• 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
So, I look at this as something like the issue where the state wanted to attach a rider on a bill that would allow discrimination in businesses so long as those businesses identified themselves as in when they would discriminate. So, therefore if you saw a business with a sign in their window that said "we do not provide services for same sex weddings due to our religious beliefs", or "we do not book parties for children who have same sex parents", would you patronize that business even if such signs wouldn't affect you personally at all. And my answer is absolutely not. That is something I would know about, and could absolutely control whether I did business with them. I also wouldn't do business with any of those places that I know in the past few years have refused some service or said they would to same sex couples/homosexuals, that they would treat them differently than opposite sex couples or heterosexuals in some aspect of their business.

Now, all that being said, there might be some businesses that I patronize that are discriminating without me knowing or they are some business that I simply do not have an alternative to (which is why I support antidiscrimination laws) without some serious financial impact or it would cause some other issues. I would try to find an alternative as soon as I could if it were due to not having one that I could see that was viable at that time. Unfortunately, there are times when we do have to do things that we might not want to do. Luckily, this is not likely to happen on such a huge scale that I am concerned about, just looking at the possibility.
 
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?

Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff? Chick Filet did not and does not discriminate against any group, LGBT or anyone. The CEO merely expressed his own personal opinion.....which has absolutely nothing with Chick Filet business practices.
 
Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff? Chick Filet did not and does not discriminate against any group, LGBT or anyone. The CEO merely expressed his own personal opinion.....which has absolutely nothing with Chick Filet business practices.

I was commenting on the bold, not Chic fillet. And my comment was re: your opinion, not the CF CEO's.

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 was about not respecting people that had to fight for their civil rights.

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?
 
1.)How does the FedGov have the authority to make it illegal??
2.)You can make it illegal on the state level, but even then it is wrong.
3.)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.
4.)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.
5.) 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.
6.)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.
7.)"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.
8.)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.

1.) if you are already this lost I dont know if i can help you. maybe the refer to the many many court cases that refer to laws, rights and the constitution, start there and lets us know>
2.) says who? your opinions. many courts cases, laws and the constitution disagree with you
3.) so they forced him to open up a shop a specifically serve somebody, wow can you post a link showing where that happened
4.) again there is no such right, you cant run it as you see fit LMAO
5.) more fantasy, sorry what you want is anarchy . . . no thanks I like freedom and rights
6.) who brought up Indiana???? and anyway you mean all the court cases and many many many judges that just simply used the Constitution and precedence? LOL
7.) more subjective opinions that you cant back up with any "facts"
8.) oh so all the judges and court cases and precedence and the constitution is wrong but YOU are right?:lamo
well when you get a change simply post the facts that support your failed and proven wrong claims, we would love to read them. thanks!
 
1.) if you are already this lost I dont know if i can help you. maybe the refer to the many many court cases that refer to laws, rights and the constitution, start there and lets us know>
2.) says who? your opinions. many courts cases, laws and the constitution disagree with you
3.) so they forced him to open up a shop a specifically serve somebody, wow can you post a link showing where that happened
4.) again there is no such right, you cant run it as you see fit LMAO
5.) more fantasy, sorry what you want is anarchy . . . no thanks I like freedom and rights
6.) who brought up Indiana???? and anyway you mean all the court cases and many many many judges that just simply used the Constitution and precedence? LOL
7.) more subjective opinions that you cant back up with any "facts"
8.) oh so all the judges and court cases and precedence and the constitution is wrong but YOU are right?:lamo
well when you get a change simply post the facts that support your failed and proven wrong claims, we would love to read them. thanks!

To be sure the courts have been butchering and expanding the meaning of the Constitution for decades - to now where it means pretty much nothing in terms of constraining the power of the FedGov.

To leftists this is, of course, a wonderful thing b/c in your view the government should be unchained to do "good" things for those less fortunate, to make life "fair", etc...

That is a bill of goods though. It is the Establishment that has been packing the court since FDR, and the agenda of the Establishment has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or helping anyone. Their agenda is one of power - power over the people. Since they control the government, and the government is increasingly gaining power and control over the people, it only makes sense that they would back any scheme are strategy that speeds them along that path.

Just as in most authoritarian societies, the lowest on the socioeconomic scale are the easiest targets to ensnare, indoctrinate, and put out in front of the fight. Here in the U.S., any cause will do - racism, sexual minorities, illegal immigrants, women... anyone who is ignorant and/or dishonest enough to think their advancement trumps the rights of others.

