Forceful antidiscrimination measures

[Gamma Male]

Should the government be able to tell privately owned businesses who they can and cn't serve? I don't think so. It just isn't a legitimate government function. The place of the government should be to protect people and insure a certain standard of living for everyone, not tell businesses who aren't hurting anyone that they have to serve certain people against their will. I think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever without risking getting sued. Whites, blacks, gays, people with shoes that are annoying, people with stupid accents, any reason whatsoever l. It's not the governments place, and this is just another example of them sticking their noses where they don't belong.

[Harry Smith]

It very much is the governments place, just look at the civil rights movements in the 1960's.

[Gamma Male]

It very much is the governments place, just look at the civil rights movements in the 1960's.

Antidiscrimination bills were a result of changing attitudes, not the other way around. The civil rights movement would still have succeeded and racism today would still be reduced drastically without forcing people to serve other people against their will.

[Harry Smith]

Antidiscrimination bills were a result of changing attitudes, not the other way around. The civil rights movement would still have succeeded and racism today would still be reduced drastically without forcing people to serve other people against their will.

Not really for the major stuff-Brown vs Topeka, Browder vs Gayle, Morgan vs Virginia all happened in the late 40's early 50's before public support for civil rights peeked.

It would of taken a great deal longer to deal the problems in civil rights such as school desegregation if there was no government action-in fact you'd of had more black students being lynced

[Gamma Male]

Not really for the major stuff-Brown vs Topeka, Browder vs Gayle, Morgan vs Virginia all happened in the late 40's early 50's before public support for civil rights peeked.

It would of taken a great deal longer to deal the problems in civil rights such as school desegregation if there was no government action-in fact you'd of had more black students being lynced

I never said I didn't think schools needed to be desegregated. They're public institutions and need to serve everyone equally. Government institutions are bound by the constitution, private businesses are not.

But regardless of whether or not antidiscrimination bills help combat racism, it still isn't the governments place. Businesses should be able to refuse service to whomever they want. If I own a business, I should be able to choose to serve and who to not serve.

[Stronk Serb]

I think that it's in the business' best interest to not have the discrimination policy. They will earn a lot more then.

[Harry Smith]

If I own a business, I should be able to choose to serve and who to not serve.

So you believe that you have a right to have a sign on the front saying 'no jews' for example?

[Vlerchan]

So you believe that you have a right to have a sign on the front saying 'no jews' for example?
I do.

I also believe I should have the right to watch that business fail (unless it's in the most bigoted of communities).

[Gamma Male]

So you believe that you have a right to have a sign on the front saying 'no jews' for example?

Yes. I don't agree with discriminating against jews morally, but it's their business.

[CosmicNoodle]

Well not totally not there business, your gay gamma, what if I where to not serve you because of that, how would you feel?
Its not there place I agree, but I do see why they did this, its discusting to discriminate for stupid reasons like that, but I see why the gov did it. And to a point I agree with it.

[Gamma Male]

Well not totally not there business, your gay gamma, what if I where to not serve you because of that, how would you feel?
I might get upset, but I would recognize their right to serve whoever they want, go to another restaurant, maybe give them a bad review online, and then move on with my life.
Its not there place I agree, but I do see why they did this, its discusting to discriminate for stupid reasons like that, but I see why the gov did it. And to a point I agree with it.

I see how you feel, I really do. I just can't agree with using force to dictate who private businesses can and can't serve.

[CosmicNoodle]

I might get upset, but I would recognize their right to serve whoever they want, go to another restaurant, maybe give them a bad review online, and then move on with my life.


I see how you feel, I really do. I just can't agree with using force to dictate who private businesses can and can't serve.

I'm bisexual, Im clynically insane, I'm annoying, but I expect to be able to do exactly the same as every other person on earth because at the end of the day thats what I am, just another person. Looks like we agree to disagree on this, I see your point of view and to some degree agreee with you. But they shouldnt be able to discriminate against me, you, anyone for any reason, in my humble opinion.

