• 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!

Its ok for a business owner to refuse to do business with...

I support business refusal to do business with:

  • Total voters
    38
Goldenboy219 said:
Has government overstepped its boundaries in regards to such legislation (anti-discrimination)? If so, what are some examples.
Click to expand...
To me, compelled service is overstepping boundaries.



Being a problem customer is not the same as being a homosexual or black. You will have to expand your theory a bit.
Click to expand...
Correct, being a problem customer should be it's own issue, however when a customer is being a problem and called on it, sometimes they play the discrimination card and make all kinds of trouble for an establishment. That would be an abuse and as a former restaurant employee I have personally seen just that done with my own eyes.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I understand the concept of rights. All you have stated (along with rivrrat) is mine, me, mine, rights, me, mine, freedom, liberty. Nothing the least bit intellectual. Nothing at all in regards to business operations.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated no such understanding thus far. It's not mine, me; it's rights and liberties. Life, liberty, property; these are the foundations to all rights. The business is a private business, which means that an individual owns the property. That's their property. I don't get to tell them what to do with his property, that's not my business that's not my right. His rules. If he doesn't want Jews on his property, he can deny Jews from being in his property. Not my say. I didn't pay for the land, I don't pay the taxes on the land, I don't get a say. That's the basics.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. I didn't think I'd have to explain something like that to a functioning human.

Goldenboy219 said:
The kind who does not get all riled up when a bigot is fined or sued over discriminatory business practices.
Click to expand...

The one ok with the use of government force against the individual when they were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. That's nowhere close to the base philosophy of libertarianism. I suggest you maybe go learn a thing or two before you begin ascribing names to yourself.
 
rivrrat said:
Because it has nothing to do with business operations. And everything to do with personal property rights.

And it has nothing to do with me, since I am not a business owner and never will be.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, you'll make up anything to run away. That was pretty much what the "me, me, me," crap was. Deflection argument constructed so one can run away without addressing the real point. I refuse to believe that any human with a functioning brain didn't know what you were saying. Even if perhaps they disagree with the ideal of property rights or that this particular action being covered by it. That can happen for sure, but it's still obvious even to those who disagree that it's not a "me me me" argument; but rather one based on rights.
 
LaMidRighter said:
To me, compelled service is overstepping boundaries.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and i respect it. I can only wish the others who agree with you can be a bit more open to consideration within the realm of discussion. It is impossible to have a legitimate discussion when people only view things in black and white. The world is mostly gray.

Correct, being a problem customer should be it's own issue, however when a customer is being a problem and called on it, sometimes they play the discrimination card and make all kinds of trouble for an establishment. That would be an abuse and as a former restaurant employee I have personally seen just that done with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

Am i wrong in stating the amount of successful abuse is minimal due to the implementation of cameras and surveillance devices, and the fact that a plaintiff actually has to have proof of discrimination.
 
Ikari said:
Well I suppose when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, you'll make up anything to run away. That was pretty much what the "me, me, me," crap was. Deflection argument constructed so one can run away without addressing the real point. I refuse to believe that any human with a functioning brain didn't know what you were saying. Even if perhaps they disagree with the ideal of property rights or that this particular action being covered by it. That can happen for sure, but it's still obvious even to those who disagree that it's not a "me me me" argument; but rather one based on rights.
Click to expand...

That is all you two have stated from the get go. Black and white interpretations of rights will continue to fall on deaf ears unless you can make an attempt to have a serious discussion without pulling out the "rights" card:2razz: LMR has no difficulty in this regard. The dialog between us has been nothing short of respectful and engaging even though we disagree.

You two on the other hand have done very little to add anything to discussion besides "its mine". Why even bother replying in this discussion. You have made your opinions crystal clear.
 
Run away if you have to, but it only reflect on your integrity, resolve, and intellectual honesty.

And it's mostly due to your continual misrepresentation of our argument, inability to contend with it, and overall attitude you brought to the discussion when faced with ideals you couldn't properly argue against.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Am i wrong in stating the amount of successful abuse is minimal due to the implementation of cameras and surveillance devices, and the fact that a plaintiff actually has to have proof of discrimination.
Click to expand...
No, abuse is admittedly minimal, but the camera's and surveillance devices are only as good as what they catch, for instance if someone wanted to commit such a fraud they might take the argument further to claim that they were initially treated in a hostile manner and reacted in kind, or if they get the right court setup might state that they felt unwelcome and thus were discriminated against. It's all in how the context is framed.
 
