Private businesses should legally be allowed to deny service to anybody they want for any reason.

[Mr Person]

If some bakery owner wants to deny service to openly gay people, or if Cleetus the bar owner wants to deny service to people of color in his bar out in the sticks, that should be legally acceptable in my opinion. If somebody is willing to limit their own sales because they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve somebody, they should be allowed to deny their service. Somebody that invested in and built their own business should not be forced by the government to do business they don't want to do. If I want to turn down your money I should be legally allowed to do that for any stupid or illogical reason that I want. Nobody should have legal grounds to sue me because I refused to do business with them. It is ridiculous that it triggers national outrage and people get sued over not providing their private service to individuals.

Personally I wouldn't purchase services from a business like that and I would encourage others to do the same, but the government shouldn't be involved. It's all about not giving the government precedence to exert more control over the private sector. The government always has a good reason when it takes us an inch closer to their complete control of our lives and decisions.

That, protects racists and other scum of the earth "ists" for precisely no good reason. You say "should" and you think things are "ridiculous" that people are outraged at hatred against black people, against gay people, against any other targeted group. Which suggests your post is just coded "ism". But if it's a serious post, it's a foolish one. There's no good reason to allow businesses open to the public to discriminate against protected classes.

"But mah freedumbz" is the stupidest argument usually deployed. Why should we allow businesses open to the public to refuse to serve someone because they are black or gay? What is the net benefit to society of having that "freedom"? A business open to the public can already discriminate for any reason it wishes just so long as that reason is not that the target is in a protected class. They can refuse to serve a black person because they happen to be shirtless at the moment. They can refuse to serve someone because that person appears drunk or is being disruptive to other customers.

There is absolutely no benefit to society for allowing them to not serve a black person because they are black. None. It only presents negatives. Your feelings that outrage is ridiculous tell me that you are white, likely male, likely reasonably well off. It's easy to say people should have the right to discriminate when you aren't ever going to be a target of discrimination. Cowardly, in fact. You're just defending racism and the like.

If you want to discriminate, open a private club.



I can think of a site that would welcome your "but mah freedumbz" thread. It begins with an S. Can you guess the name?

 

[dex4974]

We have been down this road before, and it resulted in "no colored allowed" signs showing up. We do it again on the back of such a ridiculous argument and we will see "no gays and lesbians allowed" signs showing up (as well as whatever else Christians decide to be bigoted about going forward.)

We may not like why we need public accommodation laws and civil rights laws but the reality is without it injustice would see an uptick, yet again.

This is not about government inching closer to "complete control of our lives and decisions," this is all about dealing with how asinine people can be with their beliefs to the point of repeating what history has already shown us of what ignorance can do to a society and economy.

We have no choice but to turn to the government to deal with manufactured reasons to create then exclude secondary classes in our society.

Open a history book, it was not pretty and there is no valid argument to go back to that utter stupidity.

There is enough variety of business and enough level-headed business people to ensure that nobody will be prevented access to society. Racist business owners would just be giving up business to non-racist owners. The free market would take care of it. The government isn't needed here.

 

[dex4974]

That's basically saying "No niggers allowed in Louisiana!"

Because that's what would happen.

And what happens if I open a pharmacy, and refuse to sell to white people in NYC?

Even in the 50s in southern states black people were able to get goods. Non-racist business owners would get more business and thrive. We don't need the government dropping mandates here. You're all retreating to this ridiculous argument of "Where would minorities get their goods?!" but it's just not realistic.

 

[BrotherFease]

We have been down this road before, and it resulted in "no colored allowed" signs showing up. We do it again on the back of such a ridiculous argument and we will see "no gays and lesbians allowed" signs showing up (as well as whatever else Christians decide to be bigoted about going forward.)

We may not like why we need public accommodation laws and civil rights laws but the reality is without it injustice would see an uptick, yet again.

This is not about government inching closer to "complete control of our lives and decisions," this is all about dealing with how asinine people can be with their beliefs to the point of repeating what history has already shown us of what ignorance can do to a society and economy.

We have no choice but to turn to the government to deal with manufactured reasons to create then exclude secondary classes in our society.

Open a history book, it was not pretty and there is no valid argument to go back to that utter stupidity.

I want to see if the OP thinks it was perfectly acceptable for black people to carry around Green Books everywhere they go.

