• 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!

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

dex4974 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Where is this free market paradise now currently working in the world?
 
vegas giants said:
Where is this free market paradise now currently working in the world?
Click to expand...

The government needs to pull its **** out of the market first if it's going to work the way it's supposed to.
 
dex4974 said:
The government needs to pull its **** out of the market first if it's going to work the way it's supposed to.
Click to expand...

So it's not working anywhere on planet earth?


Hmmmmm. Lol
 
aociswundumho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Simply put, you are completely wrong.

Businesses that serve the public must abide by public standards of decency and inclusivity. Those that wish to discriminate against any group of people because of prejudice have no right to scream foul when they are penalized for doing the very same thing, themselves.

Don’t like the rules of living in a great big melting pot of humanity? America’s a free country and you’re free to leave anytime.
 
dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there has to be a valid basis for such discrimination. A person should not have to create a for of art that is offensive to them, which in the case of a baker making a cake with a gay statement likely is. I'm with Martin Luther King though when it comes to race. It would be wrong to discriminate on skin color, but not on the content of the person's character.

Back to the people making food. If you are making cookie-cutter doughnuts, there is no reason to discriminate between straights and gays. However, if you are doing what constitutes an art that takes a personal touch, and commissioned, like a specialized cake. Yes. The artist has every right in the world to say "I'm not comfortable making that."

The idea of signs we sometimes see that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," in my view, are to remind people to be respectful, or be asked to leave.

I am in full support of a business discriminating based on the content of a person's character. may places refuse to allow customers who wear gang colors for example.

Why I find was a poor call for example the private Christian school that sent a girl home for having a rainbow shirt. This is ever bit as bad as the left tying to get rid of the rebel flag. Different people see different things in these symbols.

Now we get to tolerance and hate. The left wants everyone to be so tolerant of others, until they don't... At least the right isn't hypocritical. The girl was told she couldn't wear the rainbow shirt n=because it represented gay pride. Too bad that's what the modern culture has turned it into, because the rainbow is a beautiful symbol, and a person is now shamed because she liked it for a different reason.

Same with the rebel flag, but the left is being totally hypocritical. As adamantly they preach tolerance, they are the most intolerant people around, when it comes to things they don't like.

How can any lefty support the general actions of their fellow lefties and have a clean conscience?
 
aociswundumho said:
Anti-discrimination laws force people into contracts they do not wish to enter. That's why they are an abomination.
Click to expand...


That's ignorant racist bs, "AOC is one dumb whore".
 
RaleBulgarian said:
A privately owned business that serves the public cannot refuse service based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin/ethnicity, etc..

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Definition, Summary & Significance - HISTORY

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.
Click to expand...

False.

I see you are only reading propaganda, rather than Public law 88-352. It doesn't say anything about commissioned art.
 
This is the section that applies to private business:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined
in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public
is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title
if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation
by it is supported by State action :

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides
lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment
located within a building which contains not more than five
rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the
proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda
fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for
consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any
such facilitv located on the premises of any retail establishment;
or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports
arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A) (i) which is physically located
within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by
this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically
located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds
itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

---

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club
or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the
extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available
to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of
subsection (b).
​
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is the section that applies to private business:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined
in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public
is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title
if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation
by it is supported by State action :

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides
lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment
located within a building which contains not more than five
rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the
proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda
fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for
consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any
such facilitv located on the premises of any retail establishment;
or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports
arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A) (i) which is physically located
within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by
this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically
located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds
itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

---

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club
or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the
extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available
to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of
subsection (b).
​
Click to expand...
Nothing here ^^ contradicts what I’ve said.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Nothing here ^^ contradicts what I’ve said.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details. You cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You claimed "A privately owned business that serves the public cannot refuse service based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin/ethnicity, etc." The Act says: "without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
 
I honestly can't wait until Joe Biden wins the election and moves into the White House next January. Then the right can go into full-on Black Ops mode on Joe Biden bashing. LOL! That will be incessant for 8 years.
:lamo
 
HumblePi said:
I honestly can't wait until Joe Biden wins the election and moves into the White House next January. Then the right can go into full-on Black Ops mode on Joe Biden bashing. LOL! That will be incessant for 8 years.
:lamo
Click to expand...
Did you post this in the right thread?

Rather than hateful rhetoric, I think it would be constant knee slapping laughter at his stupidity.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The devil is in the details. You cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You claimed "A privately owned business that serves the public cannot refuse service based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin/ethnicity, etc." The Act says: "without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Click to expand...
Oh, I see, you wish to play pedantic games.

Ok.

The act specifically states
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined
in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin

”All persons” means everyone. That you think others not specifically mentioned may be discriminated against, you haven’t been paying attention to the numerous discrimination lawsuits that have been won by folks who were discriminated against.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Did you post this in the right thread?

Rather than hateful rhetoric, I think it would be constant knee slapping laughter at his stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yep, you starting the bashing just a tad early but that's fine, it makes his victory all that more sweet in Nov.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Oh, I see, you wish to play pedantic games.

Ok.

The act specifically states
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined
in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin

”All persons” means everyone. That you think others not specifically mentioned may be discriminated against, you haven’t been paying attention to the numerous discrimination lawsuits that have been won by folks who were discriminated against.
Click to expand...
Really?

Then why the redundancy of saying race, color, religion, or national origin, but not gender or sexual orientation?

Why not admit you are wrong, and find the newer laws that include gender and sexual orientation?
 
17yo black girl traveling in the middle of nowhere at night. One gas station that doesn't serve blacks.

That's what some people want.
 
FYI.

The 19th amendment already took care of equal rights for women.... You know, gender...
 
dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forcing private businesses like a restaurant to serve blacks was required to uphold their rights, thank you government. Gays are the new black customers...
 
SoCal said:
Forcing private businesses like a restaurant to serve blacks was required to uphold their rights, thank you government. Gays are the new black customers...
Click to expand...

Their right that says I should be legally mandated to enter into a contract I don't want to enter into?
 
CaughtInThe said:
17yo black girl traveling in the middle of nowhere at night. One gas station that doesn't serve blacks.

That's what some people want.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

That's not what anybody wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom