PDA

View Full Version : Should Businesses be Allowed to Refuse Service to Gay People?


AussieNicholas
August 13th, 2016, 05:19 AM
Do you believe that a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to gay people, or should they face legal sanctions for not serving gay people.

I believe in the former, that a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone on the grounds of religion for the following reasons:

1. By refusing service to gay people, you are also forfeiting any payment or profit that could have been made by offering your service. Therefore, a gay person can take their money elsewhere and spend it somewhere else (after all, why would you want to give your money to someone who doesn't want to deal with you?).

2. I believe that to force someone to go against their moral consciousness simply for the convenience of someone else. While I would not allow police or paramedics to refuse service to anyone in need, I don't think a Christian bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is on the same level. Yes, it may be inconvenient for the would-be customer, but is convenience really worth forcing someone to go against their sense of right and wrong?

3. If people don't want to support a business that refuses service to certain groups of people, then they don't have to. If I feel that a business or service that I use regularly is doing something that I think is wrong, I'll look for alternative services and probably not give my money to that business anymore. Like I said, refusing service to someone means you don't get paid, and free will means that people don't have to give their money to you if they really don't want to.

I will add that I do not support bigoted or hateful attitudes toward ANYONE. I believe that gay people should have the same rights and opportunities as straight people. I personally would not give my money to a business or service that discriminated against someone based on something they have no control over, but that is my personal choice and people should have the right to make a different choice than mine, as well as be prepared to deal with whatever consequences that choice brings.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 05:31 AM
Does it mean I have to state my sexuality or whatever if I do somewhere to in order to be told if I will be allowed in there or not. Or do you mean like if I go somewhere holding hands and/or kissing another they could throw me out for indecent behaviour or something.
Just want to know this before I answer your question.

Just JT
August 13th, 2016, 05:56 AM
I don't think discrimination is good at any level. But also, if some business wants to be that stupid as to voice there opinion of gays that strongly as to refuse to serve them.....

Hell ya sure why not, think it'd be fun to watch them struggle as they go outs business. Even if someone's not gay, most people are ok with it and against that kinda behavior. Most people know or have gay friends. And I think most people would just not use that company, and thed just suck at it lol!!

Atom
August 13th, 2016, 08:25 AM
Yes.

But it really is not a wise business decision to discriminate your customer, especially with today's media. You loose their money, you loose your face, etc.

I, for example, hate muslims, but they have "oil money" so it would be unwise not to deal business with them on the basis of them having different views.

Mars
August 13th, 2016, 08:51 AM
As previously stated, it would be dumb for anyone to refuse servicing someone based off of personal traits( like religion, sexuality, shit like that), especially with today's media and advocates.

But with that being said, yes.

I'm in no way shape or form discriminatory against anyone, but no one should be forced to do something they don't want to. If you don't want to serve someone a fuckin piece of baked flour and sugar and egg because they like dick or vagina, then so be it. It's someone's right to refuse just as much as its a right to accept. It doesn't mean it's right in a moral or common sense, but it is a right to make your own decisions and not be forced to do something.

Again tho, p fuckin stupid to not bake someone a cake or some shit just bcuz they're gay

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 09:16 AM
While discrimination is bad, people also have the right to choice. I believe good and well that people should have the right to refuse business to anyone if they so please. Freedom of religion, freedom of choice, we should let people do whatever they want with their private businesses. People should not be forced to do something they see as a moral or personal wrong that doesn't directly harm someone.

If someone refuses to serve black people, that is their right, but they will just lose business to whoever does serve black people. If a store refuses you service, then just bring your business to another store. I certainly wouldn't want to help with a gay wedding, as I see it as a moral wrong. I see my convictions as greater than the monetary lost.

phuckphace
August 13th, 2016, 09:19 AM
lol the cake baking thing was funny as hell and also culturewar.txt

I mean you just know it was manufactured outrage from the very beginning (microagressions-made-to-order?)

some lisping degenerate who takes Truvada to stave off death for a few more years was working the corner and happened to spot a bakery with a Christian ichthus symbol on the door, and suddenly a light bulb went on and dollar signs flashed. xie then sauntered up to the counter where Betty the conservative mother of five was working, and placed an order for a phallus-shaped cake reading "POZ MY NEG ASS" and as her eyebrows raised in shock (like it's 1816 or something) xie knew xie'd picked a winner

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 09:27 AM
No of course they don't have a right to refuse service because you're gay!!

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 09:31 AM
No of course they don't have a right to refuse service because you're gay!!

What if a gay baker refused to service a Christian wedding or service? That gay baker doesn't have the right to refuse?

This is not really a gay/trans argument by the way. We are talking about if business owners have the right to refuse business to anyone if they so please. Any person can apply, that just happens to be the example the thread OP chose.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 09:33 AM
What if a gay baker refused to service a Christian wedding or service? That gay baker doesn't have the right to refuse?
No he doesn't :D

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 09:37 AM
No he doesn't :D

Are you saying the baker must service the Christians even if it goes against his personal beliefs. Why?

phuckphace
August 13th, 2016, 09:41 AM
a gay baker

every donut hole is a goal

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 09:43 AM
Are you saying the baker must service the Christians even if it goes against his personal beliefs. Why?
Because it is discriminatory maybe? Are swimming pools allowed to ban black people because it goes against personal beliefs? Minority groups and the LGBT community are oppressed enough in the US without shopkeepers enforcing their bigotry on them. If they are that opposed to it, they need another job. It is like a Muslim hired to pack pork refusing.

Bull
August 13th, 2016, 09:46 AM
Hello! Does a business serving the public have a right to deny service to a person whose skin color is not the same as theirs? Not in America. Does a business have the right to refuse service to Trump supporters? Nope. Should Baptists be allowed to refuse service to Methodists? Ridiculous, you say? Yep it is! Discrimination in any shape, form, or fashion is wrong. We are all human beings. We may not agree on religion, politics, etc. but if you are in the service business, then serve! Damn, this should be a no brainer! Just to be transparent, I am a registered republican who does NOT support any bully for public office.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 09:48 AM
Hello! Does a business serving the public have a right to deny service to a person whose skin color is not the same as theirs? Not in America. Does a business have the right to refuse service to Trump supporters? Nope. Should Baptists be allowed to refuse service to Methodists? Ridiculous, you say? Yep it is! Discrimination in any shape, form, or fashion is wrong. We are all human beings. We may not agree on religion, politics, etc. but if you are in the service business, then serve! Damn, this should be a no brainer!
It should be a no brainer but the right wing in the USA have persuaded themselves that they have a right to infringe on other people's rights.

Just JT
August 13th, 2016, 09:48 AM
No he doesn't :D

I'm not saying this is morally correct, but I disagree with you. I think any business, regardless of what type of business should have the right to conduct business with whoever they choose or not choose. There are many things that can lead into this. Such at say a pet supply refusing to sell pet supplies to a pet store they know mistreats ther animals. In principal, there's not much difference.

Now, how that works out is, people either don't buy pet supplies from that store, or don't buy pets from the pet store. Someone's guna lose out based on social norms.

In the case of refusing to serve say a gay couple in a restaurant or what ever....dude, go ahead, it'll be all over social media before I'm out the door. You know how fast that works right? It's a matter of natural consequences, and tolerance. That restaurants will be closed Ina week. Good riddance, food sucked anyways.

Government has no right to dictate who a customer is. Business target their customers all day long. Sports cars have pretty ladies driving them. Cowboys smoking cigarettes, masculine men drinking beer.....is there really any difference?

If we don't wana smoke, maybe we're not a cowboy. But if we wana be a cowboy, maybe it better if we smoke?

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 09:56 AM
Well since the OP didn't answer my question on why he thinks e.g. my baker would know about my sexuality when I order a cake I just assume that it is known to him for some reason.

I'd say the business owner can refuse doing business with certain groups and if they'd be wise they wouldn't say why.
If it's known that they refuse to serve certain groups they will probably lose money so most will think twice as money doesn't grow on trees.

As long as everyone has the right to refuse the other I don't see a problem. But if it's just against minorities it's bound to trigger conflicts and I don't think it's worth have syupid conflicts about just anything.

Side note I work at a restaurant and I think it would be hilarious to put up a new sign every to always exclude one group of people from being serviced .
Would be interesting to see which group would complain most.

Bull
August 13th, 2016, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=PlasmaHam;3414496]Are you saying the baker must service the Christians even if it goes against his personal beliefs. Why?[/QUOT

YES! When a business opens it should be to serve the public. If it does not wish to do so there should be a sign on the door stating the limited clientele. Yeah, don't see that happening.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 10:04 AM
I'm not saying this is morally correct, but I disagree with you. I think any business, regardless of what type of business should have the right to conduct business with whoever they choose or not choose. There are many things that can lead into this. Such at say a pet supply refusing to sell pet supplies to a pet store they know mistreats ther animals. In principal, there's not much difference.

Now, how that works out is, people either don't buy pet supplies from that store, or don't buy pets from the pet store. Someone's guna lose out based on social norms.

In the case of refusing to serve say a gay couple in a restaurant or what ever....dude, go ahead, it'll be all over social media before I'm out the door. You know how fast that works right? It's a matter of natural consequences, and tolerance. That restaurants will be closed Ina week. Good riddance, food sucked anyways.

Government has no right to dictate who a customer is. Business target their customers all day long. Sports cars have pretty ladies driving them. Cowboys smoking cigarettes, masculine men drinking beer.....is there really any difference?

If we don't wana smoke, maybe we're not a cowboy. But if we wana be a cowboy, maybe it better if we smoke?
I think they have no right to discriminate. Do swimming pools have the right to refuse black people? Targeting customers is fine but refusing based on race, gender or sexuality is wrong and should be illegal.

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 10:08 AM
Because it is discriminatory maybe? Are swimming pools allowed to ban black people because it goes against personal beliefs? Minority groups and the LGBT community are oppressed enough in the US without shopkeepers enforcing their bigotry on them. If they are that opposed to it, they need another job. It is like a Muslim hired to pack pork refusing.

Is the right to choice and religious freedom not registering to you? You are basically advocating that people should be forced to do things morally wrong to them or face lawsuits. People should have the right to refuse service, Constitutionally we have the right to refuse service. You say you want to give rights, but in reality you want to take them away.

You also are ignoring the logic behind the refusing service argument.

Should a preacher be forced to do gay weddings?

Periphery
August 13th, 2016, 10:09 AM
I think they have no right to discriminate. Do swimming pools have the right to refuse black people? Targeting customers is fine but refusing based on race, gender or sexuality is wrong and should be illegal.

However it is understandable in some cases. If a Muslim or a nazi walked in to a Jewish store, the person in the store could see it as offensive and refuse service to them. It's a delicate topic. I do feel like you cannot refuse people based on their sexuality.

In my opinion it should be possible if there is offense involved (like in my example). It's like a Christian going to a Muslim restaurant on a Ramadan evening and asking for a large pepperoni pizza.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 10:11 AM
Targeting customers is fine but refusing based on race, gender or sexuality is wrong and should be illegal.

I'd be perfectly alright with certain stores not serving me cuz I'm a gay black person if I'd be allowed (without being seen as a mean and rude asshole by society ) to just leave my bags on the seat of the bus after making groceries as I don't want to sit an elderly white Christian woman next to me as it is against my personal morals.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 10:13 AM
Is the right to choice and religious freedom not registering to you? You are basically advocating that people should be forced to do things morally wrong to them or face lawsuits. People should have the right to refuse service, Constitutionally we have the right to refuse service. You say you want to give rights, but in reality you want to take them away.

Everyone has the choice to religious freedom but they do not have the right to take away other people's rights. I don't understand that how in a country where segregation only recently ending people are still trying to oppress people!!

If white Christians were targeted, you would be outraged! A different style xmas cup at starbucks became a national issue with people claiming it was a war on xmas and Christianity.

Yes I do want to take away your 'right' to take away other people's rights.
I'd be perfectly alright with certain stores not serving me cuz I'm a gay black person if I'd be allowed (without being seen as a mean and rude asshole by society ) to just leave my bags on the seat of the bus after making groceries as I don't want to sit an elderly white Christian woman next to me as it is against my personal morals.
No becasue if you did it to a white man they would cry racism xD They do it to you and it is their 'religious right' :tongue:

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 10:20 AM
Everyone has the choice to religious freedom but they do not have the right to take away other people's rights. I don't understand that how in a country where segregation only recently ending people are still trying to oppress people!!

