Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously? I've explained it like 20'x already, including the post you just responded to. I'm guessing you're struggling with some sort of reading comprehension condition?

You're assuming I'm going to bother actually reading that nonsense then.

Typical liberal - comments blindly without reading! It's no wonder you people come across as such buffoons.

Go back and read it. You'll not only learn something, but when you respond, you won't sound quite so insanely stupid.

A) Do you read everything carefully that you come across? I doubt it.
B) I work, I do have a job, I do work hard and I am often tired.
C) I made a comment that didn't involve reading much of what was written. When someone then replied to me saying they didn't want to have to say it all again, I gave MY OPINION on the topic. I made that choice to do that, you don't like it, tough titties.

If you want to insult, what the hell difference does it make? I get insulted by people who actually can't make decent arguments daily on this board.

Will I learn something? Probably not, I've seen similar stuff being written lots of times before.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course black people were lynched by whites. That's despicable.

But has zero to do with forcing people to do business with those they don't want to.

Or do you really think that someone who is lynching people is suddenly going to start doing business with them (by force of law) and say "gee these people aren't so bad, I'm gonna stop lynching them?"

Maybe you should go see why we're talking about this. You're connecting two things without know why I'm making these comments.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.]

Always.

Often, freedom, rights etc come like this. You can do whatever you like as long as your don't hurt or harm someone else.
Clearly preventing black people from being able to shop in shops on the main street is harming them. Not physically, but mentally.

There are plenty of other such things. Libel, you can't speak or write something that isn't true that would harm someone else. Treason, if you put people in danger or go against the country then this can be treason.

When you run a business you are taking on a certain amount of responsibility you otherwise would not have within society. You can't do whatever you like when you like. You can't decide to lock the doors of your shop while people are inside and refuse to let them out.
You also should not be able to discriminate based on how someone is born.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Often, freedom, rights etc come like this. You can do whatever you like as long as your don't hurt or harm someone else.
Clearly preventing black people from being able to shop in shops on the main street is harming them. Not physically, but mentally.

There are plenty of other such things. Libel, you can't speak or write something that isn't true that would harm someone else. Treason, if you put people in danger or go against the country then this can be treason.

When you run a business you are taking on a certain amount of responsibility you otherwise would not have within society. You can't do whatever you like when you like. You can't decide to lock the doors of your shop while people are inside and refuse to let them out.
You also should not be able to discriminate based on how someone is born.

You shouldn't be allowed to libel others. You shouldn't be allowed to harrass, threaten or intimidate others, regardless of you reasons. You shouldn't be allowed to imprison them. But not serving someone as they demand, or at all, isn't harming them, and in a free society the right to say "no" to should be preserved.[/QUOTE]

Bull crap, no one is harmed by having to go elsewhere.

And spiritually a person who believes they should not aid or assist in gay marriage is QUITE harmed by being forced to do so.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Of course black people were lynched by whites. That's despicable.

But has zero to do with forcing people to do business with those they don't want to.

Or do you really think that someone who is lynching people is suddenly going to start doing business with them (by force of law) and say "gee these people aren't so bad, I'm gonna stop lynching them?"

Maybe you should go see why we're talking about this. You're connecting two things without know why I'm making these comments.

I'm simply saying you're posts about lynching are off topic and have nothing to do with forcing people to do business with other people.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

What analogy was that?

The one you clearly ignored. I'm not providing a link, nor retyping it.

I really have no idea what you're talking about...but stand in the corner and hold your breath...I'm sure someone may care what you do...someday.

Oh, yes quite reasonable to suspect you seen my every post in this thread EXCEPT that one.

You're a troll Candy, why I bothered to engage you in this thread is my own fault. I knew you were a troll from previous threads.

 

[candycorn]

Gee, why did Candy ignore my analogy? Oh that's right.

By the way Candy, I defend a LOT of rights I don't agree with. Defending a right does NOT mean I partake in that right. It simply means I defend those who do.

That's called intellectual honesty, you should try it.

What analogy was that?

The one you clearly ignored. I'm not providing a link, nor retyping it.

I really have no idea what you're talking about...but stand in the corner and hold your breath...I'm sure someone may care what you do...someday.

Oh, yes quite reasonable to suspect you seen my every post in this thread EXCEPT that one.

You're a troll Candy, why I bothered to engage you in this thread is my own fault. I knew you were a troll from previous threads.

Seriously dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. I know you're an admitted racist which is why I like delivering the weekly *****-slapping you so richly deserve. I can understand why you're running away from the discussion...it's what you do best.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a ****'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have? And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, you are missing the point. I know what the law says. The question here is whether those laws are just, Why does society have the authority to tell a business who it must server? The freedom of association says precisely that society doesn't have the right to tell a business owner who he must associate with.

Perhaps because society wants society to be in a certain way. It wants society to be tolerant.

Would you want to live in a society where you believed you'd be killed if you said the wrong thing?
Would you want to live in a society where you felt liked a 3rd class citizen every day of the week?

The freedom of association doesn't force people to associate with people. You have choices. You don't want to serve black people, THEN DON'T START A BUSINESS. If you can't cope living around those who live around you, get the **** out of there. Go live in some country with only white people, if you can find one.

