Should businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?

[Rigby5]

What do you think about the topic? Should all businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?

Absolutely.
And I have never heard of any city that allowed businesses to open to the public without being contractually obligated to be without discrimination, in their license to operate.

 

[struth]

Agreed. I really wish I could wave a magic wand and remove 230, just so you guys would quit using it as an excuse to bully websites you don't like.

haha yeah folks are “bullying” facebook and tweeter

there is nothing wrong with the protection for actual bulletin board style websites. Tweeter and the like aren’t acting that way anymore.

but glad you agree

 

[struth]

I see. So if a business pisses off the government we can just declare them to be a "common carrier". Lovely.

no it has an actual legal definition

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

no it has an actual legal definition

Legal is God's law, Really? People say this is a Christian nation. Where is legal and illegal found in scripture? Illegal, and illegal are God's laws? I would not have guessed. Do you have any scriptural evidence? Did Jesus obey legal and illegal fulfilling that in his life?

 

[struth]

Legal is God's law, Really? People say this is a Christian nation. Where is legal and illegal found in scripture? Illegal, and illegal are God's laws? I would not have guessed. Do you have any scriptural evidence? Did Jesus obey legal and illegal fulfilling that in his life?

huh?

i have no clue what you are rambling about.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

haha yeah folks are “bullying” facebook and tweeter

there is nothing wrong with the protection for actual bulletin board style websites. Tweeter and the like aren’t acting that way anymore.

but glad you agree

Zuckerburg, an Israelite hater, who lies about free speech, deserves what he gets.

 

[struth]

Zuckerburg, an Israelite hater, who lies about free speech, deserves what he gets.

i really have no idea nor do i care about his feeling on Israel or the people that live there.

i merely think his company should be held liable for what they are liable for, and folks that believe they have been harmed by what facebook publishes, should be able to take their claim to the Judicial branch and be heard

 

[dblack]

Absolutely.
And I have never heard of any city that allowed businesses to open to the public without being contractually obligated to be without discrimination, in their license to operate.

Yeah. You've made that claim repeatedly and been shot down every time. Do you have any new proof of such a preposterous claim?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think businesses should be able to operate as they see fit. If their practices are less than questionable, then their success or failure will be determined by people and their wallets. The alternative is to have government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

We already have discrimination laws to handle to handle most of the problems anyways.

The only thing I would like to see government step in on is companies trying to prevent competition. If i recall, years ago, facebook was involved in something about preventing competition. Even at the last hearing he was in, some are suggesting that he asked congress to regulate away any competition.

MSN

www.msn.com

I'd like to see some super rich people pool together and create a new network and a new set of social media platforms that are true free speech platforms and not just media mouthpieces for the Democrat party.

 

[MinTrut]

In another thread we were discussing what Trump and the Republicans are after with the lawsuit against Twitter, and their desire to "crack down" on social media.

bripat9643 offered the following:


I'm not calling out bri here, just wondering if that's a general consensus. Should we require businesses to treat everyone equally and impartially?

I don't understand.

Are you saying businesses shouldn't do this?

By require, do you mean you support businesses denying food or water to people because they're Trump supporters for instance?

They shouldn't be required to treat their customers equally, but allowed to cause some to starve & die?

Very odd question.

 

[dblack]

I don't understand.

Are you saying businesses shouldn't do this?

I'm saying they are under no legal obligation to do so, and that using government in a vain attempt to force them to is ridiculous and counter productive.

By require, do you mean you support businesses denying food or water to people because they're Trump supporters for instance?

I don't support them doing so - I would complain loudly. But it's their right, and trying to make such a thing illegal is dumb.

 

[dblack]

I think businesses should be able to operate as they see fit. If their practices are less than questionable, then their success or failure will be determined by people and their wallets. The alternative is to have government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

Exactly. People don't quite get that part.

We already have discrimination laws to handle to handle most of the problems anyways.

Those were a mistake, in my view, because they've led to the naive assumption that we can just make all forms of discrimination illegal. Some people, like Rigby5, are convinced it already is.

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah. You've made that claim repeatedly and been shot down every time. Do you have any new proof of such a preposterous claim?

Have you ever opened a business?
In order to do so, you have to get a license, and in the license there is a contract as to what regulations you have to follow.
Anti-discrimination is number 1.