We live in an age of hypocrites. Forcing someone to do something against their religion is taking away their right to religious freedom and free worship.

If white Christians were targeted, you would be outraged! A different style xmas cup at starbucks became a national issue with people claiming it was a war on xmas and Christianity. [

White Christians are targeted pretty of times. The thing is, we respect that right to refuse service, we don't make a big old fuss about it. People were arguing about the Starbucks cup, but they weren't suing people over it.


Yes I do want to take away your 'right' to take away other people's rights.
You want to take away rights. People have no right to force an individual to do something contrary to their person beliefs. People have a right to refuse money from people.
No becasue if you did it to a white man they would cry racism xD They do it to you and it is their 'religious right'

I have never heard of a white man actually using racism as an argument. No one cares for the majority, a white man calling a black man racist just makes the white guy look like a fool, and the black man as noble in the eyes of the media. But reverse the roles, and you have a fire storm.

Just JT
August 13th, 2016, 10:22 AM
I think they have no right to discriminate. Do swimming pools have the right to refuse black people? Targeting customers is fine but refusing based on race, gender or sexuality is wrong and should be illegal.


You have a good point, and I'm not saying I agree with all of what this topic is about. But yeah discrimination is illegal. In a public pool, you can't do that. In a private pool/club you can. It's private.

Go to a public restaurant, owned by a corporation, McDonald's or what ever, nope, can't do it.

Go to JT's Bar and Grill, yeah, i could, and wouldn't, but yeah it's just plain wrong and all, plus I'd lose a shit tone of friends and business.

All play aside, that's unfortunately a reality

But from here Ima guna bounce out cause its guna just get to hot for me in this place

Peace and enjoy...... :hug:

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 10:25 AM
White Christians are targeted pretty of times. The thing is, we respect that right to refuse service, we don't make a big old fuss about it. People were arguing about the Starbucks cup, but they weren't suing people over it.

Because there was nothing to sue!! :D

You want to take away rights. People have no right to force an individual to do something contrary to their person beliefs. People have a right to refuse money from people.

The USA is not the USSR! You don't get work slips telling you where to work... It is like a Muslim complaining they have to handle pork at a pork processing plant :D If you're too much of a bigot working as a baker then you should get another job! We should not be encouraging the disgusting discrimination in the US! I assume you would still believe it is okay for blacks to be banned from swimming pools?
You have a good point, and I'm not saying I agree with all of what this topic is about. But yeah discrimination is illegal. In a public pool, you can't do that. In a private pool/club you can. It's private.

Go to a public restaurant, owned by a corporation, McDonald's or what ever, nope, can't do it.

Go to JT's Bar and Grill, yeah, i could, and wouldn't, but yeah it's just plain wrong and all, plus I'd lose a shit tone of friends and business.

All play aside, that's unfortunately a reality

But from here Ima guna bounce out cause its guna just get to hot for me in this place

Peace and enjoy...... :hug:
Haha ROTW gets real hot real fast :biggrin2:

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 10:36 AM
No becasue if you did it to a white man they would cry racism xD They do it to you and it is their 'religious right' :tongue:

Oh no they would White people esp. straight Christian males are the most discriminated minority in the world and need all the pity they can get...cuz they fight hard for being treated equally.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 11:26 AM
No because there is no real reason to hate gay people. Ive said before the only 2 reason anyone who descriminate and publicly come out against gay people are either incredibly stupid or they secretly want to suck a dick. I would add that most religious people who do descriminate against gay people because thats what Jesus would do, end up not following the bible, either by secretly gay like Mike Pence, or someone like Kim Davis the county clerk last year who didnt want to do her job and marry gay people because of her religion but she got married 3 times, divorced twice, and had two kids outside of marriage. If you don't want your business to serve gay people you chose the wrong job. If you have a bakery you have to accept gay people might ask you to bake a cake for them, just do it, they are just asking for a wedding cake, not a giant dick that spray frosting.

Periphery
August 13th, 2016, 11:38 AM
uh, no.

Last time I checked, we're in the year 2016.

Not everyone realises that tough, which seems to be the main problem in today's world.

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 11:59 AM
No because there is no real reason to hate gay people. Ive said before the only 2 reason anyone who descriminate and publicly come out against gay people are either incredibly stupid or they secretly want to suck a dick. I would add that most religious people who do descriminate against gay people because thats what Jesus would do, end up not following the bible, either by secretly gay like Mike Pence, or someone like Kim Davis the county clerk last year who didnt want to do her job and marry gay people because of her religion but she got married 3 times, divorced twice, and had two kids outside of marriage. If you don't want your business to serve gay people you chose the wrong job. If you have a bakery you have to accept gay people might ask you to bake a cake for them, just do it, they are just asking for a wedding cake, not a giant dick that spray frosting.

What if a gay person refused to service a christian? Should they also be forced to service them or quit their jobs?

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 12:10 PM
What if a gay person refused to service a christian? Should they also be forced to service them or quit their jobs?

If its part of their job yes

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 12:17 PM
If its part of their job yes

How is it more of a right to make someone do something they see as morally and ethically wrong than it is to refuse to take the money of someone?

Also, I would like to clarify that in most cases involving gays being refused by religious people is not because they are gay. People don't refuse to service them because they are gay, but because the service they want done goes against their beliefs. That's why you really only see these kinds of incidents around weddings and pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage and decoration.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 12:18 PM
Also, I would like to clarify that in most cases involving gays being refused by religious people is not because they are gay. People don't refuse to service them because they are gay, but because the service they want done goes against their beliefs. That's why you really only see these kinds of incidents around weddings and pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage and decoration.
No it is because they're gay:D They're bigots and if they can't do their job they should find another.

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 12:21 PM
No it is because they're gay:D They're bigots and if they can't do their job they should find another.

Wow, insults. I can't say I'm surprised though. Can you respond with some actual evidence next time? Like why are the majority of these incidents dealing with pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage, events and decorations and not the average linen shop or burger joint? And would they service people they clearly know are gay/religious if they removed the connotations from their service?

And I guess all those who refuse service to Christians are bigots as well.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 12:24 PM
Wow, insults. I can't say I'm surprised though. Can you respond with some actual evidence next time?

And I guess all those who refuse service to Christians are bigots as well.
I didn't insult you? Oh gosh last week I was source heavy and now not enough sources!!:D

Yesss they would be bigots!!

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 12:28 PM
I didn't insult you? Oh gosh last week I was source heavy and now not enough sources!!:D

Yesss they would be bigots!!

All your posts are insulting one group or another. I don't get offended, but you really look like a fool. I suggest we actually try to have a respectful conversation instead of calling people you don't like bigots or homophobes.


Why are the majority of these incidents dealing with pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage, events and decorations and not the average linen shop or burger joint? And would they service people they clearly know are gay/religious if they removed the gay/religious connotations from their service?

Periphery
August 13th, 2016, 12:29 PM
Wow, insults. I can't say I'm surprised though. Can you respond with some actual evidence next time? Like why are the majority of these incidents dealing with pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage, events and decorations and not the average linen shop or burger joint? And would they service people they clearly know are gay/religious if they removed the connotations from their service?

And I guess all those who refuse service to Christians are bigots as well.

The point is whoever discriminates someone just because of their race or sexuality is a bigot.

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 12:37 PM
The point is whoever discriminates someone just because of their race or sexuality is a bigot.

But they aren't refusing the service because of the customer being gay/religious. They are refusing the service because the customer wants them to do something against their own beliefs.

A white guy, a black guy, a gay guy, a straight guy, basically any kind of guy came up to me and asked me to build them a swastika. I'm generally not pro-Nazi, so I refused them all that service. I wasn't refusing to build that swastika because the person, numerous different kinds of people from all races and beliefs asked me and I denied them all. I refused the service because I see the swastika as a symbol of evil and sin, and I did not want my handiwork to be attributed to it. I refused the service, not the person. Hate the sin, not the person, as the Bible says.

Now, lets say I was a business owner, a baker for instance. This is based entirely on my personal beliefs btw. Some guy that I know is gay comes up and asks me to bake him a birthday cake for his daughter. He is a trusted customer, and birthdays aren't against my personal beliefs, so I bake him a cake for his daughter. Later he comes back to the store, asking me to bake him a cake for his wedding to another guy. Homosexuality is against my personal beliefs, thus so are gay weddings. I see my service as helping someone continue in a sin, so I refuse to bake him a cake for said wedding. For me to bake that cake, thus supporting a gay wedding, is against my personal want and religion. I refer my gay customer to a different baker, and continue on my day. I didn't refuse that gay because he was gay, but because what he asked me to do.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 12:42 PM
All your posts are insulting one group or another. I don't get offended, but you really look like a fool. I suggest we actually try to have a respectful conversation instead of calling people you don't like bigots or homophobes.


Why are the majority of these incidents dealing with pro-homosexuality/pro-religion signage, events and decorations and not the average linen shop or burger joint? And would they service people they clearly know are gay/religious if they removed the gay/religious connotations from their service?
If you don't get offended when I call someone else a bigot that's a good thing XD I am not calling people I don't like bigots or homophobes. I don't like Kim Kardashian but I don't call her a bigot. I call people who are hateful and intolerant towards those holding different opinions or people different than them bigots. I don't like Kanye West but I don't call him a homophobe. I call people discriminating against gay people homophobes.

The people refusing to serve gays are bigots and homophobes the same as swimming pools that refused to allow black people in were bigots and racists.

Periphery
August 13th, 2016, 12:56 PM
PlasmaHam I understand what you're going for but for example in a store, the cashier simply can't refuse to serve a gay or Muslim because that would be discrimination.

What you are saying is more of rejecting a task, something people want you to do, there's a difference here.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 01:02 PM
Now, lets say I was a business owner, a baker for instance. This is based entirely on my personal beliefs btw. Some guy that I know is gay comes up and asks me to bake him a birthday cake for his daughter. He is a trusted customer, and birthdays aren't against my personal beliefs, so I bake him a cake for his daughter. Later he comes back to the store, asking me to bake him a cake for his wedding to another guy. Homosexuality is against my personal beliefs, thus so are gay weddings. I see my service as helping someone continue in a sin, so I refuse to bake him a cake for said wedding. For me to bake that cake, thus supporting a gay wedding, is against my personal want and religion. I refer my gay customer to a different baker, and continue on my day. I didn't refuse that gay because he was gay, but because what he asked me to do.

If your a baker and someone ask you to make a cake for their gay wedding its your job if you dont want to do it because thats what Jesus would want, find another job. And why the fuck do you care if the cake your making is for a straight wedding or a gay wedding?

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 01:12 PM
PlasmaHam I understand what you're going for but for example in a store, the cashier simply can't refuse to serve a gay or Muslim because that would be discrimination.

What you are saying is more of rejecting a task, something people want you to do, there's a difference here.

Actually the cashier can refuse to serve them but he'll be fired for it. for not doing his job

VTGEEK14
August 13th, 2016, 01:31 PM
No they are people to!

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 01:31 PM
No they are people to!
Who are people? The gays or the businesses?

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 01:59 PM
Actually the cashier can refuse to serve them but he'll be fired for it. for not doing his job

But what I am talking about is not discrimination of a person. I am talking about refusing to do a specific service. I don't see that as discrimination of person.

How is it more of a right to force someone to do something against their personal morals and ethics, than it is to simply refuse the money of someone? That's all I'm asking, and I still don't understand how you think it is.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 02:14 PM
But what I am talking about is not discrimination of a person. I am talking about refusing to do a specific service. I don't see that as discrimination of person.

How is it more of a right to force someone to do something against their personal morals and ethics, than it is to simply refuse the money of someone? That's all I'm asking, and I still don't understand how you think it is.
You do not have a right to impose on other people's right.

No one is forced to serve gays, they can get another job. They are bigoted homophobes that need to get with the times.

Would you be okay with swimming pools saying no blacks?

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 02:26 PM
If you don't want your business to serve gay people you chose the wrong job.If they are that opposed to it, they need another job.
A job is a contractual obligation to produce a good or service for someone, that one volunteers into, usually for some form of remuneration. Otherwise, it is considered indentured servitude, or slave-labour. Refusing to volunteer into that contractual obligation doesn't mean you are in the wrong job, it just means that you chose not to do one.

