• 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 LGBT people?

Would you?


  • Total voters
    64
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

No. But now I feel the need to qualify that statement, as I really dislike the word "discriminate" used in such contexts - the word just means to distinguish between two things (to be called a discriminating gentleman is a compliment, as it implies that one has taste.)

So perhaps you should qualify what you mean by "discriminate" in more specific terms.

I don't have any problem with a business that chooses not to involve itself in gay marriage, as many have legitimate religious reasons for this. Likewise, I don't have any problem with a business owner who, for religious reasons, questions homosexuality.

I don't think it's "discrimination" to say that being gay is a choice, or to generally have negative opinions about the behavior.

That said, I would never patronize a business that had a "no gays" sign out front, or that refused to serve gays in any capacity simply out of spite. I would never patronize a business that used hateful gay slurs, or that depicted gays in an offensive way, or that I felt encouraged or incited hatred against homosexuals.
 
I voted yes just because I want to stir up **** and get as many people as possible mad at me.

In reality, if a business had a sign in the widow or something that read "We hate the gheys and do not welcome them here" I would most likely just keep walking but since this hypothetical BS is never going to happen anyway and the thread is just bait to lure in some sucker to pounce on... what the hell, I'll be your huckelberry.
 
I voted yes just because I want to stir up **** and get as many people as possible mad at me.

In reality, if a business had a sign in the widow or something that read "We hate the gheys and do not welcome them here" I would most likely just keep walking but since this hypothetical BS is never going to happen anyway and the thread is just bait to lure in some sucker to pounce on... what the hell, I'll be your huckelberry.

Me too, for much the same reason.
 
I shop wherever I want. I could care less about the politics of a business. I have purchased spices at Prenzys, owned by a flaming liberal. If I shop there, I'll shop anywhere.

So if it was posted 'no guns' and it was legal anyway (in my state, there's no force of law behind the states, it's only trespassing if you dont leave if they find out)....would you do business there, whether or not you had a firearm on your person?
 
As a matter of general personal policy, I do not boycott business based on political and/or social reasons. I figure that, if I look deep enough, I can always find something that offends me and then I'd have nowhere else to go.

Having said that, if a business were so blatant that they put "No <insert specific group of people here> allowed" signs in their window, then that would be an exception to my rule and I would not patronize them. That would be too much to ignore. If I knew that they simply held a belief, but that they didn't act on it, I *probably* would still go there.

I generally prefer to base my boycotts on how they treat their customers, especially me.
 
Last edited:
Yes I would.
 
As long as I am not breaking the law why not?
 
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You said yes, you would patronize businesses that discriminate, then added that you'd tell everyone else not to shop there. Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Yes. 100% I would also tell everybody that I knew not to shop there. Great way to find out if your friends are bigots.

I thought it said would NOT patronize... my bad. In that context my statement makes sense. :)
 
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

I would. I'd be all, "Whose a good little business. You are. Yes you are."

Wouldn't give 'em any money though.
 
As long as I am not breaking the law why not?

Of course you wouldn't be breaking the law, NP You'd just be intentionally supporting a business that operates openly as being a bigoted business. So, obviously bigotry isn't a social issue for you. This is America. You have the right to support bigots. Go for it.
 
So if it was posted 'no guns' and it was legal anyway (in my state, there's no force of law behind the states, it's only trespassing if you dont leave if they find out)....would you do business there, whether or not you had a firearm on your person?

It only a place to buy things, not a statement on my world view. If a business sells what I want at price I want to pay, that's good enough for me.
 
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

discriminate how? Refusing to perform a gay wedding or anything else that has to do with a gay wedding or to print a political message they do not agree with? Then sure I would have no problem patronizing that business. Now if it is just a regular business like a grocery store,real estate agency or some other similar secular or non-political business and they said they don't sell to gay people then I wouldn't patronize that business.
 
I'll simply copy over my response from Josie's similar poll on a similar but expanded subject.

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.
 
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

Probably no, but I don't know if I would define "discriminate against" the same as another would, so maybe I would. If my Catholic priest refused to perform a "marriage" for a gay couple, would I stop attending mass? No. If a restaurant refused service to a gay couple (although I'm not sure how they would know), would I return to that particular restaurant, No. But what if they are asked to leave because they are mugging down at the table causing an uncomfortable display for other patrons and get kicked out? I say good riddance and I would be back...
 
No, not knowingly. But discriminating against to me is different than just not agreeing with it. Had Chik Fil-A said they wouldn't serve LGBTs, I wouldn't eat there. But the guy has a right to his opinion. Well he did. He died. Probably not because he didn't like LGBTs.

(if what you are asking has anything to do with Chik Fil-A. If not, carry on and ignore me.)

:D :D

That's the key. If the LGBT lobby wants respect, they should respect those who do not agree with them for religious or moral reasons. Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO was only expressing his own views. The LGBT attempted to act as "thought police" and it backfired on them.
 
It only a place to buy things, not a statement on my world view. If a business sells what I want at price I want to pay, that's good enough for me.

Fair enough.
 
That's the key. If the LGBT lobby wants respect, they should respect those who do not agree with them for religious or moral reasons. Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO was only expressing his own views. The LGBT attempted to act as "thought police" and it backfired on them.


Blacks and women should have done the same thing too, right? Not fight for their civil rights? (And yeah, both were discriminated against for religious and moral reasons...sadly, several Scriptures were mal-interpreted as 'proof' that blacks were inferior.)