And those who think just the half dozen explicitly protected classes in the 1965 Civil Rights Act are all you have to not discriminate against, think again.
If ONLY those listed groups were protected, that would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection clause.
Obviously ALL discrimination is illegal.
It is just that it is impossible to list all possible crimes.

 

[dblack]

Have you ever opened a business?
In order to do so, you have to get a license, and in the license there is a contract as to what regulations you have to follow.
Anti-discrimination is number 1.

No doubt, somewhere, some city or state is doing this, but I've never seen it. And I KNOW it's not a federal policy. Again, it's your fantasy - but it's not close to true.

Link it up if you have proof.

And those who think just the half dozen explicitly protected classes in the 1965 Civil Rights Act are all you have to not discriminate against, think again.

Yep. Been thinking about this for a while. You might want all discrimination to be illegal, but it isn't. You're dreaming.

 

[Rigby5]

I think businesses should be able to operate as they see fit. If their practices are less than questionable, then their success or failure will be determined by people and their wallets. The alternative is to have government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

We already have discrimination laws to handle to handle most of the problems anyways.

The only thing I would like to see government step in on is companies trying to prevent competition. If i recall, years ago, facebook was involved in something about preventing competition. Even at the last hearing he was in, some are suggesting that he asked congress to regulate away any competition.

MSN

www.msn.com

I'd like to see some super rich people pool together and create a new network and a new set of social media platforms that are true free speech platforms and not just media mouthpieces for the Democrat party.

Wrong.
The problem with minorities is they do not have enough economic clout to alter the actions of businesses, which is why law enforcement is necessary.
It matters little to the retailer if he is constrained by law to not discriminate, but it makes a huge difference to the victims of discrimination.
Discrimination can never be allowed.
Once you fail to prosecute discrimination, you don't have a democracy any more and the whole system if a fraud that has to be destroyed and started over.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Freedom and "equality" are two different things and they're often conflicting.

If I'm a baker and don't want to make a gay cake, well ****, I should have that right. But nope, not good enough for leftists, make a mockery of marriage and nature and get everyone to contribute to the madness.

When govt. gets involved in dumbs us down and often compromises freedom. If a business doesn't want to serve blacks or whites for example, let them die a natural death and find someplace else to go.

Leftists suggest they desire freedom, and they sport purple hair to "prove it". But in practice they don't support freedom, which is one reason they desire BIG GOVT. and often entitlements.

 

[dblack]

Discrimination can never be allowed.

In point of fact, it can never be prevented. All discrimination laws do is put government in charge of the discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Freedom and "equality" are two different things and they're often conflicting.

If I'm a baker and don't want to make a gay cake, well ****, I should have that right. But nope, not good enough for leftists, make a mockery of marriage and nature and get everyone to contribute to the madness.

When govt. gets involved in dumbs us down and often compromises freedom. If a business doesn't want to serve blacks or whites for example, let them die a natural death and find someplace else to go.

Leftists suggest they desire freedom, and they sport purple hair to "prove it". But in practice they don't support freedom, which is one reason they desire BIG GOVT. and often entitlements.

Out of curiosity, if you own a website and don't want to let Trump supporters post, do you think that should that be allowed?

 

[Rigby5]

No doubt, somewhere, some city or state is doing this, but I've never seen it. And I KNOW it's not a federal policy. Again, it's your fantasy - but it's not close to true.

Link it up if you have proof.


Yep. Been thinking about this for a while. You might want all discrimination to be illegal, but it isn't. You're dreaming.

Of course it is not and can not be a federal policy.
But all cities and states always have regulations preventing discrimination if you are going to be open to the public.
That was the whole point of the civil rights protests and demonstrations of the 60s.
But the ability of the federal government to prosecute local governments who fail to prosecute individuals, is well established by the 14th amendment.

It is obvious.
You could not legally have the protected classes of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, unless all other discrimination was already illegal.
The implementation has to be local.

But that does not make all discrimination illegal.
Private clubs, etc. who are not open to the public, are free to discriminate as they wish.
But they they also have to warn people, so they are not harming them.

 

[Rigby5]

In point of fact, it can never be prevented. All discrimination laws do is put government in charge of the discrimination.

Government is in charge of all crimes.
That is the decision we made when we created mercenary police.
A risky choice, but it does reduce lynching.