Ikari said:
You have demonstrated no such understanding thus far. It's not mine, me; it's rights and liberties. Life, liberty, property; these are the foundations to all rights. The business is a private business, which means that an individual owns the property. That's their property. I don't get to tell them what to do with his property, that's not my business that's not my right. His rules. If he doesn't want Jews on his property, he can deny Jews from being in his property. Not my say. I didn't pay for the land, I don't pay the taxes on the land, I don't get a say. That's the basics.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. I didn't think I'd have to explain something like that to a functioning human.
Click to expand...

You have made this point already. I get you. I just don't believe things are always so black and white.

The one ok with the use of government force against the individual when they were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. That's nowhere close to the base philosophy of libertarianism. I suggest you maybe go learn a thing or two before you begin ascribing names to yourself.
Click to expand...

My view on rights does in fact differ from yours. There are such things as positive and negative freedom. Nothing in this world is simple, including the concept of rights and freedom. I understand your views.

Good day to you sir.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, abuse is admittedly minimal, but the camera's and surveillance devices are only as good as what they catch, for instance if someone wanted to commit such a fraud they might take the argument further to claim that they were initially treated in a hostile manner and reacted in kind, or if they get the right court setup might state that they felt unwelcome and thus were discriminated against. It's all in how the context is framed.
Click to expand...

Do courts really award judgment because people "felt" they were being discriminated against? I am not a legal expert so i'll be PM'ing RNYC about this aspect.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You have made this point already. I get you. I just don't believe things are always so black and white.
Click to expand...

Many things have shades of subtleties to them, but rights are the basis which is supposed to form law in this country and thus must be taken as well more static and well defined than other areas of morality which are more "floppy". There is a base somewhere, an absolute. The absolute is found within the rights of the individual.

Goldenboy219 said:
My view on rights does in fact differ from yours. There are such things as positive and negative freedom. Nothing in this world is simple, including the concept of rights and freedom. I understand your views.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that you differ from me. What I'm saying is that your ideals are radically different from the base philosophy of libertarianism. We don't believe in floppy rights as you do.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do courts really award judgment because people "felt" they were being discriminated against? I am not a legal expert so i'll be PM'ing RNYC about this aspect.
Click to expand...

It can happen. Beyond a reasonable doubt is only strict criteria in a criminal court of law. Reasonable doubt itself can be used in civil court.
 
Ikari said:
Run away if you have to, but it only reflect on your integrity, resolve, and intellectual honesty.

And it's mostly due to your continual misrepresentation of our argument, inability to contend with it, and overall attitude you brought to the discussion when faced with ideals you couldn't properly argue against.
Click to expand...

You have made your point clear pages ago. Nothing new or within the realm of discussion has been added since then. If you desire to have a true discussion, by all means. But simply repeating your opinion is not going to cut it. You have to do better, or be creative. Something other than the same old cut and dry "private property rights".
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You have made your point clear pages ago. Nothing new or within the realm of discussion has been added since then. If you desire to have a true discussion, by all means. But simply repeating your opinion is not going to cut it. You have to do better, or be creative. Something other than the same old cut and dry "private property rights".
Click to expand...

The same can apply to you since the only counter you had to arguments of property rights is "things aren't that black and white". That's it. It's not an argument, it's a deflection. So the point is, we sit here with people having made actual argument for property rights and your response was "it's not black and white". That's it. So before you start throwing stones at us claiming that we need a better argument, you should maybe look at your own little glass house you've constructed out of deflection arguments and refusal to engage.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do courts really award judgment because people "felt" they were being discriminated against? I am not a legal expert so i'll be PM'ing RNYC about this aspect.
Click to expand...
Couldn't tell you about rewarding, but you can sue for just about anything. I have seen some stupid suits based on emotional crap like that, but don't know the outcome.
 
Ikari said:
Many things have shades of subtleties to them, but rights are the basis which is supposed to form law in this country and thus must be taken as well more static and well defined than other areas of morality which are more "floppy". There is a base somewhere, an absolute. The absolute is found within the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

I admit my views on rights are far more pragmatic than the "base". But if you wish to argue within the realm of absolutes, we cannot have a serious (let alone interesting discussion).

