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

[dex4974]

that busibness would fail because there arent enough custiomers and many intelligent people would be oppoosed to that discrmination.

So why do we need a mandate if you feel this way?

 

[Master Debator]

Your opinion is worth exactly the same. We are all here to toss our worthless opinions around for feedback. I'm aware of what's going on here; you seem confused somehow.

Again, you seem touchy when it's pointed out to you that you don't own a monopoly on the notion of justice. In deed the majority of Americans think its just to protect minorities and gays from discrimination. Sad day for you.

:shrug:

 

[Craig234]

Forcing a private business owner to conduct business they don't want to conduct is not protecting freedoms; it's the opposite. Nobody should have a right to do business with me. Nobody should be able to sue me for refusing to do business.

No one is forcing them to conduct business. They can not be in business. If they choose to be in business, they will follow the laws for non-discrimination. If they don't like it, they can exercise their freedom not being in business.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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?

There is no federal law that specifically addresses discrimination against LGBTQ folks. That doesn’t mean LGBTQ folks aren’t protected/don’t have recourse.

Over more than the last decade, numerous businesses have been successfully sued for arbitrarily refusing service to members of the LGTBQ community.

Even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) specifically directs that complaints of discrimination on the basis of transgender status or sexual orientation discrimination should be processed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Processing Complaints of Discrimination by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Federal Employees

 

[RaleBulgarian]

FYI.

The 19th amendment already took care of equal rights for women.... You know, gender...

Yep, the 19th amendment fixed everything. :roll:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Believing businesses shouldn't be mandated into entering contracts does not mean I am advocating for some strawman scenario you're using to try to make a point. That's not how reality works.

It’s not clear, from all of your posts here, that you understand how “reality works”.

 

[BlueTex]

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.

Unless you were a black man looking for a hotel room for the night in the south. You needed a Green Book to know where you could stay without trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherFease]

Unless you were a black man looking for a hotel room for the night in the south. You needed a Green Book to know where you could stay without trouble.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Not only does the OP believe it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs and innate qualities, but ignores the sad and shameful realities of the pre-1964 America.

When we allow businesses to discriminate, guess what, they discriminate. It's not always the reality in every city, every town, equality is happening. You cannot assume for every whites only bakery, there's a blacks only bakery. People should be allowed to go to any restaurant, any hotel, any gas station, any medical facility they want. Their religion or innate characteristics shouldn't be a factor. When you create a society that permits discrimination, you create a society that allows the majority to suppress the minority, and thus second class citizens. The OP's theory has been thoroughly disproven by reality.

 

[dex4974]

Unless you were a black man looking for a hotel room for the night in the south. You needed a Green Book to know where you could stay without trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think the mandate made it any safer for those black people, or were they safer with the book, going where they were actually welcome?

 

[cpwill]

If those who sell are not allowed to refuse to enter into business with someone, can someone who is a prostitute in Nevada be forced to service a former abusive boyfriend or rapist? Could (say) a lesbian prostitute be forced to have sex with men?

 

[Lisa]

So why do we need a mandate if you feel this way?

Because a legal mandate such as equal rights for others in all areas is an enforceable law and not just one person's opinion. This is the problem with libertarians is that they want all of the benefits of an advanced society but they don't want to see that they are an interdependent part of that society with responsibilities to others.

Libertarians are hypocrites at all levels. They want the government to enforce the rule of law but when the government enforces that law on them they claim that the government is using violence that is against their rights to act. Libertarians have the mentality of an immature 14-year-old boy without the maturity to accept that they are a part of society. Rights, money, and freedoms are artificial constructs that only exist in a society that is governed with laws and equal rights for others. Ayn Rand was a crappy author who write bad fiction.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/c7/90/b3c7905e15f85c2080b9718d57c70552.jpg

 

[BrotherFease]

Do you think the mandate made it any safer for those black people, or were they safer with the book, going where they were actually welcome?

So you think it's better off, that a black person had to carry a book in order to help them navigate through the south? Isn't it MORE logical to say, serve everybody, skin color or nationality is not a legitimate reason for denial of service.

 

[BlueTex]

Do you think the mandate made it any safer for those black people, or were they safer with the book, going where they were actually welcome?

I think the prosecutions for violating the Civil Rights Act in federal court definitely had an impact. When the FBI started investigating and the DOJ started prosecuting, attitudes started to change. It did take time but it certainly had an effect.