Because people have something called moral autonomy, as well as freedom of association, it's generally unjust to force them to work in a job against their will. That they're Christian, doesn't undermine this.

Because it is discriminatory maybe?
I select for friends with above-average intelligence, and discriminate against the rest.

Should I have the legal right to do this?

Targeting customers is fine but refusing based on race, gender or sexuality is wrong and should be illegal.
On an extension of the previous point, you will need to explain why discriminating against some identities, like sexuality, and not others, like intelligence - broadly hereditary, is not.

Everyone has the choice to religious freedom but they do not have the right to take away other people's rights.
No-one has a right to have people work against them against their will (which, is also the reason people can't hold slaves).

If you are referring to another right, I would appreciate it was justified, as opposed to just stated, over and over.

I don't understand that how in a country where segregation only recently ending people are still trying to oppress people!!
No-one is saying that it is ethical to not serves gays.

What people are arguing, rather, is that stripping people of their moral autonomy does not a good society make. You're, in effect, fabricating a lie, basically so you can feel good about yourselves. Because the racism has just become invisible, and not out in the open where it can be subject to intellectual challenge. It is, to be frank, an infantalising practice, steeped in an understanding of liberalism and intellectually above challenge.

If white Christians were targeted, you would be outraged! A different style xmas cup at starbucks became a national issue with people claiming it was a war on xmas and Christianity.
No-one claimed that war on Christmas should be illegal.

Nonetheless, I care about discrimination in both cases, roughly equally.

I assume you would still believe it is okay for blacks to be banned from swimming pools?
Yes.

Does it make me a racist then to think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions? Because I know this is where this is leading, so we might as well stop beating around the bush.

I call people who are hateful and intolerant towards those holding different opinions or people different than them bigots.
Highly ironic, since you're hoping to legally restrict those who have different opinions that you, from acting on them.

No matter how much of a hopeless bigot I am though, I am never going to get government agents to threaten you with violence, until you act in line with my moral pejoratives.

Discrimination in any shape, form, or fashion is wrong.
Except we, as people, engage in justified discrimination all the time. Lots of it is quite reasonable, like looking for certain characteristics - like a high school degree - in a worker. Some of it, on the other hand, might not. But, should we be allowed to threaten people with the force of the law - i.e., violent force - adhere to our definition of reasonable discrimination?

I'd be perfectly alright with certain stores not serving me cuz I'm a gay black person if I'd be allowed (without being seen as a mean and rude asshole by society ) to just leave my bags on the seat of the bus after making groceries as I don't want to sit an elderly white Christian woman next to me as it is against my personal morals.
The point of having the moral autonomy to refuse service, is that people can also have the moral autonomy to find your actions disgusting.

You would, in this case, have only paid for one seat.

Ive said before the only 2 reason anyone who descriminate and publicly come out against gay people are either incredibly stupid or they secretly want to suck a dick.
This is the sort of intellectual arrogance I implied above existed amongst the opposition.

To mattsmith, if you're disagreeing with him, you must be illogical, your reasoning must be infantile.

If its part of their job yes
The issue, is that it's not part of their job, if they refuse to accept the job.

Porpoise101
August 13th, 2016, 02:31 PM
I think we should extend the reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to encompass LGBT people. It would solve this problem. Essentially, I think that there is no such right to refuse service in a public places. Nonprofits should be exempted as a whole as to not infringe on the religious rights. That way, there is a healthy compromise between freedom of religion and freedom of choice. We must balance rights instead of choosing one and neglecting the others.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 02:46 PM
Essentially, I think that there is no such right to refuse service in a public places.
Stores are being included here?

Because those are private properties, that the public has been given legal access to.

Porpoise101
August 13th, 2016, 02:53 PM
Stores are being included here?

Because those are private properties, that the public has been given legal access to.
Well if there is a restaurant or restroom in there, people should be able to access it without regard to their sexuality. In simple terms, Title II (https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations) should be extended to everyone without regard to sexuality at the very least.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 02:54 PM
A job is a contractual obligation to produce a good or service for someone, that one volunteers into, usually for some form of remuneration. Otherwise, it is considered indentured servitude, or slave-labour. Refusing to volunteer into that contractual obligation doesn't mean you are in the wrong job, it just means that you chose not to do one.

Because people have something called moral autonomy, as well as freedom of association, it's generally unjust to force them to work in a job against their will. That they're Christian, doesn't undermine this.


This is the sort of intellectual arrogance I implied above existed amongst the opposition.

To mattsmith, if you're disagreeing with him, you must be illogical, your reasoning must be infantile.


The issue, is that it's not part of their job, if they refuse to accept the job.

If you agree to do a job and that job makes you do something you dont think is moral like selling a wedding cake to a gay couple you shouldnt have agreed to do this job so either bake the fucking cake or find another job. Btw while we are talking about morals its not really moral to not serve someone because they fuck someone of the same gender.

Tell me what other possible reason other than being stupid or secretly gay can someone be against gay people?

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 02:56 PM
Well if there is a restaurant or restroom in there, people should be able to access it without regard to their sexuality. In simple terms, Title II (https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations) should be extended to everyone without regard to sexuality at the very least.
So, interestingly, no. Since, generally speaking, the sort of stores that we will see engaging in discrimination - like bakers, don't host publicly-accessible restrooms, or allow people to eat on site.

If you agree to do a job and that job makes you do something you dont think is moral like selling a wedding cake to a gay couple you shouldnt have agreed to do this job so either bake the fucking cake or find another job.
But, by refusing to serve gay people, you are not refusing to do your job, because you have never agreed to take such requests on as part of your job. Your job is that which you have a contractual obligation to undertake, failing to initiate that contractual obligation, means what's happening is legally irrelevant to the job you're engaged in.

I should add that I am not discussing the actions of employees, who are subject to an employment contract, but the actions of business owners.

Btw while we are talking about morals its not really moral to not serve someone because they fuck someone of the same gender.
The point I am making is that people should be allowed to decide what is moral, and immoral, for them to do, themselves.

Like, adultery is immoral, but should we stone adulterers?

Tell me what other possible reason other than being stupid or secretly gay can someone be against gay people?

I am not defending the decisions of these people, I am defending their right to make these decisions.

I am not going to cast them off, in other words, out of some sense of presumed intellectual superiority.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 03:11 PM
So, interestingly, no. Since, generally speaking, the sort of stores that we will see engaging in discrimination - like bakers, don't host publicly-accessible restrooms, or allow people to eat on site.


But, by refusing to serve gay people, you are not refusing to do your job, because you have never agreed to take such requests on as part of your job. Your job is that which you have a contractual obligation to undertake, failing to initiate that contractual obligation, means what's happening is legally irrelevant to the job you're engaged in.

I should add that I am not discussing the actions of employees, who are subject to an employment contract, but the actions of business owners.

Yes you are refusing to do your job by not serving gay people. You job is to serve them by refusing to do so you because they are gay you are refusing to do your job.

Same goes with business owners if you dont want your business to sell cake to gay people because thats what Jesus would do, you have the wrong business, either find another job or open another business where you could freely discriminate against gay people, like a church.

Vermilion
August 13th, 2016, 03:19 PM
I'm going to answer this and won't reply to anyone. If the customer is rude drunk or something like that yes refuse to serve them. Otherwise I think you should serve no matter what. As for how to make that work I don't see people where gay straight bi or trans signs

Flapjack
August 13th, 2016, 03:21 PM
I'm going to answer this and won't reply to anyone. If the customer is rude drunk or something like that yes refuse to serve them. Otherwise I think you should serve no matter what. As for how to make that work I don't see people where gay straight bi or trans signs
Yeah I agree:)

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 03:26 PM
Yes you are refusing to do your job by not serving gay people. Y
Refusing to serve them means I haven't taken the job. Forcing them to take the job, is enslavement.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 03:39 PM
The point of having the moral autonomy to refuse service, is that people can also have the moral autonomy to find your actions disgusting.

You would, in this case, have only paid for one seat.

.
And even if I had paid for 5 seats it wouldn't make a difference.
I was just joking of course...I don't have the intention to be mean to old ladies. But fact is that society would even want me to give up the seat I have paid for to her even if she'd not accept my sexuality and color cuz it's what's right.
It's always seen as wrong if you act against established believes but perfectly well to act against minorities, new things and so on.

Drewboyy
August 13th, 2016, 03:45 PM
If there's a sign that says in the store, "We are allowed to refuse service to anyone, for any reason", then it should be allowed to refuse anyone service. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, their clothes or whatever.

Nobody says anything about the sign: "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 03:52 PM
It's always seen as wrong if you act against established believes but perfectly well to act against minorities, new things and so on.
This discussion - though - isn't about what society believes is correct but what should and should not be legally-enforcable.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 03:57 PM
This discussion - though - isn't about what society believes is correct but what should and should not be legally-enforcable.

And it's just legally enforceable what's accepted by the majority of society...right or else you needed a government that made laws completely against people's will.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 04:00 PM
And it's just legally enforceable what's accepted by the majority of society...
No. That's not how constitutional-democracies work.

or else you needed a government that made laws completely against people's will.
Or refused to create laws that breached a specific set of rights.

---

Just so we're all aware, Im anti-majoritarian.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 04:10 PM
So you wanna tell me that a government elected by the people will rather enforce a law that allows gays not service straight people on the basis of what? What plausible reason could they probably have apart from being discriminated by the others?
Than it would allow a straight person not to service them due to religious beliefs for example. Not very likely.

So if the not servicing a certain person will end up before a court here the outcome would be more than clear.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 04:15 PM
What plausible reason could they probably have apart from being discriminated by the others?
The plausible reason, is to uphold human freedom, and moral autonomy, which neccisarily requires safeguarding that of the worst.

With regards to explicit speech, there should be no reason to exclude racist rhetoric, other than to uphold the explicit logic of the ideal of freedom of speech.

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 04:23 PM
The plausible reason, is to uphold human freedom, and moral autonomy, which neccisarily requires safeguarding that of the worst.

With regards to explicit speech, there should be no reason to exclude racist rhetoric, other than to uphold the explicit logic of the ideal of freedom of speech.

Everything you say sounds nice theory but I'd love to see that in daily practice.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 04:25 PM
Everything you say sounds nice theory but I'd love to see that in daily practice.
People express opinions, sometimes racist opinions.

People react to these opinions, usually negatively when it comes to explicit racism.

Etc.

It gets played out everyday.

VTGEEK14
August 13th, 2016, 05:37 PM
Who are people? The gays or the businesses?


The gays are people and should not be denied buisness

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 06:39 PM
Refusing to serve them means I haven't taken the job. Forcing them to take the job, is enslavement.

That doesnt even make sense. If you take the job you agree to do it, than one day a gay couple gets in the store and you refuse to serve them because it goes against your ''morals'' your refusing to do the job you agreed to do. Its like if a Muslim is a casher in a gaz station and someone walks in and wants to buy beer and the cashier refuse to sell it to him because his religion forbid the consumption of alcohol. The cashier doesnt do what hes payed for by refusing to sell that person beer.

If there's a sign that says in the store, "We are allowed to refuse service to anyone, for any reason", then it should be allowed to refuse anyone service. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, their clothes or whatever.

Nobody says anything about the sign: "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

I understand no shoes, someone could step on something and hurt themself. Who gives a shit if someone walk in a store without a shirt on I don't understand that part.

Drewboyy
August 13th, 2016, 06:45 PM
I understand no shoes, someone could step on something and hurt themself. Who gives a shit if someone walk in a store without a shirt on I don't understand that part.

It's just not appropriate (or welcoming) to families and certain people for an establishment.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 06:45 PM
That doesnt even make sense.
This is basic contract law. But then I guess we train lawyers for a reason.

If you take the job you agree to do it, than one day a gay couple gets in the store and you refuse to serve them because it goes against your ''morals'' your refusing to do the job you agreed to do.
You, as a storeowner, present an invitation to treat. People then submit jobs, such as banking a cake. You, as the storeowner, then have a choice as whether to accept this job or not.

You're confusing job, in the vocational sense, with job, in the legal sense.

Its like if a Muslim is a casher in a gaz station and someone walks in and wants to buy beer and the cashier refuse to sell it to him because his religion forbid the consumption of alcohol. The cashier doesnt do what hes payed for by refusing to sell that person beer.
No, it's not. The Muslim, in this scenario, is under the obligations of his contract of employment to sell the beer. The shop, on the other hand, is under no obligation to stock beer in the first place, just like a baker is under no obligation to stock cakes reserved for same-sex marriages. I clarified all this in my last post.

