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

[dex4974]

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.

You're being ridiculous and playing games. I'll reevaluate whether or not you're worth having a conversation with if you start actually addressing the things I say. As it stands you've only shown me that it's not worth trying.

 

[roguenuke]

Do you seriously believe anything more than an extreme minority of small businesses would deny sales and profit for the sake of prejudice? Even in the 50s most business owners had more sense than that. What you're suggesting could happen is completely ridiculous and implausible.

That isnt really true. I've lived in places with very few businesses that provide certain services. I've had family live in places were there is literally only one small store. The nearest larger stores are an hour or more away.

Kemmerer, Wyoming - Wikipedia

Tonopah, Nevada - Wikipedia

Not places with a lot of options, easily could discriminate.

Then there are towns run by FLDS members that have been accused of essentially doing exactly what I described and more to nonFLDS members.

2 FLDS Towns Set To Face Religious Discrimination Trial : NPR

Jury: Polygamous towns discriminate against non-FLDS members

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dex4974]

That isnt really true. I've lived in places with very few businesses that provide certain services. I've had family live in places were there is literally only one small store. The nearest larger stores are an hour or more away.

Kemmerer, Wyoming - Wikipedia

Tonopah, Nevada - Wikipedia

Not places with a lot of options, easily could discriminate.

Then there are towns run by FLDS members that have been accused of essentially doing exactly what I described and more to nonFLDS members.

2 FLDS Towns Set To Face Religious Discrimination Trial : NPR

Jury: Polygamous towns discriminate against non-FLDS members

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

If we reverted that mandate minorities would not be left without somewhere to get the vital goods they need. The free market would ensure that. Also the racist owners would be punished with less business, especially in 2020. Very few businesses would opt to be prejudice in their services, and many of the ones that did would be hurt by it and possibly go out of business entirely.

 

[dex4974]

Lets say the law was erased today. Give me the name of a business who would hang a "no blacks allowed" sign on their front door.

Maybe some roach motel out in the middle of nowhere, or some hole in the wall bar nobody has ever heard of before. Oh the inhumanity! Society would crumble. What would the minorities do?!

 

[Master Debator]

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

You misunderstood. Facts are objective. Such as murder and discrimination are illegal. Thats an onbjective fact. The moral reasoning behind such laws may be subjective, but objectively discrimination based on race and gender is illegal.

Private entities would create vital infrastructure in the absence of a government to do so.

Then do so and stop complaining. But I don't think you've really thought through all the infastructure required to operate a business. Just the idea of money itself. What are your customers going to pay with?

Also you ignored my point that government can't exist without taxing those businesses either. Your argument here falls flat.

No. Your argument would only make sense if the businesses that wanted to discriminate were the only tax paying entities. They are not. Again, minorities, gays, they also pay taxes that go to support your business.

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.

Maybe stop getting all in your feelings and make a rational argument.

:lamo

 

[roguenuke]

If we reverted that mandate minorities would not be left without somewhere to get the vital goods they need. The free market would ensure that. Also the racist owners would be punished with less business, especially in 2020. Very few businesses would opt to be prejudice in their services, and many of the ones that did would be hurt by it and possibly go out of business entirely.

Yes they would because they could be refused service anywhere.

What about being refused service from the only/last gas station on a long route, which do exist in the desert? I've given you examples of why it wouldn't work and why places just 4years ago were getting in trouble for discrimination, whole towns.


How are people in little towns, who rely on that store for most of their everyday needs going to give that owner less business if they refuse to serve the two gay guys in town or the one Hispanic? What do you not understand about the FLDS town refusing service to non members? In fact actively working to harass them and the law enforcement ignoring such harassment? You seem to think all towns are set up of a certain percentage who would disapprove of that refusal.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dex4974]

Maybe top getting all in your feelings and make a rational argument.

:lamo

Yeah, you must be right; you win. I'm bored.

 

[dex4974]

Yes they would because they could be refused service anywhere.

What about being refused service from the only/last gas station on a long route, which do exist in the desert? I've given you examples of why it wouldn't work and why places just 4years ago were getting in trouble for discrimination, whole towns.


How are people in little towns, who rely on that store for most of their everyday needs going to give that owner less business if they refuse to serve the two gay guys in town or the one Hispanic? What do you not understand about the FLDS town refusing service to non members? In fact actively working to harass them and the law enforcement ignoring such harassment? You seem to think all towns are set up of a certain percentage who would disapprove of that refusal.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Sometimes there isn't a perfect answer. I choose to side with the private sector rather than being willing to give the government more and more control over society.

 

[Master Debator]

Yeah, you must be right; you win. I'm bored.

Yea, it has nothing to do with you being unable to answer how a businesses operates without the infrastructure provided by tax payers.

:lamo

Run away as fast as you can...

 

[roguenuke]

Sometimes there isn't a perfect answer. I choose to side with the private sector rather than being willing to give the government more and more control over society.

I choose to side with laws that force them to treat people fairly in business transactions as much as possible since they benefit hugely from being able to sell to the public, use public roads to bring in wares, public schools to educate their workers, public infrastructure for utilities.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[aociswundumho]

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

Who cares? I guess they would take their business elsewhere.

 

[dex4974]

Yea, it has nothing to do with you being unable to answer how a businesses operates with the infrastructure provided by tax payers.

:lamo

Run away as fast as you can...

All I was doing was entertaining your narrative. I don't think the government should be mandating that businesses can't deny service regardless of your tax argument. Those businesses pay taxes back into the system and are owed a certain level of autonomy; choosing who they do or don't do business with should be part of that autonomy. My opinion remains unfazed by your nonsense.

