- Aug 28, 2016
- Reaction score
No you did not.That is a lie.No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.WrongIf the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.WrongCherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.Now you're cherry picking.A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthyYeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?sure canyes but only AFTER they have entered the store.WrongWrong.Wrong.Of course they are open to the public.Wrong they are not open to the public.And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business ownersSo if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?yes it does mean thatSemantics.The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.I never once used the word "fair".Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?One bus company in AlabamaI just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.you assume no one would do that again but I don't.Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to governmentSo you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of itI disagree.I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.
Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?
Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.
What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?
What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?
We benefit more as an inclusive society.
The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.
Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.
Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.
Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them
I have a feeling they would.
I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.
Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?
How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?
And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.
I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.
So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.
So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does
One example is hardly proof.
And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?
You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?
I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.
And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.
And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.
Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.
People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.
But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.
Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.
As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.
If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.
And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services
Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.
If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.
By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
They are only.open to select individuals.
some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
People with no money can enter your store and look around.
You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything
You can tell them to buy something or.leave
You can't turn them away at the door
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "
that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .
these laws discriminate
Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.
So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.
any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
In this argument it proves my point
Asked and answered
That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory
I have indeed answered you
And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
I answered you
Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
But then again I didn't expect you to.