This is also a Red Herring, and an attempt to confuse the issue.

Kuroshiro
August 13th, 2016, 06:58 PM
As a gay person if I were to walk in to a shop and not be allowed to buy something because of that, naturally, I would be very pissed however I would probably spend an hour or two giving it a ton of bad reviews on whatever apps people give shops reviews on rather than getting the police involved.

However if I were to be refused any official documentation because of my sexuality then I would get the legal system involved.

Bull
August 13th, 2016, 07:10 PM
Dress codes and civil rights=apples and oranges.

AussieNicholas
August 13th, 2016, 07:18 PM
Does it mean I have to state my sexuality or whatever if I do somewhere to in order to be told if I will be allowed in there or not. Or do you mean like if I go somewhere holding hands and/or kissing another they could throw me out for indecent behaviour or something.
Just want to know this before I answer your question.

I mean things like bakeries not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings. I don't know of any incidents where a business asks people if they're straight or gay, so I didn't think of that. And I don't think businesses should be aggressive when refusing service. Just a polite, "Sorry, we don't feel comfortable serving you for religious reasons" is enough. Any business owner who says something like, "Get out, fag." is in my book an asshole and I probably wouldn't give them my money ever again.

Sometimes people seem to forget that they have the freedom to not support a business they don't like. If someone doesn't want to support that business, then they can take their money elsewhere and write a negative review (if that option exists). People don't have to give money to people who they don't like.

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 07:57 PM
I mean things like bakeries not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings. I don't know of any incidents where a business asks people if they're straight or gay, so I didn't think of that. And I don't think businesses should be aggressive when refusing service. Just a polite, "Sorry, we don't feel comfortable serving you for religious reasons" is enough. Any business owner who says something like, "Get out, fag." is in my book an asshole and I probably wouldn't give them my money ever again.

Sometimes people seem to forget that they have the freedom to not support a business they don't like. If someone doesn't want to support that business, then they can take their money elsewhere and write a negative review (if that option exists). People don't have to give money to people who they don't like.

Finally! Someone with some sense! We live in a free, open market society. If someone refuses to service you, then you can just go to a different supplier. We live in an age where you can buy most anything from anywhere via the internet and phone. If your local bakery refuses to service you, then they can, it is not a violation of human rights to refuse to take the money of others, but it is to force someone to do something morally and ethically wrong. There are plenty of other bakeries in town, it may not be that convenient, but it is not life or death that you get a cake. This method provides equal rights to all, instead of the other method promoted by some, which takes away rights.

BTW: I like your sig quote

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2016, 11:15 PM
I mean things like bakeries not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings. I don't know of any incidents where a business asks people if they're straight or gay, so I didn't think of that. And I don't think businesses should be aggressive when refusing service. Just a polite, "Sorry, we don't feel comfortable serving you for religious reasons" is enough. Any business owner who says something like, "Get out, fag." is in my book an asshole and I probably wouldn't give them my money ever again.

Sometimes people seem to forget that they have the freedom to not support a business they don't like. If someone doesn't want to support that business, then they can take their money elsewhere and write a negative review (if that option exists). People don't have to give money to people who they don't like.

I was just asking...to clarify what you now stated above.

It's common practice here to act accoridng to that. And business owners have to live with the getting negative ratings and/or losing customers thing.

It's just the aggressive "we don't serve that kind of clientele" thing that sometimes triggers protest that's the reason why I asked you.

Gwen
August 14th, 2016, 12:56 AM
Everyone here who believes that business should be a public or open service and try and relate it to state controlled public places has absolutely 0 clue on how the private business sector operates or even what it is apparently. Also the fact that no one here has even bothered realising how much anti-discrimination laws have perpetrated discrimination in the pass. Check Native Title and read up on how much of a shitstorm created when it was first announced and put through, 'The White Earth' is a good read about it as well.

Also this is goes against freedom of contract demand and freedom of association, if you dislike how people use the freedoms guaranteed to you and them then don't fucking support the privately owned business. They have the right to refuse service to absolutely anyone for any reason so why do you feel the need to force the homophobic baker to serve you donuts!? Go literally anywhere else.

This thread has only shown me how tiny the knowledge or even research into corporate practice or even what the difference between state and private sector is before making a long post that is incorrect at the basics level from the first sentence onwards. If it is an opinion then keep it to that instead of trying to throw in false information wherever you think is good.

Uniquemind
August 14th, 2016, 02:44 AM
The way I see it is that the right to discriminate or not really depends on a case by case basis, and in cases where service is refused it needs to really come down to a customer's behavior and attitude. (A new debate exists regarding certain behaviors that are culturally varied between being rude or not, but that's for another thread).

If customers behavior aren't a realistic threat to anybody, and they have the means to pay for the service they should not be turned away by service provider.


You can't discriminate on certain protected classes in my opinion, and until a "class" hits my view on being ridiculously meritless, I will continue to believe in equal protections under the law.


If a customer is turned away the burden is on them to prove they were turned away for unprotected discrimination reasons.

Ex: if a wedding venue is booked for 20 years, refusing someone makes complete sense, their booked!

Flapjack
August 14th, 2016, 09:31 AM
Everyone here who believes that business should be a public or open service and try and relate it to state controlled public places has absolutely 0 clue on how the private business sector operates or even what it is apparently. Also the fact that no one here has even bothered realising how much anti-discrimination laws have perpetrated discrimination in the pass. Check Native Title and read up on how much of a shitstorm created when it was first announced and put through, 'The White Earth' is a good read about it as well.

Also this is goes against freedom of contract demand and freedom of association, if you dislike how people use the freedoms guaranteed to you and them then don't fucking support the privately owned business. They have the right to refuse service to absolutely anyone for any reason so why do you feel the need to force the homophobic baker to serve you donuts!? Go literally anywhere else.

This thread has only shown me how tiny the knowledge or even research into corporate practice or even what the difference between state and private sector is before making a long post that is incorrect at the basics level from the first sentence onwards. If it is an opinion then keep it to that instead of trying to throw in false information wherever you think is good.
Would it be okay if a swimming pool says no blacks allowed then? Also most of Europe doesn't allow it and it is working great so don't pretend like you know more than the average bigot.

mattsmith48
August 14th, 2016, 10:12 AM
Why would a baker care if its for a straight or gay wedding they are only asking you to make a cake not to shove it up your ass, why refuse to serve them they are still gonna do what is against your ''morals'' and people are gonna know your a bigot and lose alot of business because of it.

Reise
August 14th, 2016, 10:17 AM
That doesnt even make sense.
In the US, like pretty much everywhere Common Law is used it's the buyer who makes the offer, the seller is free to refuse this offer and doesn't have to justify him/herself.

However in Civil Law, it's quite the contrary.
I don't know for Islamic Law or other types.

Vlerchan
August 14th, 2016, 12:29 PM
Why would a baker care if its for a straight or gay wedding they are only asking you to make a cake not to shove it up your ass, why refuse to serve them they are still gonna do what is against your ''morals'' and people are gonna know your a bigot and lose alot of business because of it.

This isn't relevant to the debate, which centres around whether they should possess the right to do so, or not.

Also most of Europe doesn't allow it and it is working great so don't pretend like you know more than the average bigot.
No-one is defending this on straightforward utilitarian grounds - though, you can be certain that whatever result emerges is Pareto Optimal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency).

I also responded to your reasoning in this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3414832&postcount=48), unless your argument is just 'you're a bigot' it might be worth reading :).

However in Civil Law, it's quite the contrary.
I actually had no idea it was the opposite across the entire civil law sphere (I'd studied German contract law, briefly, though). That's interesting.

Reise
August 14th, 2016, 12:42 PM
I actually had no idea it was the opposite across the entire civil law sphere (I'd studied German contract law, briefly, though). That's interesting.
Well, I can't speak for every country, I've just been taught the difference in order to better understand the mechanisms of contract law (English one, principally).

As odd as it may sound I've never concretely studied my own country's laws.

Vlerchan
August 14th, 2016, 12:46 PM
Ass odd as it may sound I've never concretely studied my own country's laws.
I'm not sure if that's supposed to be odd in France, but I have never met anyone outside my college's law society who has studied Irish law.

I happened, though, to do my contract law end-of-term paper on the doctrine of invitation to treat. It's pretty fascinating, if you ever do get the urge to crack open a law textbook.

Reise
August 14th, 2016, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure if that's supposed to be odd in France, but I have never met anyone outside my college's law society who has studied Irish law.
As I chose numerous classes in English I assume my teaching is less centered on France than other French-like ones. For example, if I have to analyze an income statement it'd be meeting American or English accounting standards, there is no significant differences though.


I happened, though, to do my contract law end-of-term paper on the doctrine of invitation to treat. It's pretty fascinating, if you ever do get the urge to crack open a law textbook.
I'm not really that interested in law, though I got a pretty clear idea of what is an invitation to treat, of course.
And in general I'm more comfortable with things involving numbers.

ethan-s
August 14th, 2016, 01:03 PM
Yes, they should. Should I be able to refuse service to Trump supporters? Yes. Should you be able to refuse service to felons? Yes. You should be able to refuse service to anyone you want.


Plasma you basically just nailed down the whole left. All they want is to take rights from some but give them to others- in lots of cases just to advance something perverted and that is part of their agenda.

Vlerchan
August 14th, 2016, 01:14 PM
Plasma you basically just nailed down the whole left.
Reminder: the left is beholden to a number of factions, and they all want different things. Just like the right.

I'm considered left, and want nothing to do with this sort of paternalism.

I'm not really that interested in law
Unfortunately, I amn't too interested either. That portion of my degree is finished though, thankfully.

Gwen
August 14th, 2016, 03:17 PM
Would it be okay if a swimming pool says no blacks allowed then? Also most of Europe doesn't allow it and it is working great so don't pretend like you know more than the average bigot.

Ahem, I repeat as I said in my post if you bothered to read it. Privately owned business and state/federal owned public places are not the same thing. Privately owned business under a free market have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason that they want. A baker can refuse your money and not provide you service if he just doesn't feel like it.

If the swimming pool was not public and the owner has it on property they own then they could deny blacks, white, asians, gays or whomever they feel like denying. I would condemn the white supremacist's pool/store/whatever but I would defend his right to have that control over his property. You literally have no understanding of the law that surrounds this and why it exists in the first place. If you have the desire to take away business' rights then go to push your agendas in a socialist market.

What is next? Are you going to make a big song and dance after the KKK because they aren't serving black people cupcakes at the state fair? This is an issue that is a societal issue not a legal one. If society condemns bigotry then that business would stop getting customers as soon it was public spread.

Notice how public swimming pools follows different laws and doesn't need paying customers to survive.

Fun fact as well, the rest of the world does allow it because literally no one cares because adults are old enough to go to literally any other store besides the racist baker? Stop trying to lump different sectors of property and business together to create a strawman. There are actual proper arguments for both sides about this and you are trying to push empathy and anecdotal evidence instead of actually adding a new point or refuting one of my own.

Flapjack
August 14th, 2016, 03:42 PM
Ahem, I repeat as I said in my post if you bothered to read it. Privately owned business and state/federal owned public places are not the same thing. Privately owned business under a free market have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason that they want. A baker can refuse your money and not provide you service if he just doesn't feel like it.

If the swimming pool was not public and the owner has it on property they own then they could deny blacks, white, asians, gays or whomever they feel like denying. I would condemn the white supremacist's pool/store/whatever but I would defend his right to have that control over his property. You literally have no understanding of the law that surrounds this and why it exists in the first place. If you have the desire to take away business' rights then go to push your agendas in a socialist market.

What is next? Are you going to make a big song and dance after the KKK because they aren't serving black people cupcakes at the state fair? This is an issue that is a societal issue not a legal one. If society condemns bigotry then that business would stop getting customers as soon it was public spread.

Notice how public swimming pools follows different laws and doesn't need paying customers to survive.

Fun fact as well, the rest of the world does allow it because literally no one cares because adults are old enough to go to literally any other store besides the racist baker? Stop trying to lump different sectors of property and business together to create a strawman. There are actual proper arguments for both sides about this and you are trying to push empathy and anecdotal evidence instead of actually adding a new point or refuting one of my own.
So you're okay with shops stopping black people from shopping there?

