Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[dblack]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

A mis-characterization.

 

[Coyote]

You're not allowing those who feel is point of view is wrong to express it - you're constraining it. If they decide to call for a boycott of his business. Both sides have the free speech right to speak out, boycott etc. the other. Once you curtail that then whomever has the majority power is going to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable free speech and I see no good coming out of that for anyone.

How could you say that when in my very first sentence I am very explicit that anybody is perfectly free to express whatever point of view they hold?

I just don't want them to be able destroy somebody else's livelihood and/or business with impunity just because the other person doesn't agree with them.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

A mis-characterization.

Care to elaborate as to what is being "mischaracterized"

 

[Coyote]

Please remember this thread has specific rules - no flaming, no insulting, no adhoms or putting down individuals or groups - including the OP. Stay within the the topics constraints (review OP if you aren't sure)

 

[Foxfyre]

How could you say that when in my very first sentence I am very explicit that anybody is perfectly free to express whatever point of view they hold?

I just don't want them to be able destroy somebody else's livelihood and/or business with impunity just because the other person doesn't agree with them.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

 

[dblack]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

A mis-characterization.

Care to elaborate as to what is being "mischaracterized"

States "rights" are powers, granted to government by the people. "States rights" was a phrase to describe the division power between the federal government and the member states. It's not meant to imply that state government have rights in the same way individuals do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

A mis-characterization.

Care to elaborate as to what is being "mischaracterized"

States "rights" are powers, granted to government by the people. "States rights" was a phrase to describe the division power between the federal government and the member states. It's not meant to imply that state government have rights in the same way individuals do.

Thank you for the clarification. To put it in the context of Ravi's post, yes, the city should have the power to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Yes or no?

Still waiting for the OP to provide a straightforward yes or no answer to this question.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

 

[dblack]

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

Foxfyre - I think you're playing a little loose with the language when you say "destroy a persons's business". When people organize boycotts and picket businesses, they aren't destroying anything. They're simply encourage other people to avoid patronizing that business. As far as I'm concerned, unless - as has been covered here - there is actual libel involved - it shouldn't matter whether someone has a "legitimate reason" for the boycott or not. The is the same logic used for the anti-discrimination laws, which insist that a business open to the public must have a "legitimate reason" to refuse service.

Both cases are antithetical to freedom because they turn liberty inside out, requiring that we justify our acts, in essence implementing guilty until prove innocent. If they acts are truly harmful, if they truly infringe on the rights of others, our reasons are irrelevant, they should be illegal across the board. And if the acts aren't harmful, if they aren't violating anyones inalienable rights, then they shouldn't be illegal. In both cases, the act of not serving someone, and the act of persuading people to shun a business, no one's rights are being violated. There is no right to be free from other people saying you're a jerk and there's no right to be served by someone who doesn't want to serve you. In both cases attempting to assert such a right is really an attempt to gain power over others.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question I have - when people say that business' have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is where does this lead to?

We know what our country used to be like when there were no anti-discrimmination laws.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because, in my view - the wedding is discrimminating against the the customers as a class. A rally, is attended by all classes of people - what's being objected to is the message of the rally. The message of a wedding - any wedding is simple - marriage. The differences are soley gender orientation.

Not at all. I could be as equally discriminating and refuse to participate in or contribute to a marriage of a heterosexual same sex couple who wanted to get married for financial reasons or whatever or a polygamous marriage or getting married to your dog or horse or whatever or people lobbying to be able to marry a child or their sister or the wedding of a straight couple I thought were marrying for the wrong reasons or any other activity regarding marriage that I might believe to be absurd or wrong.

Probably most people who have aesthetic or principled beliefs opposing same sex marriage are coming from religious values (Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any of several other religions.) Such values also put such people into a particular 'class' and such people should be allowed their beliefs and convictions and not be required to set them aside for the benefit of another group so long as they do not interfere with the rights of that other group.