Believe it or not I'm actually just bored of you. You don't debate with intellectual integrity. You argue like a snake and I'm not really interested. I imagine you're probably pretty desperate for the narc supply though, so go ahead and do your victory lap. The pigeon wins at chess once again.

 

[aociswundumho]

Do you seriously believe anything more than an extreme minority of small businesses would deny sales and profit for the sake of prejudice? Even in the 50s most business owners had more sense than that.

Of course, that's why it was necessary for Democrats to pass Jim Crow laws in order to force private businesses to discriminate.

 

[dex4974]

Who cares? I guess they would take their business elsewhere.

Wait...

They can DO THAT? And that other business would make more money and thrive above the ones that mitigate their profit through prejudice? Are you suggesting that possibly the free market can work things out without big brother dropping his pecker on the table?

 

[dex4974]

I choose to side with laws that force them

I know.

 

[aociswundumho]

That isnt really true. I've lived in places with very few businesses that provide certain services. I've had family live in places were there is literally only one small store. The nearest larger stores are an hour or more away.

So what? It's a private business, not a charity.

 

[Sand Castle]

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.

Why don't we carry you theory a bit further. The hypothetical business owner you reference obviously is white and heterosexual.

This business owner is seriously injured in a car accident, the privately owned ambulance staffed with two gay EMT's and the EMT's recognize that the injured man is a straight, white man. Having been refused service from men like your businessman, the EMT's refuse to transport him.

It get's worse for your businessman, a new ambulance is found with good old white straight Americans. The delay has cost the man dealry. The ambulance arrives at a privately owned hospital and wheeled into the trauma room where only one trauma doctor is on duty.

Trouble though, this trauma MD is gay and black and was refused service by the patient. This doctor being prejudice against white straight men refuses to save patient's life.

 

[dex4974]

The hypothetical business owner you reference obviously is white and heterosexual.

No, you see, those are just the limitations on your perspective created by your own bias in this argument. The hypothetical business owner could be telling some MAGA hat wearer to get the **** out of his store. Or maybe a Muslim doesn't want to serve Christians, or gay people don't want to serve either. There are already laws about emergency services and obviously somebody in critical condition should not be left in the street. We don't need to get that goofy, do we?

 

[aociswundumho]

Although I agree with your sentiment that you wouldn’t patronize a business that would discriminate, I disagree that such a business should be allowed to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner. Doing so would allow all types of prejudice/bigotry a “safe space” that they most certainly do not deserve.

When you do business with someone you are entering into a contract with them. The most basic, fundamental criterion for a valid, legal contract is that both parties enter into the deal voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws force people into contracts they do not wish to enter. That's why they are an abomination.

 

[Master Debator]

All I was doing was entertaining your narrative. I don't think the government should be mandating that businesses can't deny service regardless of your tax argument. Those businesses pay taxes back into the system and are owed a certain level of autonomy; choosing who they do or don't do business with should be part of that autonomy. My opinion remains unfazed by your nonsense.

The taxes those businesses pay don’t account for all the benefits they receive from the infrastructure provided by society and government. And besides that, your opinion lost 56 years ago in a much whiter, conservative, society. I don't see you bringing back legal discrimination anytime soon.

Believe it or not I'm actually just bored of you. You don't debate with intellectual integrity. You argue like a snake and I'm not really interested. I imagine you're probably pretty desperate for the narc supply though, so go ahead and do your victory lap. The pigeon wins at chess once again.

:boohoo:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Do you seriously believe anything more than an extreme minority of small businesses would deny sales and profit for the sake of prejudice? Even in the 50s most business owners had more sense than that. What you're suggesting could happen is completely ridiculous and implausible.

You were not alive in the 50's and I was.
Your ignorance is astounding, and yet not surprising.
In the 50's, in Jim Crow states, business owners did NOT have "more sense than that".

Not even government operated MUNICIPAL utilities had sense.
Not even municipal BUS LINES, just as one example.

What you are advocating is a tacit agreement between bigoted citizens and local and state governments to allow direct deprivation of access to both public and private sector goods and services based entirely on racial prejudice, and your weak and lame attempt to cloak it in terms like "control over the private sector" fails and fails utterly.

The private sector serves the public, and as such they are required BY LAW to observe laws that serve protected classes of citizens.
You can bitch and moan all you like but unless and until you get the numbers needed to overturn a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely, given the amount of blood and sacrifice it took to cause it to come into being, you best just accept the rule of law.

No sympathy here remains, not for you, not for your pathetic and abortive lost cause, not for your narrowminded whining.

 

[dex4974]

When you do business with someone you are entering into a contract with them. The most basic, fundamental criterion for a valid, legal contract is that both parties enter into the deal voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws force people into contracts they do not wish to enter. That's why they are an abomination.

You are an excellent poster. Thanks for your support.

 

[Master Debator]

When you do business with someone you are entering into a contract with them. The most basic, fundamental criterion for a valid, legal contract is that both parties enter into the deal voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws force people into contracts they do not wish to enter. That's why they are an abomination.

So you don't enter a contract with the government and society when you create the legal entity of a business?

:blink:

 

[vegas giants]

When you do business with someone you are entering into a contract with them. The most basic, fundamental criterion for a valid, legal contract is that both parties enter into the deal voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws force people into contracts they do not wish to enter. That's why they are an abomination.

No one is ever forced into a contract

 

[Sand Castle]

No, you see, those are just the limitations on your perspective created by your own bias in this argument. The hypothetical business owner could be telling some MAGA hat wearer to get the **** out of his store. Or maybe a Muslim doesn't want to serve Christians, or gay people don't want to serve either.


There are already laws about emergency services and obviously somebody in critical condition should not be left in the street. We don't need to get that goofy, do we?

Actually, by writing the above sentence defending government laws towards private emergency service, your entire thread is now deemed goofy.