Gwen
August 14th, 2016, 03:51 PM
So you're okay with shops stopping black people from shopping there?

Nice rebuttal. No I'm not okay with stores stopping black or gay people from shopping but I will defend their right to refuse them access or services. If someone made a no-swedes laundromat why would I care? Society should be the one punishing business owners here not the law. They don't want certain people's money and that makes people not want their services.

And because you have no argument besides trying to antagonize me so I'll just entertain you. "Oh wow now that you ask basically the same useless question 3 times, I would be completely and totally fine with businesses not serving black people." Is that the answer you wanted me to give to push your barebone point? :lol: Please don't be petty in a thread trying to promote debate.

Flapjack
August 14th, 2016, 05:00 PM
Nice rebuttal. No I'm not okay with stores stopping black or gay people from shopping but I will defend their right to refuse them access or services. If someone made a no-swedes laundromat why would I care? Society should be the one punishing business owners here not the law. They don't want certain people's money and that makes people not want their services.

That is a romantic idea but society has shown in the past that it will support stores that discriminate. Gay people and minority groups have a hard enough time in the USA without stores discriminating.
If someone made a no-swedes laundromat why would I care?
I find this disturbing and stupid. Swedes should not be discriminated against, replace swedes with black people or gay people.

Also I suspect you're okay with this because you are not a minority or part of the LGBT community. Not only is that selfish and horrible I think you should read this quote by Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Gwen
August 14th, 2016, 05:29 PM
That is a romantic idea but society has shown in the past that it will support stores that discriminate. Gay people and minority groups have a hard enough time in the USA without stores discriminating.

I find this disturbing and stupid. Swedes should not be discriminated against, replace swedes with black people or gay people.

Also I suspect you're okay with this because you are not a minority or part of the LGBT community. Not only is that selfish and horrible I think you should read this quote by Martin Niemöller:

The fact that you just assume that I'm not a significant minority where I live or that I'm not apart of the LGBT community because I agree with the laws and freedom of the free market really shows your own ignorance. I am a full blooded Swede for one which is why I was using the point. The fact that you feel like you can be condescending towards me or implying that I have my opinions because I don't understand the discrimination still prevailing towards the gay or minorities is baseless and more antagonistic painting behaviour that detracts from the original point of debate.

I am bisexual so I definitely hate all LGBT obviously. The fact that you think that gay and minority groups need anymore coddling by society than they already do is just, fucked up in my opinion. What would happen if a baker said gay's only and no straight wedding cakes. Who would be willing to cry out that straight people need protection? I seriously hate even calling it an LGBT community, the double standards and looking down on society and others in literally the most accepting culture in the entire world at the moment is why nobody takes us seriously.

Also that quote works the same backwards you realise O.o
It speaks out against the slippery slope that occurs when you start targeting classes and groups of people. Private Business owners and their freedoms should be respected the same as anyone else's. I do find it funny how you couldn't care less about that unless they were a black or gay business owner though.

Vlerchan
August 14th, 2016, 05:35 PM
That is a romantic idea but society has shown in the past that it will support stores that discriminate.
The laws being proposed can only be set in societies where the balance of favour has tilted in the favour of homosexuals or blacks.

As a political-faction, I (and Index) are surely acting in the defence of the minority.

find this disturbing and stupid. Swedes should not be discriminated against, replace swedes with black people or gay people.
No-one has claimed that Swede's should be discriminated against. What people have claimed, is that people should have the right to discriminate against others. Not because it's ethical, but because people shouldn't be infantalised, and stripped of their moral autonomy.

Also I suspect you're okay with this because you are not a minority or part of the LGBT community. Not only is that selfish and horrible I think you should read this quote by Martin Niemöller:
No-one here supports discrimination. Like too many claims in this thread, this point is both a strawman and a red herring.

StoppingTom
August 14th, 2016, 05:51 PM
It'd basically be akin to letting money walk out the door, but whatever. There are other places where someone can obtain the service your business provides, and other businesses will take advantage of the negative attention you'll undoubtedly receive.

Unless you're Chick-Fil-A, because that shit's good even if they hate the gays.

Flapjack
August 14th, 2016, 07:30 PM
It'd basically be akin to letting money walk out the door, but whatever. There are other places where someone can obtain the service your business provides, and other businesses will take advantage of the negative attention you'll undoubtedly receive.

Unless you're Chick-Fil-A, because that shit's good even if they hate the gays.
That's true when only a few stores are doing it but what about the segregation that the blacks had to endure? Also being rejected from a store because of race or sexuality could make a person in a minority group or in the LGBT even less accepted in society.

SethfromMI
August 14th, 2016, 08:01 PM
It'd basically be akin to letting money walk out the door, but whatever. There are other places where someone can obtain the service your business provides, and other businesses will take advantage of the negative attention you'll undoubtedly receive.

Unless you're Chick-Fil-A, because that shit's good even if they hate the gays.

it is not that they hate gays, they just openly support the Biblical view of marriage, as is their right.

being bi, I have mixed views on this issue. on the one hand, I would not want to be discriminated against, nor do I want to see others being discriminated against. Whether it is about color, sexuality, religion, whatever.

on the other hand, there are instances in which a busniuess should have some rights to stick up for their own beliefs. should Hobby Lobby be forced to buy their employees birth control if they don't think it is right? I don't think so.

if a Christian photographer did not want to shoot a wedding of a gay/lesbian couple, should they have to accept the shoot no matter what (assuming they are able to pay the photographer)? in my personal view now.

I think it also depends on what type of busniuess it is? if you own a restaurant, unless the person/s are doing something so inappropriate, you should be forced to serve them regardless (Chick-Fil-A will serve gay people, even if the CEO is Christian).

I think this issue has some many different issues and different scenarios to consider. in some ways, it can be a case by case (or at least a busniuess bu busniuess basis). I think we have to be careful about not taking so many rights away from owners, but at the same time, the question becomes where does one draw the line to make sure no group of people is being abused or separated from society.

Devinsoccer
August 14th, 2016, 08:07 PM
Yes it would be discrmination, but people have beliefs. If you don't believe in people being say than so be it the gay person can go somewhere else.

StoppingTom
August 14th, 2016, 09:12 PM
That's true when only a few stores are doing it but what about the segregation that the blacks had to endure? Also being rejected from a store because of race or sexuality could make a person in a minority group or in the LGBT even less accepted in society.

To your first point: I'm not downplaying the effects of racial segregation, and we are all in agreement that it was unfair and inhumane treatment. However, during that time period in the US, restaurants refusing to serve black people on basis of their skin was the result of Jim Crow laws and segregation in more visible ways, such as in schools, which led to sub-par education of black people until Brown v. Board of Ed. However, if you own a business, you are within your right to determine who you want to serve. I'm not particularly keen on the idea of someone being denied anything based on something as paltry as race or religion or whatever, but the right to do so is there.

Your second point: What do you mean by the rest of society? Being denied service at a business reflects on the views of that particular business owner, but it doesn't necessarily reflect society as a whole. Especially nowadays, minority and LGBT communities are very strong and there are a large amount of support resources within those communities, and most of society is accepting of them.

The Faulted
August 16th, 2016, 03:04 PM
When you look at the big picture, refusing service to the LGBT community is nothing but problematic for society. What is the purpose for doing so to begin with? It reestablishes the conflict between religion and sexual orientation, suggesting that the two cannot function together in this world. It is disrespectful and discriminatory to refuse service to a gay man or woman, and there is also no gain to it either.

It is called Public Services for a reason. You're either depriving someone of the human right to take away another being's human right or we can all just live together in peace and not care whether someone is gay or not. Just mind your own business and do your job.

Uniquemind
August 16th, 2016, 03:53 PM
Yes, they should. Should I be able to refuse service to Trump supporters? Yes. Should you be able to refuse service to felons? Yes. You should be able to refuse service to anyone you want.


Plasma you basically just nailed down the whole left. All they want is to take rights from some but give them to others- in lots of cases just to advance something perverted and that is part of their agenda.

If were the business owner, I wouldn't though, because the more money I take from them means less for them to donate to Trump.


Again though, the 1964 US Federal Civil Rights Act prohibits and I'll quote from google here:

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin."

Later disability was also added as a protected class, in the 1990's.

I am unaware if the LGBTQ community has legally been established as a class of their own in the last 4 years or so.

That would determine if they're protected or not.


The biggest problem I have with discrimination is that it is telling people person A's dollar is better than person B's dollar.

Vlerchan
August 16th, 2016, 04:15 PM
I am unaware if the LGBTQ community has legally been established as a class of their own in the last 4 years or so.

That would determine if they're protected or not.


I don't believe that the LGBT are a protected class beneath that legislation.

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin."
Worth also noting that Title II covers specific places, and it's not a blanket ban on all discrimination by business-owners.

ThisBougieLife
August 16th, 2016, 04:39 PM
I'm new, but this thread interested me since I am LGBT myself.

The Civil Rights Act is not a blanket ban on any form of discrimination in any business, but there is neither a blanket "right to discriminate" in the U.S. You cannot simply ban anyone for any reason from your business, despite what "right to refuse service" signs may say (these are more intended to get troublemakers and "suspicious" people out of your restaurant, not to ban people of certain races or religions that you dislike). You cannot put up on a "no blacks" sign at your store, you cannot turn someone away because they're wearing a hijab. There is no unrestricted right to bar anyone from your service for any reason.

That said, there may be a cause to refuse to do something that goes against your own religious beliefs (i.e. making a cake for same-sex wedding). In this case, furthermore, why would any self-respecting gay couple want a cake made under duress? I would have no desire to force someone to make something for me against their own wishes. What a terrible negative situation in the first place.

Anyway, I hope I contributed something to this thread. I apologize for not reading through the entire thing. I only took into account the pages on this post.

PlasmaHam
August 17th, 2016, 05:32 PM
ThisBougieLife You haven't really missed anything. I respect you for putting up a sensible argument, unlike some others I have read. The Civil Rights Act can be disputed, but from a Constitutional and historical level, I feel that the Civil Rights Act can not apply to private businesses.

I am glad you understand and respect why religious people often refuse to do certain services for religious reasoning.

On a separate note, I stumbled across this video while checking the news. Seems relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll share.
11Wb1QCSuMg

DriveAlive
August 17th, 2016, 05:49 PM
Believe it or not, this is an issue on which I have not yet developed a concrete opinion. I would like to lay out a few points, though.
-every business should be free to do as they wish without government interference
-people are entitled to their own religious and personal beliefs
-the point of a public business is to serve the public
-we should more often than not fall on the side of maximum freedom
-would we call this discrimination if it happened to a different group?
-is the problem with the fact that the customers are gay or is it with what they requested?
-does our society operate most efficiently if this is allowed?

Vlerchan
August 17th, 2016, 06:05 PM
-every business should be free to do as they wish without government interference
Including fraud, environmental pollution, marketing products that cause accidents and kill children, re: 2008, again?

I'm fine with freedom of enterprise, but the position of maximum freedom is untenable.

-does our society operate most efficiently if this is allowed?

The most efficient tax scheme, would probably be something relatively flat and sloping subtly downwards for highest earners.

I realise that this is just a general principal, but I do think we should consider distributional consequences (esp. when, poor distributions, as perceived, tend to encourage things like Brexit.)

Jontxu
August 19th, 2016, 05:39 AM
I don't support discrimination...

mike16m
August 22nd, 2016, 04:24 PM
this is more of a comples situation than just yes or no... in the baker situation they should be allowed to refuse to make a specifically gay cake. just like a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with the NAZI symbol on it. however target shouldnt be allowed to refuse service to someone because their gay or something.

Stronk Serb
August 23rd, 2016, 07:38 PM
A question for the liberals here, if I opened a bakery in the middle of Chicago and started selling burek to the masses, would you support me if I refused service to white Christian cishet males? It's the same as with blacks and gays, but the barbaric tribes of Tumblrite SJWs would support me denying whites the basic human right in the Balkans, which is eating burek with a cup yogurt to drink.

StoppingTom
August 23rd, 2016, 07:56 PM
A question for the liberals here, if I opened a bakery in the middle of Chicago and started selling burek to the masses, would you support me if I refused service to white Christian cishet males? It's the same as with blacks and gays, but the barbaric tribes of Tumblrite SJWs would support me denying whites the basic human right in the Balkans, which is eating burek with a cup yogurt to drink.

