination, as many libertarians/conservatives would argue.

I think it's idiotic to frame the issue in anything other than a sociological perspective. The damage done to society is the issue at hand, not whether an individual likes it.
 
That's what I'm assuming. A business would never survive.

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.

There is no threat when that business doesn't have the support of the vast majority of America. Look at the Westboro creeps -- they have zero traction because 99% of people don't believe in what they say or do.
 
That's what I'm assuming. A business would never survive.

I would not assume that's true as there are many people who would jump at the chance to support such a business.
 
There is no threat when that business doesn't have the support of the vast majority of America.

BS. Let's not pretend racism does not exist and is not a threat to minorities. Let's not pretend that blacks get a fair shake at employment, housing and justice. Let's, instead, live in reality where racism against blacks is very real and transcends all systems. Let's, instead, recognize the threat presented to minorities when the majority can openly wage economic warfare against them.

Look at the Westboro creeps -- they have zero traction because 99% of people don't believe in what they say or do.

Westboro harms society as well but it's not an open-to-the-public business, it's a private church.
 
I would not assume that's true as there are many people who would jump at the chance to support such a business.

Who? ...
 
Racists. You don't think they exist?

In very small numbers, of course. There always will be people who hate whites, blacks, natives, etc.
 
No. But a lot of my fellow citizens would, because it doesn't bother them much.
 
In very small numbers, of course. There always will be people who hate whites, blacks, natives, etc.

Hating whites is not racism, it's merely racial bigotry. Racism is a social construct and minorities have no power to institute nor perpetuate majority privilege for themselves; therefore, a black hating whites is of no threat to whites collectively. Without a collective threat, it's an individual act and not an ism.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn racial bigotry by anyone. But pretending a black hating whites has the same impact on society is plain stupid.
 
If I'm in the group they're excluding I would suspect patronizing them would be difficult.
 
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.

But the devil in the details is...if the conservatives on SCOTUS someday make it legal to do so, there will be those who do patronize such places (especially my fellow whites where I come from). Yes, those few places would make national news and would be denounced by most...but a few of the blacks would be so offended that they would open up their own businesses which would discriminate by race. Then the white racists would point out what those few blacks were doing and would proclaim to all who would listen, "See! They're doing the same thing!" More white racists would start doing the same thing, opening up their own racist businesses, more blacks would do so in retaliation...

...and while many might point at the above and say that's a "slippery-slope fallacy", no thank you, sir, I know what the people are like where I came from. In 1984 - twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act - I went home on leave from the Navy to Shaw, MS, where I graduated high school. Even then, the one doctor's office in town had two doors, one with a "white" sign above it, the other with a "colored" sign above it...and the people of the town still obeyed those signs. If I'd had a brain, I would have called up Time Magazine...but in those days I was still fairly racist, and after all, "that's just the way it was" in the MS Delta.

So...to all who think that it can't happen again, I've seen it first-hand, twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. And the MS Delta hasn't changed that much since then.
 
Oh, stop it right now. Jeez.

You think a black hating whites has the same impact on society, and carries the same collective threat to whites, as the reverse? No one is that stupid, you can't believe that. Thus, you KNOW there's a sociological difference. As racism is a social construct, it cannot be qualified according to an individual act.

Of course, you have no grasp of racism as a social construct, do you? You think racism is the same thing as racial bigotry, don't you?

Well, that's very convenient for a member of the majority. Enjoy that privilege you're perpetuating via the denial of sociological reality.
 
Hating whites is not racism, it's merely racial bigotry. Racism is a social construct and minorities have no power to institute nor perpetuate majority privilege for themselves; therefore, a black hating whites is of no threat to whites collectively. Without a collective threat, it's an individual act alone and not an ism.

So much for that vast sociological knowledge you claim. You don't seem to understand grouping. If a white person lives and works in a group where they are one of a handful of whites, they ARE the minority sociologically speaking. So much for that "majority privilege" you seem to misunderstand.
 
Back
Top Bottom