Considered by whom? Why should we care about your assumptions? The business owner certainly doesn't assume it, and the only reason people assume it is because that's been the law since the 1960s. It wasn't the law prior to that time and no one even thought of objecting to it.

Even in the south shops were considered open for all white people, when they did discriminate. This isn't back to the 1960s, this is hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

Why should you care? I don't care whether you do or not. The law is the law. You have to abide by it.

If I include the statement "no gays allowed" in my advertisements, would that make it OK?

Depends how you do it. If you do it in public in front of everyone, then no, it's not okay. If no one really notices but those people who don't like gay people, then who cares?

 

[candycorn]

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a ****'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have? And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

Every discussion with Rott ends in his calling you names so, obviously, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS WRONG...

You accurately describe my feelings except that I think the argument that you have to provide services is wrong. Goods are another matter but services involve your talents or fame (hopefully both) and that translates sometimes into mustering your passion.

I was never much of a great metal-smith but in highschool and college, I was able to make some impressive pieces of art and some functional pieces as well. I made my own bike for example. Anyway, if I were making that bike or sculpture for someone, I would not have put the time or effort in as much.

If I'm a baker or photographer, perhaps the "passion angle" is not there but I can see where it would be. Also, the time you take to bake the cake or develop the pictures/ attend the function, etc...may hurt your other projects.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[frigidweirdo]

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Always.

Fine, give me your address and I'm going to exercise my freedom to murder you.

Okay, I'm not, but you get the point. No right, no freedom, none of it is absolute. Never has been, never will be.

You shouldn't be allowed to libel others. You shouldn't be allowed to harrass, threaten or intimidate others, regardless of your reasons. You shouldn't be allowed to imprison them. But not serving someone as they demand, or at all, isn't harming them, and in a free society the right to say "no" to should be preserved.

Wait, you just said freedom was absolute, now you're saying that we're not allowed to do things? wtf man?

How do you know that not serving someone isn't harming them.
I write in the NYT that you're a third class human being who doesn't deserve the time of day, oh, and you're wife's sleeping with Joe Biden. Would you try and sue me for that? I mean, I've come out and I've publicly embarrassed you. I've harmed you.

By being able to reduce people to third class citizens, you're actually harming them. You're saying that segregation, that slavery, that lynching, that all of that is OKAY. It's not.

The impact of your actions, as a business person, is actually quite strong, if you do things racially.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm simply saying you're posts about lynching are off topic and have nothing to do with forcing people to do business with other people.

Your posts. (you are = you're)

They're not off topic. The whole point here, if you'd bothered to find out what you were replying to, is that businesses can't be forced to do whatever they want because it harks back to things like segregation, slavery, lynchings etc.

I know it's really uncomfortable for you. But you have to ask yourself what the impact of telling black people they can't come into a shop will have on society.

A black person gets shot by the police and people go freaking crazy. Why do you think that is? Because people still remember when they were treated as second and third class citizens. Usually it was last week, but it harks back to a time when things were much worse.

Who wants to go back to that?

You tell businesses they can do what they like, the south might just go back to being the Deep South of old.

 

[dblack]

it does. But when has any freedom or right been absolute? Never.

Always.

Fine, give me your address and I'm going to exercise my freedom to murder you.

Okay, I'm not, but you get the point. No right, no freedom, none of it is absolute. Never has been, never will be.

No point in splitting hairs on terminology, but the freedom to murder (or commit libel, or perjury, or slander, etc, etc... ) isn't a right. The implied nature of all rights is that they do include protect the power to harm others. To use that inherent characteristic of the concept of rights as a wedge to justify any and all encroachment on our rights isn't valid.

How do you know that not serving someone isn't harming them.

Because not doing something is not doing something. The only valid argument you can make here would be based on the presumption that there is an implied promise, or contract, obliging the business owner to provide a service. That's a discussion we can have, though I still think it's a weak argument. But the idea that simply not helping someone is the same thing as harming them, is nonsense. By that reasoning, every person in the world not performing the act in question is equally culpable. They're all not doing the same thing.

I write in the NYT that you're a third class human being who doesn't deserve the time of day, oh, and you're wife's sleeping with Joe Biden. Would you try and sue me for that? I mean, I've come out and I've publicly embarrassed you. I've harmed you.

Yeah, that's slander, libel, harrassment, etc... We covered that above. That's not the same as refusing to bake me cake.

You're saying that segregation, that slavery, that lynching, that all of that is OKAY. It's not.

Slavery? Lynching?? Okay, now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that is OKAY? Do you still beat your wife?

The impact of your actions, as a business person, is actually quite strong, if you do things racially.

If you're promoting violence, spreading lies, or slandering others - regardless of your reasons - then you are violating the rights of others. But the imagined "right to demand service from someone else against their will" is incoherent, because inherently violates the freedom of another.

 

[P@triot]

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a ****'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

That's a completely false premise. You're literally making stuff up as you go. I've got news for you, you don't get to decide for society that starting a business makes you a "public person". I don't lose my Constitutional rights because I started a business. I don't lose my privacy because I started a business. And I sure as hell don't owe society anything because I started my own personal, private, business.