If you're willing to take the potential loss in sales and potential bad rep, I don't have a problem with refusing sale to anyone due to the business owner's personal beliefs.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 09:45 AM
This is interesting. I don't typically bring back old debates, but this has been leaking into other debates, so I think I'll bring it in. As many of us agree on, I believe that it is much more of a human right to do as you want with your business, than it is to force somebody to work for you. Despite what the other side wants to say, it is simply legally bullying and forcing someone to work for you.

Anyway, the real reason I wanted to post was to bring up this (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm). Apparently a few years back, a trucking company fired 2 Muslim workers after they refused to truck beer for religious reasons. Using your logic that seems fair, right? Well, behold who decided to sue the trucking company, the US government. Apparently, Obama thought that businesses didn't have the right to fire people over refusing to do something against their morals. I don't know the verdict of the case, but this does seem to show some flaws in the idea that the law supports forced service.

ThisBougieLife
September 27th, 2016, 10:10 AM
It does appear that businesses have the freedom to refuse service for any reason, yet they do not have the freedom to fire their employees for any reason, especially if the reason is that the employees failed to carry out their expected duties due to religious or moral convictions. But one could say: If businesses can refuse service for any reason, why can't they fire for any reason? After all, they'll get bad press and people won't want to apply there; shouldn't we just let the market sort it out? Why should businesses be forced to keep employees they don't want?

Of course some of this problem stems from lack of communication at the hiring process. If the Muslim employees had said from the get-go that they would not be able to transport alcohol, I'm sure they could've negotiated something with their employer. Yet it instead came on as a surprise. Likewise, the same could be said for a bakery (if, in this case, a particular employee refused to make a cake, rather than the entire business being opposed to it).

Kahn
September 27th, 2016, 10:34 AM
If you're willing to take the potential loss in sales and potential bad rep, I don't have a problem with refusing sale to anyone due to the business owner's personal beliefs.

This is where I stand on the issue. Well said.

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 03:25 PM
I have no issue with employers firing employees for not upholding their part of the contract.

I also have no problems with it for different reasons that I have no problems with firms being allowed to refuse jobs that contravene their moral compass (though, I guess both, fundamentally, are issues of a right to free contract).

Flapjack
September 28th, 2016, 03:51 PM
I have no issue with employers firing employees for not upholding their part of the contract.
Ohhh so this is interesting and we might actually agree xD

I believe that anyone should have the right to refuse to do some work that is against their moral code, from vegans killing cows to religious fanatics refusing to make cake for gays. I do not however believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. For example Walmart banning black people from shopping there, what do you think of that?

Vlerchan
September 28th, 2016, 04:06 PM
Ohhh so this is interesting and we might actually agree xD

I believe that anyone should have the right to refuse to do some work that is against their moral code, from vegans killing cows to religious fanatics refusing to make cake for gays. I do not however believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. For example Walmart banning black people from shopping there, what do you think of that?
Yeah. This is the exact opposite to what I believe :P.

phuckphace
September 28th, 2016, 04:06 PM
religious fanatics refusing to make cake for gays

religious fanatics

refusing to make cake for gays

:lol3:

everlong
September 28th, 2016, 04:32 PM
I think it's the business' business whether or not it wants to ban gay people. I'd find it stupid if a business did, but if that's what they want to do, sure.

PlasmaHam
September 28th, 2016, 04:33 PM
Ohhh so this is interesting and we might actually agree xD

I believe that anyone should have the right to refuse to do some work that is against their moral code, from vegans killing cows to religious fanatics refusing to make cake for gays. I do not however believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. For example Walmart banning black people from shopping there, what do you think of that?

If Walmart banned black people from shopping there, all the blacks will just go to the Target down the street.:P Capitalism!

Also, despite as much as you want to make it, this is not a religious issue. Do you think gays are so much better when the tables are turned?

Flapjack
September 28th, 2016, 04:58 PM
If Walmart banned black people from shopping there, all the blacks will just go to the Target down the street.:P Capitalism!
Ohhhh so all the segregation was a myth then right? Minority groups do not have the spending power to influence big corporations.

Also, despite as much as you want to make it, this is not a religious issue. Do you think gays are so much better when the tables are turned?
I don't think it is a religious issue?

What do you mean by 'do you think gays are so much better?' I think being gay is just a sexuality and tells you nothing about an individual's character.

PlasmaHam
September 28th, 2016, 05:26 PM
Ohhhh so all the segregation was a myth then right? Minority groups do not have the spending power to influence big corporations. There is a big difference between government enforced segregation and a business making a personal matter to not serve someone.

You seem to be missing a big point. You didn't see mass starvation of black people during state-enforced segregation. You know why? Because they went and purchased things at the stores that did service them. Minorities do not need to influence big businesses to change their polices, because there are hundreds of other businesses that would be happy to take their money. Capitalism!
I think being gay is just a sexuality and tells you nothing about an individual's character.

Religion tells you nothing about character either. I'm not talking about character, I'm talking about whether someone has the right to force someone to work for them.
http://static.conservativetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ll.jpg

ThisBougieLife
September 28th, 2016, 08:54 PM
^ Yeah. Either all of those examples in that comic are allowed or none of them are. That's really the only way this can be logically consistent and fair.

Uniquemind
September 29th, 2016, 03:21 AM
^ Yeah. Either all of those examples in that comic are allowed or none of them are. That's really the only way this can be logically consistent and fair.

The smart thing for businesses to do is to diversify and hire good management to ensure there is a machine or a person who does not feel performing the service is a problem while not tapping employee B who does have issue with doing it. Reassign the employee to a new task and achieve economy of scale another way.


Either way in time truck drivers will be obsolete and freight can be moved by automated machines.

Another solution is to employ ignorance to a truck driver on what they are carrying so for him personally, he can claim he didn't violate his faith because he had no knowledge of what he transported.

For me I have a tough time reconciling the emotional attachment of an individual to their business, in the context of religious identity. Like your already doing a business which seeks profit before your God, and I'm sure their tripping up somewhere in putting $ before the golden rule.

If you are gonna sin, sin to completion, your concern is in business ethics and legality, not right VS wrong be honest with yourself business owners.

Your business will outlive you and is tied to the physical world, it can't go to heaven with you!!

Businesses already enjoy limited liability from the law (LLC) and their seen as separate "people", so stay consistent please.

What one's business does, does not reflect personally upon you, and the fact all of a sudden they feel scared of their God and refuse service is showing their hypocrisy and baseless argument.

I do believe that privately owned business need to provide a reason that isn't from a protected class under law as to why service was refused.

I am not so unfair as to say that they can just say "no service for you" and provide no reason and hide from public outrage.

PlasmaHam
September 29th, 2016, 09:20 AM
The smart thing for businesses to do is to diversify and hire good management to ensure there is a machine or a person who does not feel performing the service is a problem while not tapping employee B who does have issue with doing it. Reassign the employee to a new task and achieve economy of scale another way.
What about if every employee has the similar ideology? Are you suggesting we force businesses to hire people just because they share your ideology? Also, I know the perfect way to keep the economy working and let people do as they may with their private businesses. Go to a different business that will service you.


Another solution is to employ ignorance to a truck driver on what they are carrying so for him personally, he can claim he didn't violate his faith because he had no knowledge of what he transported.
Ideologies don't work that way. A vegan wouldn't claim that eating meat doesn't count when they don't realize its meat.

For me I have a tough time reconciling the emotional attachment of an individual to their business, in the context of religious identity. Like your already doing a business which seeks profit before your God, and I'm sure their tripping up somewhere in putting $ before the golden rule.

If you are gonna sin, sin to completion, your concern is in business ethics and legality, not right VS wrong be honest with yourself business owners.
A lot of people put much greater emphasis on morality than you seem to do. Living your life based entirely around following the law and not morality is going to lead you down a dark path. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the argument here. These people are not putting their money before their ideology like you are saying. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite, putting their ideology before money. And please tell me how owning a successful business is apparently an awful sin and that people are hypocrites for being successful.

What one's business does, does not reflect personally upon you, and the fact all of a sudden they feel scared of their God and refuse service is showing their hypocrisy and baseless argument.
Could you elaborate?

I do believe that privately owned business need to provide a reason that isn't from a protected class under law as to why service was refused.

I am not so unfair as to say that they can just say "no service for you" and provide no reason and hide from public outrage.
Why? Because that wouldn't be fair? Here is some news, life isn't fair.

NoahNoah
September 29th, 2016, 09:59 AM
Yes. But by doing this they acknowledge that they are losing valuable business and are just being whinging little bitches about something that doesn't change anything.

Vlerchan
October 1st, 2016, 11:48 AM
ike your already doing a business which seeks profit before your God, and I'm sure their tripping up somewhere in putting $ before the golden rule.
Under conditions were people are forced to suppress their relationship with god, yes.

But, that's exactly what people acting in defence of freedom of contract (myself, PlasmaHam, etc.) oppose.

Businesses already enjoy limited liability from the law (LLC) and their seen as separate "people", so stay consistent please.
Legal fiction is, well, fictitious.

What one's business does, does not reflect personally upon you, and the fact all of a sudden they feel scared of their God and refuse service is showing their hypocrisy and baseless argument.
There's a clear coincidence of management and firm action. Whilst I can agree with the abstraction of SLP that doesn't mean that we should, in the social sphere, aim to ignore the moral personhood of those behind the firm.

Uniquemind
October 1st, 2016, 02:30 PM
Under conditions were people are forced to suppress their relationship with god, yes.

But, that's exactly what people acting in defence of freedom of contract (myself, PlasmaHam, etc.) oppose.


Legal fiction is, well, fictitious.


There's a clear coincidence of management and firm action. Whilst I can agree with the abstraction of SLP that doesn't mean that we should, in the social sphere, aim to ignore the moral personhood of those behind the firm.

But I believe those things are indeed occurring and when issues of company scandals come up, those defending the actions of a corporation seem to effectively utilize this distinction of a business-personal entity VS the actual employee (board members, CEO etc.). They fire the little guys and maybe a manager, but always pass off blame that way. (Ex: initial reaction of Wells Fargo scandal).

Vlerchan
October 1st, 2016, 04:26 PM
They fire the little guys and maybe a manager, but always pass off blame that way. (Ex: initial reaction of Wells Fargo scandal).
The CEO of Wells Fargo has been grilled in Congress over the last few days, and will probably end up resigning before too long. The question being discussed at the moment is whether upper-management put intense pressure on sales staff to expand market share, and whilst the firings were primarily of lower-level staff: staff more obviously having engaged in illicit practices, there's a good spread of blame in this instance.

Nonetheless, that something appears to be the case otherwise, doesn't mean it should be the case.

Uniquemind
October 1st, 2016, 05:50 PM
The CEO of Wells Fargo has been grilled in Congress over the last few days, and will probably end up resigning before too long. The question being discussed at the moment is whether upper-management put intense pressure on sales staff to expand market share, and whilst the firings were primarily of lower-level staff: staff more obviously having engaged in illicit practices, there's a good spread of blame in this instance.

Nonetheless, that something appears to be the case otherwise, doesn't mean it should be the case.

I was just using them as an example, ofc I am talking about much wider practices of how upper management gets golden parachutes even upon shameful resignations.

Ex: 2008 no criminal charges for financial crisis or subprime mortgages.

Porpoise101
October 1st, 2016, 06:13 PM
Ex: 2008 no criminal charges for financial crisis or subprime mortgages.
DOJ Logic: Why prosecute when you can settle for a much lower amount than originally stated?

Vlerchan
October 1st, 2016, 07:02 PM
Ex: 2008 no criminal charges for financial crisis or subprime mortgages.
There was a number of people charged, though I believe just one was prosecuted. Of course, the dearth of prosecutions of individuals brought is unsettling, though that seems to be on the grounds of general DoJ incompetence, as opposed to some widely-held belief in the upper echelons of legal society that management shouldn't be held to account for illegal actions.

DOJ Logic: Why prosecute when you can settle for a much lower amount than originally stated?
I understand very little banking law, but the understanding I gathered is that the precedent in Firrea became intellectually discredited during the course of events and, with that in mind, the DoJ was happy to settle in the cases where they could, because it was afraid it wouldn't be able to pursue its cases to prosecution, otherwise.

novellam
October 1st, 2016, 07:46 PM
It just seems like bad business. Obviously, I'm morally against it, but why you would want to discourage such a large amount of customers/clients and their allies from purchasing your stuff or using your service, I do not know.