Or....you still dont respect blacks or women either because they did fight for their civil rights?
 
It depends on the type of business and type of discrimination. A health club won't allow members with male genitalia but say they're women shower and get dressed with the ladies? A private Christian school didn't hire a gay activist guidance counselor? Or a restaurant refusing to serve a known homosexual or plumber charging double his standard rate when he fixes a leaky faucet of a gay customer?
 
Quick comment here folks...

I see a lot of people going on and on about not caring about a businesses "political/social views on issues".

That's not really a question here.

If a business is actively discriminating against hiring or selling to a particular group of people, that is not a "political/social view"...that is a BUSINESS PRACTICE.

I doubt anyone here would suggest that the business practices of a business don't impact your decision as to whether or not you shop there. NOW, what may be accurate is that business practices that don't negative affect YOU may not hold much sway with you, but it's still a business practice that's being talked about.

Not boycotting based on the political views of the businesses owners would mean not caring whether or not the owner, personally, gives money or support to political entities. That's different than actually implimenting a business policy.

That, to me, would be the difference between Chick-Fil-A's philanthropic arm giving money to groups that fight gay rights, and Chick-Fil-A actually banning gay customers from their store. The first is a political view held by the company's leadership, the latter is an actual business practice.
 
1.) WOW - do you not get the irony of that!!!
2.)Who is THEY??? They is the government... it is you who is saying the government should "come and get" the business owner b/c he is simply exercising his right to conduct his private business as he sees fit.
3.) Just as the homosexual has every right to operate a business and refuse to do business with a christian if he/she doesn't want - each person is free.
4.) Where people lose their freedom, is when government gets involved and uses force -
5.) it is you, and the LGBT groups that are seeking to use the power of government against others. You are the ones giving the power to THEY.
6.)It amazes me that Americans can't see these things - America is supposed to be about freedom first and foremost; and, ... the essence of freedom is the limitation of government.

1.) there is no irony when using facts and reality
2.) there is no such right nor is that the topic
3.) again there is no such right if we are talking illegal discrimination
4.) there is no force
5.) no the constitutions gives the power in this case, in reality any subjective fantasy you make up are meaningless to the topic
6.) and freedom is EXACTLY what equal rights is about freedom and rights . . . it is amazing then you can't see that
 
3.) again there is no such right if we are talking illegal discrimination

How does the FedGov have the authority to make it illegal??

You can make it illegal on the state level, but even then it is wrong.

4.) there is no force

Of course there is force, lol... the government FORCING the private business owner to engage in commerce with people he does not want to. His rights are being violated by the government.

The LGBT people may in fact be discriminated against by the business owner, but then again he owns a PRIVATE BUSINESS, in a free society it is his business to run as he sees fit.

In an authoritarian society - which is what you, and all leftists advocate, his "private business" is not his to run as he sees fit, rather it is under the control of the government. That is fascism.

4.) no the constitutions gives the power in this case, in reality any subjective fantasy you make up are meaningless to the topic

Only thru tortured and twisted interpretations of the Constitution can such a power be granted to the FedGov. Again, if you want to pass such a law on the state level, that is entirely proper - just as Indiana's law is entirely proper.

6.) and freedom is EXACTLY what equal rights is about freedom and rights . . . it is amazing then you can't see that

"Freedom" is the limitation of government. "Equal rights" is not a concept conceived in liberty, it is a concept conceived in authoritarian forms of government, most notably communism. In this case fascism.

It is obvious you are lacking a proper Americanist education - as are almost all Amerikans. It has been the proverbial slow boiling of the frog - over 100 years in the making. Time was when Americans clearly understood the principles of freedom; now, most Amerikans are like you - sadly.
 
How does the FedGov have the authority to make it illegal??

You can make it illegal on the state level, but even then it is wrong.



Of course there is force, lol... the government FORCING the private business owner to engage in commerce with people he does not want to. His rights are being violated by the government.

The LGBT people may in fact be discriminated against by the business owner, but then again he owns a PRIVATE BUSINESS, in a free society it is his business to run as he sees fit.

In an authoritarian society - which is what you, and all leftists advocate, his "private business" is not his to run as he sees fit, rather it is under the control of the government. That is fascism.



Only thru tortured and twisted interpretations of the Constitution can such a power be granted to the FedGov. Again, if you want to pass such a law on the state level, that is entirely proper - just as Indiana's law is entirely proper.



"Freedom" is the limitation of government. "Equal rights" is not a concept conceived in liberty, it is a concept conceived in authoritarian forms of government, most notably communism. In this case fascism.

It is obvious you are lacking a proper Americanist education - as are almost all Amerikans. It has been the proverbial slow boiling of the frog - over 100 years in the making. Time was when Americans clearly understood the principles of freedom; now, most Amerikans are like you - sadly.
;)....
 
Lol I'll expand my view point a little too. I believe that when you live in a nation, you are to "render unto Caesar" or in other words, conduct yourself in a manner that is dictated by those who dictate the rules. This includes businesses.

If im an individual and I decide to operate in commerce, that is my free will. No one is telling me I have to open up a business. If the law of the land dictates that your business, apartment complex, etc can't refuse commerce to someone based on a set of guidelines, then you must follow those guidelines. Again, you are not being forced to operate a business. You operate one of your own free will.

you are using a legal argument, but the OP clearly stated this "If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?"
 
Back
Top Bottom