Those of you arguing that the FedGov has the authority to force private citizens to engage in commerce against their will, purchase financial instruments against their will, tell the how much they can make, who they have to hire, who they can't fire, etc... you are arguing in favor of authoritarian rule. Just b/c you rationalize that that rule is being directed at the behest of the majority of citizens does not make it any less authoritarian, anti-American, and anti-liberty.
 
1.)To be sure the courts have been butchering and expanding the meaning of the Constitution for decades - to now where it means pretty much nothing in terms of constraining the power of the FedGov.
2.)To leftists this is, of course, a wonderful thing b/c in your view the government should be unchained to do "good" things for those less fortunate, to make life "fair", etc...
3.)That is a bill of goods though. It is the Establishment that has been packing the court since FDR, and the agenda of the Establishment has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or helping anyone. Their agenda is one of power - power over the people. Since they control the government, and the government is increasingly gaining power and control over the people, it only makes sense that they would back any scheme are strategy that speeds them along that path.
4.)Just as in most authoritarian societies, the lowest on the socioeconomic scale are the easiest targets to ensnare, indoctrinate, and put out in front of the fight. Here in the U.S., any cause will do - racism, sexual minorities, illegal immigrants, women... anyone who is ignorant and/or dishonest enough to think their advancement trumps the rights of others.
5.)Those of you arguing that the FedGov has the authority to force private citizens to engage in commerce against their will, purchase financial instruments against their will, tell the how much they can make, who they have to hire, who they can't fire, etc... you are arguing in favor of authoritarian rule. Just b/c you rationalize that that rule is being directed at the behest of the majority of citizens does not make it any less authoritarian, anti-American, and anti-liberty.

1.) based on what facts?
2.) who is a leftist? lol
also when did I ever say what you claim?
make things up only further shows the complete failure of your posts
3.) again more meanignless unsupportable subjective opinion . . do you have anythign factual or of merit?
4.) see #3
5.) nobody has argued that, again posting lies only further exposes the failure of your posts lol

again, when you get a chance simply post the facts that support your failed and proven wrong claims, we would love to read them. thanks!
 
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.

I know the difference between a business' political/social views and their business practice (who they sell to, what they sell, etc.). It doesn't change what I posted. The only time I make a conscious decision to not spend my money somewhere is if I know animal abuse is involved in their product. Other than that, I don't care what they do as long as I perceive what I'm spending my money on is the best value. Most of us have our causes, and that's mine. I don't expect everyone else to think as I do, and I don't want everyone else to expect me to think as they do.
 
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.
If a business bases their business practices on their personal beliefs, then they are making a political and/or social statement with their business.

Generic comment.
 
If a business bases their business practices on their personal beliefs, then they are making a political and/or social statement with their business.

Generic comment.

Yes, they're making the political statement with their business...but they're still doing it with a business practice. It is not simply or singularly a "political statement" any longer, but also a business practice. And I also don't think a political statement is exactly the same as a political view. One's an action, one's a thought.

The business owner has a view. He puts that view into action to make a statement, and he does it by instituting a business practice.
 
Yes, they're making the political statement with their business...but they're still doing it with a business practice. It is not simply or singularly a "political statement" any longer, but also a business practice. And I also don't think a political statement is exactly the same as a political view. One's an action, one's a thought.

The business owner has a view. He puts that view into action to make a statement, and he does it by instituting a business practice.

I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.

An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.
 
I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.

An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.

But the view can exist without the action. A person can believe that same sex marriage is wrong without discriminating against homosexuals or same sex couples in their business, even when it comes to providing services for same sex weddings. It's the same for so many other views too. A person can believe condoms or birth control are wrong and still be able to sell those items to others, but simply not use them themselves.
 
I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.

An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.
But the view can exist without the action. A person can believe that same sex marriage is wrong without discriminating against homosexuals or same sex couples in their business, even when it comes to providing services for same sex weddings. It's the same for so many other views too. A person can believe condoms or birth control are wrong and still be able to sell those items to others, but simply not use them themselves.
Right. That's what I said.
 
I'm just not seeing a lot of distinction.

An action or practice is based on a view, the two go hand-in-hand in that regard, the action/practice wouldn't exist without the view. But a view doesn't have to result in an action or practice.