Uniquemind
October 1st, 2016, 08:02 PM
What about if every employee has the similar ideology? Are you suggesting we force businesses to hire people just because they share your ideology? Also, I know the perfect way to keep the economy working and let people do as they may with their private businesses. Go to a different business that will service you.



Ideologies don't work that way. A vegan wouldn't claim that eating meat doesn't count when they don't realize its meat.
A lot of people put much greater emphasis on morality than you seem to do. Living your life based entirely around following the law and not morality is going to lead you down a dark path. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the argument here. These people are not putting their money before their ideology like you are saying. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite, putting their ideology before money. And please tell me how owning a successful business is apparently an awful sin and that people are hypocrites for being successful.


Could you elaborate?


Why? Because that wouldn't be fair? Here is some news, life isn't fair.

Isn't it the same thing; to forsake fighting for a fair world, and then argue a right vs wrong dichotomy?

Also yes going to another business as a customer can work, but also don't forget it's not always practical.

Let's take weddings for example, as a customer, proximity to the business that will provide you service matters. Ya can't travel 300 miles in a few hours, get a cake from NYC, and then get the venue you need in CA with the precise date of ceremony....

Also don't forget regional monopolies exist and are legal for example healthcare providers...so yeah world of free market theory, in practice it's a whole different game of trade offs and gains.

Paraxiom
October 7th, 2016, 07:34 PM
I never got involved in this thread until only (indirectly) now, as I wasn't sure where to enter the then-ongoing war, but here I am.


What about if every employee has the similar ideology? Are you suggesting we force businesses to hire people just because they share your ideology? Also, I know the perfect way to keep the economy working and let people do as they may with their private businesses. Go to a different business that will service you.

If a service is intending to selectively offer themselves to customers, based on certain characteristics of the customers, then the least they can do is make this visible as one of the first terms and conditions.

Before anything else at least certain customers know that they cannot avail of a certain service, without traveling to it to then be disappointed on the spot.

Anyway, I see it as unjustified for a publicly accessible service to intend to not serve certain customers for reasons that are irrelevant to the service itself. I haven't made connections much between the process of baking and the presence of gay people.


Here is some news, life isn't fair.

Oh come on. Life is neither fair nor not fair unless you want to objectively see it either way. Feeling contently justified in contributing to this supposed objective unfairness of life doesn't do anything useful for anyone, apart from make things lazily easier for some.

AllTheBreads
October 16th, 2016, 06:17 AM
I see your point about about the bussiness owner losing money but i think that it should be a general right to refuse anyone service. Having it specifically target gays is a breach of countless laws and constitutional amendments.

Stronk Serb
October 16th, 2016, 10:18 AM
Why not? Also it will be hard to implement because as far as I am aware there is no operational homo detector meaning that unless you are flying the rainbow banner, you can pass off as gay or not gay.

Uniquemind
October 16th, 2016, 12:57 PM
Why not? Also it will be hard to implement because as far as I am aware there is no operational homo detector meaning that unless you are flying the rainbow banner, you can pass off as gay or not gay.

That cuts both ways, the business would have to specify why they refused service, and they run a danger of refusing a heterosexual customer who walks in by themself.

Money is legal tender and if one's is taken but the other's not, is it still equal under the law?

ThisBougieLife
October 16th, 2016, 01:14 PM
The general idea isn't a gaydar at the door, but refusing to do something that somehow endorses homosexuality. I'd like to see an example of this "refusal clause" challenged when it actually is a filter at the door. Are there news stories of businesses turning down someone at the door because they appeared gay? Because they were black? Because they had a "Vote Trump" hat on?

Microcosm
October 16th, 2016, 03:02 PM
The effects on society of allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people are negative: promoting hatred and oppression of swaths of individuals, reinforcing divides between groups of people, and making gay individuals feel like they are not welcome in society as a whole among other things.

That last one is pretty important. Imagine what it would be like to walk into a store only as part of your daily routine, buying necessities for life, and being denied service purely on the basis of some abstract trait like sexuality or race--and yes, I believe the two are comparable in this context as both are characteristics that elicit unfounded oppression. The effect of this is *not* as simple as "I'll just go to some other store and give them my money." On the contrary, the victim of this situation will feel divided from those around them, not welcomed. There is not much worse than being completely divided from a society in which you are forced to live.

Vlerchan
October 16th, 2016, 03:33 PM
Money is legal tender and if one's is taken but the other's not, is it still equal under the law?
Legal tender means that it must be accepted as valid payment with regards to a financial obligation or debt. Being as store-owners in this case are not allowing homosexuals - or whoever - to establish a financial obligation to said shop-owner, means that the currency as legal tender isn't relevant. This is based on the legal doctrine of invitation to treat: that something is in the shop window with a price-tag attached, does not establish that item as being offered for sale.

I guess for a plain example of where the pitfalls in this argument are, examine the payment options on the next vending machine you use. Despite a 500 dollar bank note being legal tender you can be sure that the vending machine is not going to let you purchase a Pepsi with it. For examples of group-discrimination, you can examine the price-discrimination that is common-practice in cinemas: You'll find that teens and students and OAPs typically pay less.

promoting hatred and oppression of swaths of individuals, reinforcing divides between groups of people, and making gay individuals feel like they are not welcome in society as a whole among other things.
It doesn't promote oppression - it facilitates it - and it's ancillary to the unwelcomeness I am sure homosexuals already feel in such communities.

Do you feel it would be morally-superior to legally-enforce people to lie to each other? Because you're acting as if the actions-condemned aren't using the culture as a reference point as opposed to vice-versa - where the actions occur on the basis of a culture that persists irrespective of the legality of such actions.

PlasmaHam
October 16th, 2016, 05:11 PM
Having it specifically target gays is a breach of countless laws and constitutional amendments. That is not the real discussion of this debate, despite what many wants it to be. There are numerous instances where the reverse has been true; gay owned companies refusing service to anti-gay individuals. The Constitution speaks of discrimination in the public sector, if government-owned businesses refused service to someone, then the Constitution would apply. But the private sector is another entity all together.

The effects on society of allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people are negative: promoting hatred and oppression of swaths of individuals, reinforcing divides between groups of people, and making gay individuals feel like they are not welcome in society as a whole among other things.
So, you want to make others break their personal moral codes so gays can feel better about themselves? The government enforcing that people must be nice and accepting towards feel more like a dictatorship than a democracy.
That last one is pretty important. Imagine what it would be like to walk into a store only as part of your daily routine, buying necessities for life, and being denied service purely on the basis of some abstract trait like sexuality or race--and yes, I believe the two are comparable in this context as both are characteristics that elicit unfounded oppression.
Sexuality and race are two entirely different concepts; one is a life-style, one is what you biologically are. People don't have a problem with gays because of their existence, people have a problem with gays because of the life-style and morality that is supported by homosexuality. As people have indicated multiple times in this debate, store owners can't read minds and decide who gay and who isn't and expel them then. And if you haven't read up on most of these instances, you only really see these issues pop up when the customer wants the owner to support a gay wedding or some sort of pro-gay event. Here is a quote from an earlier post of mine that makes this clearer.
A white guy, a black guy, a gay guy, a straight guy, came up to me and asked me to build them a swastika. I'm generally not pro-Nazi, so I refused them all that service. I wasn't refusing to build that swastika because the person, numerous different kinds of people from all races and beliefs asked me and I denied them all. I refused the service because I see the swastika as a symbol of evil and sin, and I did not want my handiwork to be attributed to it. I refused the service, not the person. Hate the sin, not the person, as the Bible says.

Now, lets say I was a business owner, a baker for instance. Some guy that I know is gay comes up and asks me to bake him a birthday cake for his daughter. He is a trusted customer, and birthdays aren't against my personal beliefs, so I bake him a cake for his daughter. Later he comes back to the store, asking me to bake him a cake for his wedding to another guy. Homosexuality is against my personal beliefs, thus so are gay weddings. I see my service as helping someone continue in a sin, so I refuse to bake him a cake for said wedding. For me to bake that cake, thus supporting a gay wedding, is against my personal want and religion. I refer my gay customer to a different baker, and continue on my day. I didn't refuse that gay because he was gay, but because what he asked me to do.

The effect of this is *not* as simple as "I'll just go to some other store and give them my money." Um, yes it is, most people aren't that emotionally compromised. The law shouldn't cater to making people feel good. You just showed what I despise about modern liberalism. It prioritizes feelings over freedoms.

Microcosm
October 16th, 2016, 08:22 PM
So, you want to make others break their personal moral codes so gays can feel better about themselves? The government enforcing that people must be nice and accepting towards feel more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Replace "gays" with "blacks" and see how it sounds.

The government ought to ensure that people are treated fairly within business and law.

Sexuality and race are two entirely different concepts; one is a life-style, one is what you biologically are. People don't have a problem with gays because of their existence, people have a problem with gays because of the life-style and morality that is supported by homosexuality. As people have indicated multiple times in this debate, store owners can't read minds and decide who gay and who isn't and expel them then. And if you haven't read up on most of these instances, you only really see these issues pop up when the customer wants the owner to support a gay wedding or some sort of pro-gay event. Here is a quote from an earlier post of mine that makes this clearer.

Please explain how having a desire to love another person of the same sex is an accurate reflection of one's life style. It seems there is much more to a person than that.

And yes, people obviously can't determine whether someone is gay without any indicators, but the point is that, assuming an indicator is given, they ought to not be able to refuse service. In my opinion, giving someone service is not the same as supporting them or their characteristics.

Um, yes it is, most people aren't that emotionally compromised. The law shouldn't cater to making people feel good. You just showed what I despise about modern liberalism. It prioritizes feelings over freedoms.

The point is not that their feelings are hurt, but that they are alienated from those around them. Division in society is bad for the well-being of a community or country.

Do you feel it would be morally-superior to legally-enforce people to lie to each other? Because you're acting as if the actions-condemned aren't using the culture as a reference point as opposed to vice-versa - where the actions occur on the basis of a culture that persists irrespective of the legality of such actions.

The legality of such actions has an impact on and reflects the culture. A change in culture towards what is determined to be right is best facilitated by legal regulation. Furthermore, how is servicing someone communicating that you agree with them? If someone asks you to make them a swastika and you agree, that doesn't make you a nazi.

Uniquemind
October 16th, 2016, 09:21 PM
That is not the real discussion of this debate, despite what many wants it to be. There are numerous instances where the reverse has been true; gay owned companies refusing service to anti-gay individuals. The Constitution speaks of discrimination in the public sector, if government-owned businesses refused service to someone, then the Constitution would apply. But the private sector is another entity all together.


So, you want to make others break their personal moral codes so gays can feel better about themselves? The government enforcing that people must be nice and accepting towards feel more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Sexuality and race are two entirely different concepts; one is a life-style, one is what you biologically are. People don't have a problem with gays because of their existence, people have a problem with gays because of the life-style and morality that is supported by homosexuality. As people have indicated multiple times in this debate, store owners can't read minds and decide who gay and who isn't and expel them then. And if you haven't read up on most of these instances, you only really see these issues pop up when the customer wants the owner to support a gay wedding or some sort of pro-gay event. Here is a quote from an earlier post of mine that makes this clearer.


Um, yes it is, most people aren't that emotionally compromised. The law shouldn't cater to making people feel good. You just showed what I despise about modern liberalism. It prioritizes feelings over freedoms.


But largely the reason blacks or gays are discriminated against is because of a feeling about them from a vendor in this case.

Therefore freedom is hiding behind an emotional opinion which may not have merit, so you've come full circle.

Abyssal Echo
October 17th, 2016, 10:58 AM
Where I used to live in Cali there used to be signs on the door " No Shoes No Shirt No Service" there was also signs on the wall usually behind the cash register that said "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" I haven't seen many signs like theses where I live now. In my opinion a private business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they don't want to deal with.

Vlerchan
October 17th, 2016, 04:54 PM
The legality of such actions has an impact on and reflects the culture.
The number opposed to abortion, supporting abortion in certain circumstances, and supporting abortion, has remained roughly constant (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) since Roe v Wade* when it was made legal across the entire nation. I see little reason to presume, and we are presuming, that legislating for a certain political end will increase its moral acceptability - not when it is linked to a more fundamental understanding of human relations, right or wrong as it might be.