 

[BrotherFease]

This is the problem with libertarians is that they want all of the benefits of an advanced society but they don't want to see that they are an interdependent part of that society with responsibilities to others.

In 2016, the libertarian party choose Gary Johnson to lead the ticket, and he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its entirety. That includes both Section 3 and the clauses concerning discriminated based on sex. This tells me that the average Libertarian isn't upset we created protected classes within our society.

 

[Barnacle]

Privately owned businesses could not exist without the taxpayers dollars that build and support the infrastructure that allows them to function. Thus personal prejudice should not allow one to refuse service to those who have made it possible for the business to exist.

You've been listening too much to Obama and his "You didn't build that." ... :roll:

 

[yankintx]

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.

Just as I have the right to use social media to highlight a buisness's discrementory practices. We gays have on average more disposable income then straights. My fellow gays and I can take our money elsewhere, and will. Lots others see my money as green, not pink.

 

[jamesbyoung]

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.

Nope, not in America. Emigrate away then.

 

[dex4974]

Just as I have the right to use social media to highlight a buisness's discrementory practices. We gays have on average more disposable income then straights. My fellow gays and I can take our money elsewhere, and will. Lots others see my money as green, not pink.

Agreed.

 

[Lisa]

In 2016, the libertarian party choose Gary Johnson to lead the ticket, and he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its entirety. That includes both Section 3 and the clauses concerning discrimination based on sex. This tells me that the average Libertarian isn't upset we created protected classes within our society.

Most libertarians could not explain what a protected class is, just as they cannot explain what a hate crime is and how they are defined.

They also don't understand economics beyond the most basic level of a market economy. Ignorance is a core concept of libertarianism.

These are the final days of the presidential campaign of Gary Johnson, a guy known for his weed habit. But he’s losing his chill.

Paul Lewis, a reporter from Britain’s Guardian newspaper, visited with Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate, in Las Vegas for an article and video published on Thursday.

Mr. Johnson introduced himself: “I’m an idiot, you know. Really. I’m the dumbest guy that you’ve ever met in your whole life.”

Mr. Lewis replied, “I’m trying to work out if that’s sarcasm.” Yes, Mr. Johnson said. He’s simply tired of “the spoiler question, and then there’s the Aleppo question and then there’s the foreign leader question.” By that, he meant the time he said, “What is Aleppo?” on television, and the time he couldn’t name a foreign leader he admired, or any current foreign leader.

 

[dex4974]

skin color or nationality is not a legitimate reason for denial of service.

A private business owner shouldn't need to justify denying their service to anybody.

 

[dex4974]

They also don't understand economics beyond the most basic level of a market economy. Ignorance is a core concept of libertarianism.

Are you one of those people that thinks we can steal from billionaires to make a lasting impact on an economy that moves trillions of dollars annually? Maybe you're one of the ones that thinks we should be letting in millions of poor people while fighting for universal healthcare, tuition free college and other safety nets. Forget basic level economics; most progressives haven't figured out basic level math.

 

[Variant]

A private business owner shouldn't need to justify denying their service to anybody.

Why do they need the right to deny service to anyone? Why should we all want to live in such a world?

 

[dex4974]

Why do they need the right to deny service to anyone?

Because nobody should be forced into a contract they don't want.

 

[Lisa]

Are you one of those people that thinks we can steal from billionaires to make a lasting impact on an economy that moves trillions of dollars annually? Maybe you're one of the ones that thinks we should be letting in millions of poor people while fighting for universal healthcare, tuition-free college and other safety nets. Forget basic level economics; most progressives haven't figured out basic level math.

That bis more emotional libertarian nonsense because of taxes aren't theft.

You should acquaint yourself with macroeconomics and then you wouldn't look so silly calling progressive tax policies ignorant. You still do not accept that you are part of a society that works as an interconnected and interdependent organism. macroeconomics of how money flows in the living organism that we call a society. Why is it that every time capitalism crashes and burns because of under-regulation and poor planning that the government has to bail out your supposed superior economics ideals? Capitalism is the problem.

 

[Lisa]

Because nobody should be forced into a contract they don't want.

They are part of a society that doesn't give them the power to pick and choose which laws apply to them and still enjoy the benefits of that society. The equal rights of others aren't a multiple-choice question for them to decide.

If you don't like the idea of being forced to treat others as equals in business than maybe you should not operate a business that serves the public. They were made very aware of the rules when they applied for and accepted that business license.