Choosing to not be a part of a wedding - ANYBODY'S WEDDING - violates nobody's rights whatsoever. It does not interfere or impede the other in any way. It is simply a choice not to participate. And especially when somebody is willing to provide any other products or services for a gay person, and it is only the same-sex wedding that is objected to, it is absurd to accuse a person of discriminating against gays because they are gay. Discrimination that allows us to choose not to participate in what other people DO should always be okay no matter who they are.

 

[dblack]

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

A mis-characterization.

Care to elaborate as to what is being "mischaracterized"

States "rights" are powers, granted to government by the people. "States rights" was a phrase to describe the division power between the federal government and the member states. It's not meant to imply that state government have rights in the same way individuals do.

Thank you for the clarification. To put it in the context of Ravi's post, yes, the city should have the power to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Yeah. That's the basic idea of the regulatory state that we libertarians reject. We believe laws should protect our rights, not dictate behavior in the name of convenience.

 

[Foxfyre]

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Yes or no?

Still waiting for the OP to provide a straightforward yes or no answer to this question.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Nope. The sale requires no action or participation or contribution from the pharmacist that is not provided to every other customer. But the pharmacist should not be required to stock a product he believes to be immoral, unethical, or for whatever reason he doesn't want to stock it either.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Yes or no?

Still waiting for the OP to provide a straightforward yes or no answer to this question.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Nope. The sale requires no action or participation or contribution from the pharmacist that is not provided to every other customer. But the pharmacist should not be required to stock a product he believes to be immoral, unethical, or for whatever reason he doesn't want to stock it either.

Since the pharmacist in this instance works for Walgreens he doesn't have a choice as to what is being stocked so thank you for agreeing that he is not participating by filling in the Rx for the abortifacient drug.

 

[Foxfyre]

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

Foxfyre - I think you're playing a little loose with the language when you say "destroy a persons's business". When people organize boycotts and picket businesses, they aren't destroying anything. They're simply encourage other people to avoid patronizing that business. As far as I'm concerned, unless - as has been covered here - there is actual libel involved - it shouldn't matter whether someone has a "legitimate reason" for the boycott or not. The is the same logic used for the anti-discrimination laws, which insist that a business open to the public must have a "legitimate reason" to refuse service.

Both cases are antithetical to freedom because they turn liberty inside out, requiring that we justify our acts, in essence implementing guilty until prove innocent. If they acts are truly harmful, if they truly infringe on the rights of others, our reasons are irrelevant, they should be illegal across the board. And if the acts aren't harmful, if they aren't violating anyones inalienable rights, then they shouldn't be illegal. In both cases, the act of not serving someone, and the act of persuading people to shun a business, no one's rights are being violated. There is no right to be free from other people saying you're a jerk and there's no right to be served by someone who doesn't want to serve you. In both cases attempting to assert such a right is really an attempt to gain power over others.

In my opinion, if people are allowed to organize and picket, boycott, threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and otherwise attempt to destroy that business owner's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion somebody didn't like, then none of us have any liberty at all. Anybody can put anybody out of business for any reason they want at any time they want.

I can find no argument of any kind for how that would be okay.

But again, if a business displeases me, I have every right to say so, to tell everybody I know, and to fill out a rating for that business expressing exactly how I feel about the service or treatment I received so long as I do not represent that untruthfully. I have every right to sue if I was materially or physically harmed by the business's failure to provide a product or service I paid for.

But I should not have a right to organize a mob to attack and destroy that business just because somebody made me mad.

 

[The sheeple sea]

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

Foxfyre - I think you're playing a little loose with the language when you say "destroy a persons's business". When people organize boycotts and picket businesses, they aren't destroying anything. They're simply encourage other people to avoid patronizing that business. As far as I'm concerned, unless - as has been covered here - there is actual libel involved - it shouldn't matter whether someone has a "legitimate reason" for the boycott or not. The is the same logic used for the anti-discrimination laws, which insist that a business open to the public must have a "legitimate reason" to refuse service.