[Sir Suomi]

Yes, the government should completely stay out of businesses. It's their business, it's their rights. For example, a New Mexico photographer got sued because she refused to take wedding photos of a lesbian couple, simply because of her beliefs. Now, I'm not encouraging bigotry towards others, but it should be up to the business owner or those in power within the business on whether or not they want to sell their products and/or services to whomever they chose to. If we start letting the government get too involved in our businesses, we might as well say goodbye to our free market and start worshiping Marx.

[phuckphace]

Yes, the government should completely stay out of businesses. It's their business, it's their rights. For example, a New Mexico photographer got sued because she refused to take wedding photos of a lesbian couple, simply because of her beliefs. Now, I'm not encouraging bigotry towards others, but it should be up to the business owner or those in power within the business on whether or not they want to sell their products and/or services to whomever they chose to. If we start letting the government get too involved in our businesses, we might as well say goodbye to our free market and start worshiping Marx.

I agree with everything here except for the very last sentence (relentlessly dumb). 6/10

[Sir Suomi]

I agree with everything here except for the very last sentence (relentlessly dumb). 6/10

It was more of an exaggeration, to be fair.

[phuckphace]

It was more of an exaggeration, to be fair.

I would hope so :P

[Sir Suomi]

I would hope so :P

Sarcasm is so hard to use on the internet. Maybe I should use italics?

Me and Harry are such great friends and we always agree with each other.

[thatcountrykid]

Sarcasm is so hard to use on the internet. Maybe I should use italics?

Me and Harry are such great friends and we always agree with each other.

lol you dont need the italics there.

i agree with gamma and patton. its a buisnesses right. now any building or buisness that is government owned and operated shouldnt for example schools and state lawyers.

[Gamma Male]

i agree with gamma and patton. its a buisnesses right. now any building or buisness that is government owned and operated shouldnt for example schools and state lawyers.

Right, publicly funded institutions shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Probably should've mentioned that in my OP.

[justarandomteen]

For private businesses? Yes. Although, it probably wouldn't happen saying that private business would get a lot of backlash, for, say, not serving gay people.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

So let me get this straight, you're saying that a place should be able to say only white people can eat here, or no gays allowed, or women prohibited. Isn't that taking like 5 steps back in the evolution of civil rights. Not allowing people into a place based on anything but age is a violation of constitutional rights, and the government's placemis to protect the rights that it gave us.

[Gamma Male]

So let me get this straight, you're saying that a place should be able to say only white people can eat here, or no gays allowed, or women prohibited. Isn't that taking like 5 steps back in the evolution of civil rights. Not allowing people into a place based on anything but age is a violation of constitutional rights, and the government's placemis to protect the rights that it gave us.

It's not "5 steps backwards", it's a step forward. The government should not be able to tell private businesses who they can and can't serve. Instead, nonforceful social backlash would take the place of forceful government intervention. Do you really think that a business that refuses to serve blacks or Muslims or whatever would last very long? No. There would be media coverage and social media anger and boycotts out the wazoo. I think that's preferable to them having money forcefully being taken from them because of how they choose to run their business.

[phuckphace]

Chic-fil-A's CEO got caught hating homos and a million Christians dumped wheelbarrows full of money on him. I can't wait to see the lolbertarians' reaction when he rolls out the "HETEROSEXUALS ONLY" signs and rakes in even more christgolds. noice

edit: not even joking, CFA is pretty much my favorite fast food restaurant. their chicken nuggets are juicy and delicious and are FANTASTIC with Sriracha/Polynesian sauce. 50-piece nugget platters own. gl guys.

[WaffleSingSong]

I think it's a good way to make discrimination visible in society, unlike now where it is illegal and you could still fire someone due to whoever they are and using some nit-pick mistake as an excuse. At least when businesses and there owners are open about there ideals about certain peoples, it makes it much easier to boycott, doesn't it?