I'm not disagreeing that you differ from me. What I'm saying is that your ideals are radically different from the base philosophy of libertarianism. We don't believe in floppy rights as you do.
Click to expand...

Radically? Maybe to you.

However, my views on freedom are far more complex. I know of some libertarians who believe you do have the right to yell fire in a non burning building. Maybe you are in this camp, maybe not. The point is, I for one refuse to view the world in only one spectrum because it removes the intellectual aspect of dissonance.

To each their own i guess. :shrug:
 
LaMidRighter said:
Couldn't tell you about rewarding, but you can sue for just about anything. I have seen some stupid suits based on emotional crap like that, but don't know the outcome.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

You can sue for just about anything and i do not believe this type of legislation limits in any way a persons ability to run their business.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Exactly!

You can sue for just about anything and i do not believe this type of legislation limits in any way a persons ability to run their business.
Click to expand...
Unless you are tied up in court constantly due to too many laws to comply with.
 
Ikari said:
The same can apply to you since the only counter you had to arguments of property rights is "things aren't that black and white". That's it. It's not an argument, it's a deflection. So the point is, we sit here with people having made actual argument for property rights and your response was "it's not black and white". That's it. So before you start throwing stones at us claiming that we need a better argument, you should maybe look at your own little glass house you've constructed out of deflection arguments and refusal to engage.
Click to expand...

:confused:

I have discussed firm theory, externalities, human psyche, legality, etc.... As i said previously, LMR has had no problem bringing forth a quality argument that is both engaging and stemming from the premise of individual property rights. Your desire to go another direction is noted.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Unless you are tied up in court constantly due to too many laws to comply with.
Click to expand...

In the US, such a scenario is not an issue. While i have no doubt that there are some firms who are constantly wrapped up in litigation, much of that is the product of expansion and is a natural market phenomenon.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
In the US, such a scenario is not an issue. While i have no doubt that there are some firms who are constantly wrapped up in litigation, much of that is the product of expansion and is a natural market phenomenon.
Click to expand...
So imagine the growth without that hinderance.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
:confused:

I have discussed firm theory, externalities, human psyche, legality, etc.... As i said previously, LMR has had no problem bringing forth a quality argument that is both engaging and stemming from the premise of individual property rights. Your desire to go another direction is noted.
Click to expand...

It's not my desire, it's yours. You've discussed none of those things in reference to our posts. To our posts, you've merely only said "it's not black and white", and then got pissy when we started to reiterate our argument and then started in with attacks. You're reaping what you sowed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So imagine the growth without that hinderance.
Click to expand...

Making it harder to sue for just about anything? I most certainly can agree with that.

FWIW, growth is primarily a function of both technological advance and population.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Making it harder to sue for just about anything? I most certainly can agree with that.

FWIW, growth is primarily a function of both technological advance and population.
Click to expand...
That's half of it IMO, growth also requires the ability to facilitate the increasing demands of a growing population along with the ingenuity to expand upon advances, the more quickly and efficiently those two factors can be facilitated, the faster all factors can combine to form a growth spurt, when there are too many hindurances it creates a bottle neck and chokes off the market.
 
Ikari said:
It's not my desire, it's yours. You've discussed none of those things in reference to our posts. To our posts, you've merely only said "it's not black and white", and then got pissy when we started to reiterate our argument and then started in with attacks. You're reaping what you sowed.
Click to expand...

Attack? I said you claimed me me me mine mine mine. That is not an attack, only pointing out the reality of the situation. We have nothing to discuss because you view this discussion to be only in regards to property rights.

The fact that the firms objective is maximum profits has zero meaning to you.

There is really nothing to discuss with you because you have made your point and argument clear: Its all or nothing.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's half of it IMO, growth also requires the ability to facilitate the increasing demands of a growing population along with the ingenuity to expand upon advances, the more quickly and efficiently those two factors can be facilitated, the faster all factors can combine to form a growth spurt, when there are too many hindurances it creates a bottle neck and chokes off the market.
Click to expand...

In the short run, yes. In the long run markets rule. Which is why we have witnessed both Korean and Japanese convergence even though they have far more barriers to entry in regards to the entrepreneurial spirit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom