Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Who gets to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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"?

Right. I think PayDay loans are evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral, because they take advantage of poor people. Does that mean it's okay for me to smear their business with phony/edited videos?

 

[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.

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

To me a picket line is most often petty, childish, and done by people paid to do it or maybe a few bored people with nothing else to do. And it is true the occasional picket line in front of a store is usually quite ineffective and ignored by the large bulk of the customer who are just irritated by it. And usually the picketers are protesting some kind of business PRACTICE--something the business actually does--instead of what the CEO or owner thinks about something.

So it is a matter of degree I suppose. I wouldn't call the cops to get rid of a few annoying picketers trespassing on my property unless they were seriously disturbing the peace and/or harming people. But that is small potatoes compared to these organized efforts to destroy people even to the point of threatening customers, suppliers, advertisers, etc. purely because somebody expressed an unpopular opinion.

To me that is evil. And it should be something no civilized society should tolerate.

 

[Debra K]

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 opposing 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 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 the person chooses not to do a same-sex wedding that he believes to be wrong.

Foxfyre:

First, you acknowledge that you have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. As a condition to entering the marketplace (stream of commerce), you have no objection to laws that prohibit discrimination against customers in public accommodations based on who or what they are. For instance, you would have no problem with a law that forbids discrimination against customers on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The underlying government policy that justifies anti-discrimination laws is protection of the LIBERTY interests of persons who historically have been treated unfairly or as "second-class" citizens. More specifically, anti-discrimination laws "promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment." Anti-discrimination laws prohibit businesses open to the public (public accommodations) from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. A business may not offer a "full menu" of goods and services to one class of customers and offer only a "limited menu" to protected classes of persons.

Second, I don't agree with your assertion that "to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays." If your business offers a full menu of services (e.g., baking a wedding cake or photographing ceremonies, etc.) to heterosexual couples, but offer only a limited menu of services to same-sex couples, you ARE discriminating against same-sex couples based on who or what they are.

Third, the examples you give to justify your stance don't apply because you are making comparisons between classes of persons who are NOT protected and those who ARE protected. You may refuse to cater an anti-gay rally because anti-gay persons are not within a protected class of persons.

If a baker has entered the stream of commerce and does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, a protected class of persons, then the baker must take wedding cakes off its menu of goods/services that it provides in the arena of public accommodations. There are many choices that a business person may make, but choosing to discriminate against protected classes of persons is not a choice that can be make with impunity.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Who gets to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral?

I should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for me. And my opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with me.

You should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for you. And your opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with you.

What neither of us should be able to do is impose our opinions on others in a way that violates the others' rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 opposing 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 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 the person chooses not to do a same-sex wedding that he believes to be wrong.

Foxfyre:

First, you acknowledge that you have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. As a condition to entering the marketplace (stream of commerce), you have no objection to laws that prohibit discrimination against customers in public accommodations based on who or what they are. For instance, you would have no problem with a law that forbids discrimination against customers on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The underlying government policy that justifies anti-discrimination laws is protection of the LIBERTY interests of persons who have historically been treated unfairly or as "second-class" citizens. More specifically, anti-discrimination laws "promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment." Anti-discrimination laws prohibit businesses open to the public (public accommodations) from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. A business may not offer a "full menu" of goods and services to one class of customers and offer only a "limited menu" to protected classes of persons.

Second, I don't agree with your assertion that "to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays." If your business offers a full menu of services (e.g., baking a wedding cake or photographing ceremonies, etc.) to heterosexual couples, but offer only a limited menu of services to same-sex couples, you ARE discriminating against same-sex couples based on who or what they are.

Third, the examples you give to justify your stance don't apply because you are making comparisons between classes of persons who are NOT protected and those who ARE protected. You may refuse to cater an anti-gay rally because anti-gay persons are not within a protected class of persons.

If a baker has entered the stream of commerce and does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, a protected class of persons, then the baker must take wedding cakes off its menu of goods/services that it provides in the arena of public accommodations. There are many choices that a business person may make, but choosing to discriminate against protected classes of persons is not a choice that can be make with impunity.

Please refer to my Post #832 which I believe addresses the point you are making here. If it does not cover everything let me know and I'll try to clarify.

But remember that existing law is off limits as an argument for purposes of this discussion only. So who is and is not a 'protected class' under existing law is irrelevant. The argument should focus on what the law should be and why the law should be that and not what the existing law is.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But if he had deep moral convictions about those raffle tickets, and believed the event to be wrong or unethical or harmful or for whatever reason, he should not be forced to print those tickets. Tolerance means that we allow people their own choices in such matters. I have no right whatsoever to demand that you print tickets for anything. But if you choose to do so and provide tickets I need and want, I will be appreciative. If you choose not to do so, I might be disappointed, but I am in no way harmed. I simply go to another business to get what I want or do it myself.

I am not saying anybody is right or wrong in their beliefs. Even as I am defending those who choose not to participate in a same sex wedding, I myself would do so. Even as I defend those who choose to participate in an anti-same sex marriage rally, I myself would not do so.

I am arguing that everybody--not just 'protected classes'--but everybody should have the liberty to be who and what they are so long as they violate nobody else's rights. Tolerance has to allow what we disagree with or disapprove of as well as what we like or it is not tolerance. It becomes those with the power forcing everybody else to conform to whatever values the powerful hold or whatever the powerful wants everybody else to have to do.

And that can be a very dangerous thing.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Who gets to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral?

I should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for me. And my opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with me.

You should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for you. And your opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with you.

What neither of us should be able to do is impose our opinions on others in a way that violates the others' rights.

Do you have a problem with me spending a few years, working on editing videos of the PayDay loan practice, in order to use them to smear the reputation of that particular business?

 

[dblack]

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.

Persuading other people to avoid a business is not attacking and destroying it.

 

[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.

Persuading other people to avoid a business is not attacking and destroying it.

Please look at my argument in its full context. My argument refers to those who fully intend to destroy somebody's business and/or livelihood. And then tell me that is okay.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Who gets to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral?

I should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for me. And my opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with me.

You should get to decide what is evil, unfair, unethical, and immoral for you. And your opinions about that should be allowed whether or not somebody agrees with you.

What neither of us should be able to do is impose our opinions on others in a way that violates the others' rights.

Do you have a problem with me spending a few years, working on editing videos of the PayDay loan practice, in order to use them to smear the reputation of that particular business?

I have a problem with anybody employing unethical practices to harm others or who would deny anybody their fundamental rights. But that is a topic for a different thread and discussion.

Here are the rules and the thread topic again:
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[Ravi]

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.

City rights are the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

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.

And you do believe a business can decide what is acceptable behavior?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

 

[Debra K]

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 opposing 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 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 the person chooses not to do a same-sex wedding that he believes to be wrong.

Foxfyre:

First, you acknowledge that you have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. As a condition to entering the marketplace (stream of commerce), you have no objection to laws that prohibit discrimination against customers in public accommodations based on who or what they are. For instance, you would have no problem with a law that forbids discrimination against customers on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The underlying government policy that justifies anti-discrimination laws is protection of the LIBERTY interests of persons who have historically been treated unfairly or as "second-class" citizens. More specifically, anti-discrimination laws "promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment." Anti-discrimination laws prohibit businesses open to the public (public accommodations) from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. A business may not offer a "full menu" of goods and services to one class of customers and offer only a "limited menu" to protected classes of persons.

Second, I don't agree with your assertion that "to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays." If your business offers a full menu of services (e.g., baking a wedding cake or photographing ceremonies, etc.) to heterosexual couples, but offer only a limited menu of services to same-sex couples, you ARE discriminating against same-sex couples based on who or what they are.

Third, the examples you give to justify your stance don't apply because you are making comparisons between classes of persons who are NOT protected and those who ARE protected. You may refuse to cater an anti-gay rally because anti-gay persons are not within a protected class of persons.

If a baker has entered the stream of commerce and does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, a protected class of persons, then the baker must take wedding cakes off its menu of goods/services that it provides in the arena of public accommodations. There are many choices that a business person may make, but choosing to discriminate against protected classes of persons is not a choice that can be make with impunity.

Please refer to my Post #832 which I believe addresses the point you are making here. If it does not cover everything let me know and I'll try to clarify.

But remember that existing law is off limits as an argument for purposes of this discussion only. So who is and is not a 'protected class' under existing law is irrelevant. The argument should focus on what the law should be and why the law should be that and not what the existing law is.

No. Your Post#832 does not address the three points I made above. You have created a hypothetical world. In that world, you claim that you have no objection to the enactment of anti-discrimination laws that a business must follow. Nevertheless, you do not acknowledge the result of such laws, i.e., the creation of "protected classes" of persons.

In Foxfyre's opinion, providing a full menu of goods and services to some customers and a limited menu to "protected classes" of persons is not discrimination. I disagree with Foxfyre's opinion. Providing a limited menu of goods and services to protected classes of persons is discrimination.

In Foxfyre's hypothetical world, she is entitled to act upon her intolerance (and deprive her victims of peace) and all other people must tolerate her intolerance (and refrain from acting) and allow her to "live in peace". In her opinion, intolerance of her intolerance through action is shoving that evil "political correctness" down her throat. She is entitled to freedom of speech, but others are not. If other people organize to criticize her intolerance or boycott her business, she wants their criticism/boycott to be unlawful and punished.

In Foxfyre's make-believe world, the only opinion that matters is Foxfyre's opinion. Because things that are important to me (e.g., the rule of law, fairness, common sense, logic, reason) do not exist in this make-believe world, I have nothing more to offer this discussion. Thus, I am exiting this thread. Have a nice day.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself. Post #858 for instance is an excellent example of a post that is almost all ad hominem and expressly not allowed in this thread.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

Where is the ad hom? Show me where I am wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.