You're 100% right. Businesses have rights. I agree, but every America has the right to own property, find employment, and be treated the same under the law. I would argue we need expand our federal protection laws to include gender identity and sexual orientation -- two innate characteristics. We should carve out exceptions, but generally businesses have to serve everybody regardless of who they are. My issue here is "right to discriminate" isn't a right.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is enough variety of business and enough level-headed business people to ensure that nobody will be prevented access to society. Racist business owners would just be giving up business to non-racist owners. The free market would take care of it. The government isn't needed here.

That is more pie in the sky thinking.

We would not see the same behavior in every community across the US, moreover some States would run with the idea and make a mess for their minority populations. Namely states across the southeast.

 

[dex4974]

What about larger companies. Gas and electric, can they discriminate in your world view?

The vast majority of businesses, especially larger ones, would not be willing to refuse profit for the sake of prejudice. Again, this notion that minorities would have nowhere to get vital supplies is asinine. This is 2020. Racism today is not even more prevalent than it was in the 50s; it's less so than ever.

 

[CaughtInThe]

the ONLY reason that the US had to force businesses to do business with everyone is because a bunch of Christians (and others for that matter) decided they didn't want blacks inside their businesses/buildings (which came from those same types of people buying and selling humans like Somali Pirates).



totally disgusting.

 

[dex4974]

That is more pie in the sky thinking.

We would not see the same behavior in every community across the US, moreover some States would run with the idea and make a mess for their minority populations. Namely states across the southeast.

Your argument makes it sounds like it'd be even more of a mess than it was back when businesses had the terrible right to decide who they do and don't conduct business with. Your position is illogical.

 

[dex4974]

That, protects...

Business owners and their ability to operate more independently of the government.

 

[CaughtInThe]

and i'll add that those same Christians that denied service to blacks back in the day would probably have denied service to Jesus.

not the European Jesus. the real one.

 

[dex4974]

So you're okay with black people having to carry around a Green Book in order to get food/gas/lodging/medical attention/busing? Good luck with that narrative.

Some variation of this argument has been addressed at least three times now.

 

[dex4974]

the ONLY reason that the US had to force businesses to do business with everyone is because a bunch of Christians (and others for that matter) decided they didn't want blacks inside their businesses/buildings (which came from those same types of people buying and selling humans like Somali Pirates).



totally disgusting.

I'm pretty sure the civil rights laws actually exempted churches. haha Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Master Debator]

This doesn't address the point. I'm aware that per the law people have no choice but to follow what has been mandated.

I addressed your point later, here I merely destroying your claim that the government has forced you into some position. It has not anymore than you are forced into some position by the government making it illegal for you to murder another a human being. Here, the government is preventing you from discriminating against another citizen.

Another non-argument from the Master Debator.

Another empty reply.

:shrug:

Maybe you're just missing the point. Some people actually take issue with the government exerting control over the private sector regardless of how nice their excuse is. It's possible to do a bad thing with good intentions. Your retreat into "You're a racist!" is quite telling of your lack or argument, though.

I can make an argument, while making fun of you for being a racist. Im multi-talented like that.

:shrug:

I'm not an anarchist. I think the government has some role and some necessity, but it's a fine and dangerous line that must be scrutinized constantly. Mandating that a private business must do business with somebody they don't want to do business with is not necessary or justified.

Based on what? Not by the current law. By who and how is justified decided?

 

[dex4974]

Based on what?

Since you said a lot of nothing in the other bits I'll just address this part. My views and understanding of justice and morality are based on my own subjective view of the world, same as you. We just disagree. That's why I'm here slapping you around in this debate.

 

[BrotherFease]

Some variation of this argument has been addressed at least three times now.

Yes or no, to my question. Is it acceptable for minority group to carry around books in order to know which stores and faculties they can use? Answer that question honestly, because that was the reality in the United States. Can't ignore it. Can't sugar coat it. When you endorse segregation, you create an environment where people cannot get food, housing, and emergency assistance.

 

[Master Debator]

Since you said a lot of nothing in the other bits I'll just address this part. My views and understanding of justice and morality are based on my own subjective view of the world, same as you. That's why I'm here slapping you around in this debate.

Then saying such and such isn't justified has no real meaning if you understand your opinion to be subjective. Thats just you trying to elevate your opinion. Where you just giving your opinion or making an objective argument, because I was.