In this instance, in particular, I figure it is likely to do more harm than good when it suppresses the emergence of dialogue between homophobic shop-owners and the wider community.

---

It's also worth noting that I see the preservation of freedom of contract and the moral autonomy of the individual ancillary to that, as much more important concepts than the safeguarding of people's feelings. I'd like to re-emphasize that such unwelcome and alienating behavior occurs where such a spirit persists irrespective - so that it causes one to feel alienated is of little consequence when it is an output of a alienating culture itself.

If you want to stop it, forcing people against their will to be nice is also probably the least efficient option available.

* I am using judicial activism in particular here because legalization is thus separate from expectations as to future political attitudes, and thus future political returns.

Furthermore, how is servicing someone communicating that you agree with them? If someone asks you to make them a swastika and you agree, that doesn't make you a nazi.
I never claimed that was the case.

I claimed that in coercing individuals to contract with another against their will, you're forcing that individual to lie to the other, insofar as she becomes an appendage of the other's interests and thus, must offer the impression that she is comfortable with such when it might not be true. It robs her of her moral autonomy and turns her into a liar.

Making people lie to each other rarely bodes well for long-run community relations, even if you think you are missing the bullet in the short-run.

Sexuality and race are two entirely different concepts; one is a life-style, one is what you biologically are.
No, both are steeped in biology.

Paraxiom
October 17th, 2016, 05:27 PM
I'm going to take the position that a private business has a right to refuse service to any customer for a certain set of reasons, but if refused customers all share a certain feature that is part of / is the set of reasons the business backs itself off here, then the business is to be required to publicly display these criteria for refusal of service 'at the door'. The private business is taking sufficient responsibility as I see it then.



Sexuality and race are two entirely different concepts; one is a life-style, one is what you biologically are.

Either both are a mix of lifestyle and biological nature, or both are not a lifestyle. I'm taking the latter.

PlasmaHam
October 17th, 2016, 08:22 PM
Replace "gays" with "blacks" and see how it sounds. Exactly the same, except that liberals would now call the store owner a racist instead of a homophobe.
The government ought to ensure that people are treated fairly within business and law. No, the government is not here to enforce "fairness" in the private sector. Is it fair that kids from richer homes get more food than those from poorer homes? Is it fair that certain occupations bring money than others? Is it fair that people can be forced to do stuff against their will? I know I got a lot of flak the first time I said this, but life is simply not fair. And the government of all things shouldn't be micro-managing the private sector to make it more fair in its eyes. From all you have been saying, it seems that you want the USA to become a communist welfare state.
In my opinion, giving someone service is not the same as supporting them or their characteristics. That is your opinion, and not a heavily held opinion. If you knew someone was a murderer, would you sell them a weapon? By your logic you would, because apparently what damage that person does with that weapon is not on your hands. I don't see how this is such an alien idea, but if someone comes to me and asks me to give them something for an event they were planning, wouldn't that make me a supporter of that event?
The point is not that their feelings are hurt, but that they are alienated from those around them. Division in society is bad for the well-being of a community or country.
So, their feelings got hurt, got it.
The legality of such actions has an impact on and reflects the culture. A change in culture towards what is determined to be right is best facilitated by legal regulation. I am going to turn something back around on you. Liberals constantly claim that you can't legislate morality, in defense of such atrocities as abortion. Yet you just said that the right thing to do should be enforced by legal regulation. Doing the 'right thing' is the whole point of morality! You are wanting to enforce your own version of morality!

I got another thing to turn back around on you. Apparently a woman should have the choice to kill an innocent baby, yet a store owner doesn't have the choice to not take someone's money? I am the pro-choice person here, heck, the Republicans are the pro-choice party. You want government out of homes so much, yet want government in private businesses so much!

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 09:22 AM
Exactly the same, except that liberals would now call the store owner a racist instead of a homophobe.

Why do you not believe that refusing to serve black people makes them racist?

PlasmaHam
October 18th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Why do you not believe that refusing to serve black people makes them racist?

I didn't say the store owner was or wasn't racist, and I don't see why it matters here.

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 10:43 AM
I didn't say the store owner was or wasn't racist, and I don't see why it matters here.
It does matter and I just thought by your statement about how liberals would call discriminating against an ethnic group racist you were implying that you did not think it was racist. I think everyone that is not racist would clearly see it is not racist.

It matters because corporations should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexuality, ethnic group or gender. We're treating corporations like people ffs, even letting them by politicians to pass policies that benefit only them and harm others!

PlasmaHam
October 18th, 2016, 12:20 PM
We're treating corporations like people ffs, even letting them by politicians to pass policies that benefit only them and harm others!
Your statement about the guy being a racist still seems like nothing but an attempt to start a fight. I still see no reason why that would be important.

Private businesses are ran by and employ private citizens for the service of other private citizens. I'm not sure how that makes private businesses more of the governments business than private citizens.

Vlerchan
October 18th, 2016, 12:35 PM
Companies are a legal persons under the law and have been for 150 years or so (And this is a good thing).

Per UK: Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd [1897] etc.

Though PlasmaHam is also correct that private individuals are delegated the power to make such decisions as is being discussed on their behalf so the point is being missed irrespective.

---

It also doesn't matter of we recognise something as racist or not insofar as the argument PlasmaHam and I have pursued is concerned. That's an argument you are free to actually address at your leisure.

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 12:39 PM
Your statement about the guy being a racist still seems like nothing but an attempt to start a fight. I still see no reason why that would be important.
It really wasn't, I hoped you would say it was racist as it clearly is and I would build upon that point, I see no harm in you saying that obvious racists are racist?

Private businesses are ran by and employ private citizens for the service of other private citizens. I'm not sure how that makes private businesses more of the governments business than private citizens.
There is a difference between private businesses and corporations which I had used before, something about who owns it and whether it is on the stock market but this ain't a business lesson so I will be referring to them as simply businesses. That is any business that is officially registered and pays taxes. I am not saying you purposefully changed the word but I don't want this spiralling off into a debate about business types.

Now for the point of your post, businesses are already regulated to ensure they don't take advantage of employees, they have enough breaks, minimum wage and safe working conditions and I am sure you agree we should have those regulations, so why not regulate them so they can not discriminate against either employees or clients based on gender, sexuality or ethnicity.


Why?
I know it might be difficult for a white Christian male to understand but basically it's not nice.

During the 60s when there were not many swimming pools for black people a whole generation of black people did not learn how to swim. That is a simple example of how it is harmful.
Companies are a legal persons under the law and have been for 150 years or so (And this is a good thing).
How so? because Jack thinks this is very bad.

PlasmaHam
October 18th, 2016, 12:46 PM
I know it might be difficult for a white Christian male to understand but basically it's not nice.

During the 60s when there were not many swimming pools for black people a whole generation of black people did not learn how to swim. That is a simple example of how it is harmful.
I am ignoring the earlier part as Vlerchan covered that pretty adequately. And I'm afraid you need a history lesson. Those were public pools not ran by private businesses, but the government. That was government enforced racism, Jim Crow laws, Black codes, and the such. I am not advocating for government enforced racism, we are talking about the right to be racist in the private sector.

Also, swimming pools? Really? There are millions of Americans today that still can't swim, and they seem to be surviving. Did everyone before swimming pools became popular in the 1940s simply not know how to swim?
How so? because Jack thinks this is very bad.
I think it sounds perfectly reasonable.

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 12:51 PM
Also, swimming pools? Really? There are millions of Americans today that still can't swim, and they seem to be surviving. Did everyone before swimming pools became popular in the 1940s simply not know how to swim?
Yeah really! It is hard enough being a minority today in the US without businesses discriminating against you. What if the bus companies refused white Christian straight males and you depended on the buses to get to work? Oh wait you're the majority that won't get discriminated against so you don't care.

I think people have a right not to be discriminated by businesses whether that is as an employee or as a client.

Are you for the regulations on minimum wage? The regulations that outlaw abuse? Regulations that enforce safe working conditions? Don't they 'infringe upon a businesses right to be racist'

If there is one thing the US does not need more of, it's racism.

PlasmaHam
October 18th, 2016, 01:02 PM
If there is one thing the US does not need more of, it's racism. So what? You want America to start arresting people for having racist opinions and statements?
Yeah really! It is hard enough being a minority today in the US without businesses discriminating against you. What if the bus companies refused white Christian straight males and you depended on the buses to get to work? Oh wait you're the majority that won't get discriminated against so you don't care.
Who runs the buses? Hm, let me guess, it is called PUBLIC transmit, and they do get plenty of government assistance. I'm pretty sure that is not relevant to a discussion on PRIVATE businesses.

If for some reason that were to happen and buses were private businesses, then I would simply take another bus system. In a capitalistic society, like America, there are always challengers. And when you cut off a group from using your business, then another business will scoop up all that potential revenue.

So, you are saying that a black controlled business can't be racist towards white people? Man, if you don't know that then maybe you shouldn't be acting like you know more about America than actual Americans.

Vlerchan
October 18th, 2016, 01:05 PM
How so? because Jack thinks this is very bad.
It's the basis the the legal doctrine of limited liability and that in turn is the basis on which modern equity trading and - more broadly - investment is conducted. It makes it much easier for people to set up and invest in firms which has been a considerable economic boon.

For a good examples of the pitfalls of unlimited liability one just needs to look at the great debacle that was Lloyds in the 80s/90s. People found their estates pursued because their grandfather had gone an invested in one of its syndicates two generations ago, and there ended up being a considerable amount of individual bankruptcy filings. Not to mention the suicides.

Are you for the regulations on minimum wage? The regulations that outlaw abuse? Regulations that enforce safe working conditions? Don't they 'infringe upon a businesses right to be racist'
There's a differences between regulating the contents of a contract and forcing people to engage in a contract in the first place.

I'd also write a longer response that engages with more of the individual points but I have covered most of this in past threads - which I am sure you've read - and am supposed to be studying.

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 01:18 PM
I think it sounds perfectly reasonable.
Howwwww??? When I ask how, you saying you find it reasonable does not explain anything! When you make a point pls explain why you think it, it will make it easier for me to understand why you think stuff.
So what? You want America to start arresting people for having racist opinions and statements?
That escalation xD :D :P No, wanting regulation forbidding businesses from discriminating based on race, religion or sexuality does not mean I want individual people's opinions outlawed xD

If for some reason that were to happen and buses were private businesses, then I would simply take another bus system. In a capitalistic society, like America, there are always challengers. And when you cut off a group from using your business, then another business will scoop up all that potential revenue.
The problem with this logic is that firstly the service they need might not have a competitor that they can reach easily or maybe they can't afford the competitor etc etc but also it will be minority groups that are discriminated against and unfortunately they do not have great spending power.

Also, it is a nasty thing to do even if there was competitors, America was founded on immigration and acceptance and banning people based on stuff like their religion, sexuality and race is terrible.


So, you are saying that a black controlled business can't be racist towards white people?
Wait for it... YEAH XD What did you think I was against racism but was cool with blacks banning whites? Is that racism? Yeah! So am I against it? Of course!:D:D
It's the basis the the legal doctrine of limited liability and that in turn is the basis on which modern equity trading and - more broadly - investment is conducted. It makes it much easier for people to set up and invest in firms which has
Is this limited liability how the bankers avoided jail time after the crash? Despite committing crimes? I generally don't know, I'm not challenging you :')

It also makes it much easier for them to buy politicians.


There's a differences between regulating the contents of a contract and forcing people to engage in a contract in the first place.
I don't want anyone to be forced into a contact, there are valid reasons to refuse but some reasons should be forbidden. Reasons such as race, sexuality and gender.

Vlerchan
October 18th, 2016, 01:28 PM
Is this limited liability how the bankers avoided jail time after the crash?
No. Limited liability basically just means that you can only lose what you have invested into a company and no more. I have no idea what loopholes were jumped through in those instances - but it's irrelevant to the idea of corporate personhood in and of itself.

It also makes it much easier for them to buy politicians.
It doesn't really. Though I don't think that speech rights should extend to donations.

I don't want anyone to be forced into a contact, there are valid reasons to refuse but some reasons should be forbidden.
What makes these reasons special?

---

No, wanting regulation forbidding businesses from discriminating based on race, religion or sexuality does not mean I want individual people's opinions outlawed xD
Doubleplusgood!