Both cases are antithetical to freedom because they turn liberty inside out, requiring that we justify our acts, in essence implementing guilty until prove innocent. If they acts are truly harmful, if they truly infringe on the rights of others, our reasons are irrelevant, they should be illegal across the board. And if the acts aren't harmful, if they aren't violating anyones inalienable rights, then they shouldn't be illegal. In both cases, the act of not serving someone, and the act of persuading people to shun a business, no one's rights are being violated. There is no right to be free from other people saying you're a jerk and there's no right to be served by someone who doesn't want to serve you. In both cases attempting to assert such a right is really an attempt to gain power over others.

In my opinion, if people are allowed to organize and picket, boycott, threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and otherwise attempt to destroy that business owner's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion somebody didn't like, then none of us have any liberty at all. Anybody can put anybody out of business for any reason they want at any time they want.

I can find no argument of any kind for how that would be okay.

But again, if a business displeases me, I have every right to say so, to tell everybody I know, and to fill out a rating for that business expressing exactly how I feel about the service or treatment I received so long as I do not represent that untruthfully. I have every right to sue if I was materially or physically harmed by the business's failure to provide a product or service I paid for.

But I should not have a right to organize a mob to attack and destroy that business just because somebody made me mad.

Except in very rare, localized situations boycotting never works anyway. Let them picket, then they'll go home, and then business as usual.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

Foxfyre - I think you're playing a little loose with the language when you say "destroy a persons's business". When people organize boycotts and picket businesses, they aren't destroying anything. They're simply encourage other people to avoid patronizing that business. As far as I'm concerned, unless - as has been covered here - there is actual libel involved - it shouldn't matter whether someone has a "legitimate reason" for the boycott or not. The is the same logic used for the anti-discrimination laws, which insist that a business open to the public must have a "legitimate reason" to refuse service.

Both cases are antithetical to freedom because they turn liberty inside out, requiring that we justify our acts, in essence implementing guilty until prove innocent. If they acts are truly harmful, if they truly infringe on the rights of others, our reasons are irrelevant, they should be illegal across the board. And if the acts aren't harmful, if they aren't violating anyones inalienable rights, then they shouldn't be illegal. In both cases, the act of not serving someone, and the act of persuading people to shun a business, no one's rights are being violated. There is no right to be free from other people saying you're a jerk and there's no right to be served by someone who doesn't want to serve you. In both cases attempting to assert such a right is really an attempt to gain power over others.

In my opinion, if people are allowed to organize and picket, boycott, threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and otherwise attempt to destroy that business owner's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion somebody didn't like, then none of us have any liberty at all. Anybody can put anybody out of business for any reason they want at any time they want.

I can find no argument of any kind for how that would be okay.

But again, if a business displeases me, I have every right to say so, to tell everybody I know, and to fill out a rating for that business expressing exactly how I feel about the service or treatment I received so long as I do not represent that untruthfully. I have every right to sue if I was materially or physically harmed by the business's failure to provide a product or service I paid for.

But I should not have a right to organize a mob to attack and destroy that business just because somebody made me mad.

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Yes or no?

Still waiting for the OP to provide a straightforward yes or no answer to this question.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Nope. The sale requires no action or participation or contribution from the pharmacist that is not provided to every other customer. But the pharmacist should not be required to stock a product he believes to be immoral, unethical, or for whatever reason he doesn't want to stock it either.

Since the pharmacist in this instance works for Walgreens he doesn't have a choice as to what is being stocked so thank you for agreeing that he is not participating by filling in the Rx for the abortifacient drug.

In most cases, employees should do what their job requires of them or they should quit or not accept the job in the first place, but that is a different discussion and debate. This thread is about tolerance related to the choices made by a business owner or other with authority to set the policy, products, services, etc. for a business or entity.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

This would make any proposed law unenforceable and subjective - very dangerous in my opinion.

Why? If it is legal to destroy a person's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the person said something somebody didn't like, what rights does anybody have? How is not allowing people to attack other people's businesses and livelihoods more dangerous than allowing people or government to attack others at will?