Also, think about it in a capitalistic sense. Lets say I own a restaurant that is pro-LGBT. Yet, another restaurant about a mile down the road is anti-LGBT. Of course, LGBT'S would go to my restaurant and the very faithful of whatever religion they believe would go to the other, but those who don't care either way would still go to either one on the basis of quality, and could be a great way to increase competition, by driving prices down and me trying to make sure that my food is at least 100x better than those "homophobic assholes." It could actually be a neat way of somewhat invigorating the economy a tad bit. And even If I do win most of the neutrals to eat at my restaurant, the other one still has a loyal fan base, so no closings and that means less of an economic monopoly, YAY! (well, maybe unless they go bankrupt.)

[Vlerchan]

but I expect to be able to do exactly the same as every other person on earth because at the end of the day thats what I am, just another person.
It's great to be tolerant. Unless someone is being intolerant: tolerance of their intolerance just ain't tolerated in this day and age.

---

It could actually be a neat way of somewhat invigorating the economy a tad bit.
I'm not seeing it.

It sounds like the same competition would be happening, just over a smaller pool of potential diners.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

It's not "5 steps backwards", it's a step forward. The government should not be able to tell private businesses who they can and can't serve. Instead, nonforceful social backlash would take the place of forceful government intervention. Do you really think that a business that refuses to serve blacks or Muslims or whatever would last very long? No. There would be media coverage and social media anger and boycotts out the wazoo. I think that's preferable to them having money forcefully being taken from them because of how they choose to run their business.

Yeah. Until people get out of the whole, different is bad mindset, I think we should keep the laws, once the public becomes at least 95% accepting, we can slowly taper them off. Also, if a restaurant didn't allow blacks or Muslims, they would still stay open because of the people who hate blacks or Muslims, Why do you think cracker barrel is still here?

[phuckphace]

I think free association would be far superior to the "anti-discrimination" laws currently in place. one big reason is that right now, certain groups such as gays actually become a liability to their employers ironically thanks to the ADLs. say for example a flaming gay guy gets hired at Kroger and after some time on the job, gets fired for shoplifting or having a poor attendance record. he can then sue Kroger and claim that the company terminated him for being gay. even if the company can prove why they actually fired him (and win the suit) it's still a waste of time and money that most companies won't want to risk. this leads to two possible outcomes: either companies begin quietly and sneakily discriminating against gays in hiring (which is usually pretty easy to cover up) or they choose to ignore rule-breaking/illegal-behavior by gay employees for fear of lawsuits (or both!).

I actually work with a guy at my job who is openly gay -and- a notoriously bad worker. he's slow at his tasks, takes too many breaks and calls in "sick" at least once or twice a week. the fact that the company has fired other employees for a lot less makes me suspicious that they're afraid he'll sue them for discrimination.

[Bmble_B]

Should the government be able to tell privately owned businesses who they can and cn't serve? I don't think so. It just isn't a legitimate government function. The place of the government should be to protect people and insure a certain standard of living for everyone, not tell businesses who aren't hurting anyone that they have to serve certain people against their will. I think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever without risking getting sued. Whites, blacks, gays, people with shoes that are annoying, people with stupid accents, any reason whatsoever l. It's not the governments place, and this is just another example of them sticking their noses where they don't belong.

I totally agree, how are you going to tell someone who mind you, isn't hurting anyone at all who they can and can't serve? I find it to be a major abuse of power.

[Vlerchan]

I totally agree, how are you going to tell someone who mind you, isn't hurting anyone at all who they can and can't serve?
By drafting a law that they are required to follow?

It's how it works right now anyway.

[Bmble_B]

By drafting a law that they are required to follow?

---

I also am not against intervention in regards to forcing employers to pay a minimum wage (in economies where a basic minimum income doesn't exist) or forcing employers to provide safe working conditions. I have no issue telling someone that they cannot serve someone who will not provide this.

Yes this is true, my reply was a little short sided.

[Horatio Nelson]

Yes, private business can do whatever they want.


For example, a local restaurant has a rule where noisy children, high chairs, strollers, and carseats are not allowed in the restaurant.

They have every right to have those rules for their restaurant. No matter how many people dislike it.