It isn't my opinion that discrimination based on race or gender is unjust. Thats the objective law. And it isnt my opinion that businesses are dependent on government and tax payers, who come in all colors and preferences. Thats just a fact. You said you wanted government out of business but you don't. Still want the infrastructure provided by government and ultimately tax payers who you then think you should have a right to refuse service to as if you aren't dependent on them but objectively you are.

 

[BrotherFease]

Does the OP oppose the Piggy Park decision?

 

[dex4974]

Yes or no, to my question. Is it acceptable for minority group to carry around books in order to know which stores and faculties they can use? Answer that question honestly, because that was the reality in the United States. Can't ignore it. Can't sugar coat it.

You would sell all of our freedom to soothe your emotional distress. The problem today would be way smaller than it was back then because the world has changed. We've had a black president. Lots of influential people are black. To act like we'd revert back to the 1950s or worse is ridiculous. Even in the 1950s minorities had plenty of places they could shop, and businesses that catered to them made a lot of money. The free market can sort these things out. We don't need a government mandate.

 

[BrotherFease]

You would sell all of our freedom to soothe your emotional distress. The problem today would be way smaller than it was back then because the world has changed. We've had a black president. Lots of influential people are black. To act like we'd revert back to the 1950s or worse is ridiculous. Even in the 1950s minorities had plenty of places they could shop, and businesses that catered to them made a lot of money. The free market can sort these things out. We don't need a government mandate.

So the answer is yes, right? You think it's acceptable for black people to carry around Green Books?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Your argument makes it sounds like it'd be even more of a mess than it was back when businesses had the terrible right to decide who they do and don't conduct business with. Your position is illogical.

My position on this accurately reflects what we are already seeing some push for, rooted in religion and used as a weapon to discriminate.

 

[HenryChinaski]

If some bakery owner wants to deny service to openly gay people, or if Cleetus the bar owner wants to deny service to people of color in his bar out in the sticks, that should be legally acceptable in my opinion. If somebody is willing to limit their own sales because they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve somebody, they should be allowed to deny their service. Somebody that invested in and built their own business should not be forced by the government to do business they don't want to do. If I want to turn down your money I should be legally allowed to do that for any stupid or illogical reason that I want. Nobody should have legal grounds to sue me because I refused to do business with them. It is ridiculous that it triggers national outrage and people get sued over not providing their private service to individuals.

Personally I wouldn't purchase services from a business like that and I would encourage others to do the same, but the government shouldn't be involved. It's all about not giving the government precedence to exert more control over the private sector. The government always has a good reason when it takes us an inch closer to their complete control of our lives and decisions.

Build a time machine and go on back to 1949, you'll be all cozy right at home.

 

[dex4974]

Then saying such and such isn't justified has no real meaning if you understand your opinion to be subjective.

We all have subjective opinions.

Thats just you trying to elevate your opinion.

That is me giving emphasis to my opinion.

Where you just giving your opinion or making an objective argument, because I was.

Somebody doesn't have a firm grasp of objective vs subjective. If you think your views are objective you have one serious God complex.

Thats the objective law.

All of ethics is subjective. Again, you lack a solid grasp of the meaning of these words.

And it isnt my opinion that businesses are dependent on government and tax payers, who come in all colors and preferences.

Private entities would create vital infrastructure in the absence of a government to do so. Also you ignored my point that government can't exist without taxing those businesses either. Your argument here falls flat.

You said you wanted government out of business but you don't.

You're getting very bold and bendy with your interpretations of the things I have and haven't said. That's probably because you're not somebody that often implements intellectual integrity while debating.

Still want the infrastructure provided by government and ultimately tax payers who you then think you should have a right to refuse service to as if you aren't dependent on them but objectively you are.

I addressed this.

 

[dex4974]

So the answer is yes, right? You think it's acceptable for black people to carry around Green Books?

You're not actually debating my points.

 

[dex4974]

My position on this accurately reflects what we are already seeing some push for, rooted in religion and used as a weapon to discriminate.

So you think the situation would potentially be worse than in the 1950s? You think it's reasonable to make arguments that suggest black people would have nowhere to shop? Do you agree that the free market would punish racist owners and benefit the ones that aren't?

 

[BrotherFease]

You're not actually debating my points.

I asked you a simple question. Is it acceptable for minority groups to carry around books, like with black people and the Green Book? It's a pretty critically important question.