I agree with Zyph. On a strictly "right or wrong" scenario discrimination is bad and I wouldn't visit a place because I don't like their view.

On the other hand...it is a business practice and it shows you the mentality of the owner/organization.

The best thing I can think of is something that happened to me years ago.

I heard about this wing place that supposedly had amazing wings. I was having a party and decided to order from them. I called in the order and they gave me a time to pick up. I showed up at that time and waited like 45 minutes and it was obvious they waited until I showed up to make the wings.

I thought...well maybe that's a one time thing. Who knows, they may of been busy, I was pissed but gave them the benefit of the doubt and their wings were fantastic.

Decided to get wings another day and called in a much smaller order for pickup.

Once again...sit there and wait and it was obvious when they told me a time to wait before I stop by they were bs'ing me.

Even though the wings were good I haven't been back since. If they had a "no call aheads" policy at least I know what I'm getting. Instead, they obviously give people the perception they can call ahead and then only cook when the person gets there.

It shows me that for whatever reason the owner of the establishment prefers the convenience of his establishment over his customer. Even if they have a couple of people that call in and don't show that isn't a massive amount of cost, yet they choose to make me sit there and wait rather than make it convenient for me to stop by and pick up wings.

Saying you don't serve certain people is a business decision like that, where the owner decides his views, what makes him comfortable is more important than the business and it's customers. So, from a philosophical viewpoint would never visit such a business establishment but it is also a business decision that shows the owners priorities.

Maybe what I wrote makes no sense whatsoever but that's how I make the distinction.
 
Saying you don't serve certain people is a business decision like that, where the owner decides his views, what makes him comfortable is more important than the business and it's customers. So, from a philosophical viewpoint would never visit such a business establishment but it is also a business decision that shows the owners priorities.

Maybe what I wrote makes no sense whatsoever but that's how I make the distinction.

Except the "RFRA" are written in such a way that prevents even the store owner from disciplining an employee who refuses to sell to lgbt. In theory a mcdonald's drive thru clerk could refuse to sell to the obese, because gluttony is a sin, costing mcdonald's 80% of their customer base. So it doesn't necessarily reflect the owner's views or even the manager's, but the zit-faced teenager who knows nothing of smart business decisions

This is what happens what unrelenting hate infects public policy - 2 page laws that are as broad as possible
 
I was commenting on the bold, not Chic fillet. And my comment was re: your opinion, not the CF CEO's.



It was about not respecting people that had to fight for their civil rights.

Once again, Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO expressed his own opinions....which had nothing whatsoever with Chick Filet's business practices. They do not practice discrimination against anyone. Get over it.
 
Once again, Chick Filet did nothing wrong. The CEO expressed his own opinions....which had nothing whatsoever with Chick Filet's business practices. They do not practice discrimination against anyone. Get over it.

??? What part of this wasnt clear? I said nothing like what you just posted.

I was commenting on the bold, not Chic fillet. And my comment was re: your opinion, not the CF CEO's.
.

Can you support *your opinion*?
 
Of course not if it was in my control and it was discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
??? What part of this wasnt clear? I said nothing like what you just posted.



Can you support *your opinion*?

I absolutely can, sport. I am just not likely to bother with those who make up their own interpretations when not liking the answers.
 
I absolutely can, sport. I am just not likely to bother with those who make up their own interpretations when not liking the answers.

Ah, once again, just avoiding it when you cant support your opinion. I included all the quotes to make it quite clear.

This seems like a pattern for you.
 
I patronize whatever business I like. If the owner doesn't approve of homosexuals, it's not my concern. And if he's violating some law, it's not my job to enforce it.
 
Depends, if it was a business owner morally opposed to SSM and didn't want their products to be used to advance that I'd be fine with the business. If they flat out banned all gay people I wouldn't put my money there.
 
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

Maybe, maybe not.

A restaraunt refusing to serve gays would not get my business. The same owner that served gays in the restaraunt, but then flat out declined their offered contract to cater their gay wedding would still get my business.
 
It would depend on what is meant by "discrimination".

A place that says "no, you are a homosexual, get out"? Generally, no.

A place that says "we won't serve gay weddings"? Sure, I'd eat there.
 
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?

You'd have to define discrimination. Sometimes people say something is discrimination that others wouldn't categorize that way.
 
I would not patronize a business that discriminated against any group.
 
Back
Top Bottom