Foxfyre - I think you're playing a little loose with the language when you say "destroy a persons's business". When people organize boycotts and picket businesses, they aren't destroying anything. They're simply encourage other people to avoid patronizing that business. As far as I'm concerned, unless - as has been covered here - there is actual libel involved - it shouldn't matter whether someone has a "legitimate reason" for the boycott or not. The is the same logic used for the anti-discrimination laws, which insist that a business open to the public must have a "legitimate reason" to refuse service.

Both cases are antithetical to freedom because they turn liberty inside out, requiring that we justify our acts, in essence implementing guilty until prove innocent. If they acts are truly harmful, if they truly infringe on the rights of others, our reasons are irrelevant, they should be illegal across the board. And if the acts aren't harmful, if they aren't violating anyones inalienable rights, then they shouldn't be illegal. In both cases, the act of not serving someone, and the act of persuading people to shun a business, no one's rights are being violated. There is no right to be free from other people saying you're a jerk and there's no right to be served by someone who doesn't want to serve you. In both cases attempting to assert such a right is really an attempt to gain power over others.

In my opinion, if people are allowed to organize and picket, boycott, threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and otherwise attempt to destroy that business owner's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion somebody didn't like, then none of us have any liberty at all. Anybody can put anybody out of business for any reason they want at any time they want.

I can find no argument of any kind for how that would be okay.

But again, if a business displeases me, I have every right to say so, to tell everybody I know, and to fill out a rating for that business expressing exactly how I feel about the service or treatment I received so long as I do not represent that untruthfully. I have every right to sue if I was materially or physically harmed by the business's failure to provide a product or service I paid for.

But I should not have a right to organize a mob to attack and destroy that business just because somebody made me mad.

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

 

[Nosmo King]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

Not if their business is open to the public. And not if that 'repugnant' person is only 'repugnant' because they are a member of a group. If the customer ACTS in a repugnant manner, then yes, the business has a right of refusal. But if that customer does not behave in a repugnant manner, but is seen as repugnant by the shop keeper as repugnant because of her lifestyle or any immutable characteristic, then the shop keeper has no legitimate reason to refuse service.

Here we are pretty much on the same page I think. I have consistently said that I think it is okay if a non discrimination policy is attached to a business license; i.e. the business owner will provide the products and services he normally has for sale to all customers who meet the same requirements of dress and conduct regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That requires no participation or contribution by the business owner that he does not agree to when he goes into business.

Where I seem to be the lone voice in this discussion is that I do not believe a business license should ever require a business owner to participate in or contribute to an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to be party to. And that ability to choose should apply to anybody whether straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. In other words I can choose to put the rotary emblems on your cupcakes for your event, but I should not have to put swastikas on your cupcakes for a white supremacist rally. I should be able to provide services at your animal rights rally but refuse to provide services at your pro life rally.

And such choices should be available to all business owners, Religious or Atheist, black or white, gay or straight, etc. without fear of organized punishment or retribution even if the choice is to not participate in an event most people champion as a great thing.

In other words: don't be intolerant unless you want to be intolerant. And if you choose to be intolerant, don't hassle me about it.

Any merchant open to the public and approached by a same sex couple who want the exact same high level of service that merchant provides each and every day as a normal part of their business operations should, well, receive that same high level of service. The marriage is a real marriage. The customer is not demanding anything lewd or torrid. The hang up is with the merchant. I'm absolutely convinced that such merchants provide services to other sinners without a second thought. Just so long as the check clears.

Take for example my family business owned and operated by my younger brother. He has contributed to anti-gun violence groups. He does not own a gun. But he regularly prints raffle tickets to groups where the prize is...get ready for it...GUNS! He prints them with the same quality as every other raffle ticket he prints. He could turn away the business, but he does not. Because he is a merchant first, a concerned citizen second. He does not occupy any seat of piety or righteousness. He is in business to print, not judge.

 

[Derideo_Te]

evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral

Who gets to decide what constitutes "evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral" practices?

What is the basis for making these decisions?

How will the "new law" be written to encode what is "evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral"?