That's the problem with liberals. You guys believe that businesses owe society something. They don't. And if you think they do, then you should start a business and you should owe society.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have?

Absolutely, positively, none. In fact, it's almost certain that that business would go out of business in no time. But either way, whether it went out of business or whether it flourished, it's the right of the private business owner on private property to decide for themselves who they want to enter into business transactions with.

And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

You are correct. I've never even heard of that site. And frankly, I have no desire to go see what ignorant people are ranting about. Just out of curiosity, why would you waste your time checking out what those people are spewing?

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

Actually, it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Obama being black (that false narrative just fits the Dumbocrat Party nicely because they think they can convince the American people that conservatives are "racists" and that communists "care") and everything to do with the fact that Obama is an unhinged, radical-marxist who loathes America and the U.S. Constitution and dreams of a communist utopia. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read his autobiography. He's quite candid in it. States how he "sought out marxist professors" at Columbia. States how Frank Marshall Davis, card-carrying member of the Communist Party U.S.A., was his "mentor". Those are all words from Obama himself and there are many more. That is why there was a rise in right-wing radical militias. They could care less that Barack Obama is black or purple. They do, however, very much care about their freedom that the Dumbocrats are desperate to strip them of.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

They have no responsibility. That's a perception in your own mind. Period. There is no "responsibility". When they start a business, they enter into no agreement and they sign no contract. That "responsibility" simply does not exist outside of your own mind.

Furthermore, if that's the case, please address an entertainer or singer. By your "logic", I can force them to come to my home and sing for me. So obviously, you agree with that since you believe that a baker should be forced to perform their trade and that anyone who earns a living for themselves are "public" and have a "responsibility".

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

What world do you live in?!? You can go out into the street at any moment you like and scream "n*gger" at a black person. Where is there a law that says you can't like you just stated? I'd love to see you link to that law which does not exist and never has.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

Right? What's your point? That since you're not allowed to kill people you're also not allowed to refuse to enter into business transactions with them?

By this form of "logic" here, then you are saying that rape laws do not exist and I cannot be prosecuted for rape. Because, after all, if someone is forced by law to enter into business transactions with someone they don't want to simply because they entered into business transactions with someone they did want to made them "public" in your mind, then a woman who enters into consensual sex with someone they wanted to makes them "public" and they can no longer turn me away for sex.

I eagerly await your response to this one my friend. These are your words here, so please explain.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

No idea what you are referring to with this statement but I can only guess that I made a point for which you don't like but can't really dispute.

 

[P@triot]

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a ****'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have? And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

Every discussion with Rott ends in his calling you names so, obviously, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS WRONG...

You accurately describe my feelings except that I think the argument that you have to provide services is wrong. Goods are another matter but services involve your talents or fame (hopefully both) and that translates sometimes into mustering your passion.

I was never much of a great metal-smith but in highschool and college, I was able to make some impressive pieces of art and some functional pieces as well. I made my own bike for example. Anyway, if I were making that bike or sculpture for someone, I would not have put the time or effort in as much.

If I'm a baker or photographer, perhaps the "passion angle" is not there but I can see where it would be. Also, the time you take to bake the cake or develop the pictures/ attend the function, etc...may hurt your other projects.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

The person who keeps calling conservatives "toothless rednecks" in almost every post is accusing me of calling people names? Hilarious.

Tell me, what name have I called somebody? I've referred to the Dumbocrats in office as a host of names, but nobody here.

This is what is known as "projecting" CC

 

[JoeB131]

ROFL! So the restaurants involved were following government guidelines for cooking meat, but those guidelines were found to be inadequate. In other words, government caused the whole mess in the first place.

You just shot down your entire case.

Well,no, not really. But since you are completely retarded, you obviously would't get the point I was trying to make.

(It was that the market doesn't make business behave, government does.)

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong, public accommodation laws are a form of socialism. All government regulations are a form of socialism - the fascist form of socialism, to be precise.

Yes, If I want the government to make sure that food places aren't going to POISON me it's because I want to collectivize property, not that I want to not get poisoned.

I need to randomly get poisoned to figure out which ones are good with the market.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PA laws are society's direct rebuke to American's who won't live up to the American dream.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. Private businesses were not the ones who approved the laws. Business owners are always a small minority in any community and they don't have the numbers required to impose their agenda on the rest of the population. Furthermore, the fact that private businesses refused to discriminate against blacks is the reason the laws were imposed in the first place. It's nonsensical to admit that private businesses refused to discriminate on the one hand, yet the were responsible for laws that forced them to discriminate on the other.

Admit it, Joe, you're an imbecile who can't admit the truth.

are you God's own special retard? Of course in the south, it was the rich that called the shots, to get stupid people like you mad at blacks so you wouldn't notice you are getting fucked.

Today they get stupid people like you upset about the gays. Or the A-rabs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No point in splitting hairs on terminology, but the freedom to murder (or commit libel, or perjury, or slander, etc, etc... ) isn't a right. The implied nature of all rights is that they do include protect the power to harm others. To use that inherent characteristic of the concept of rights as a wedge to justify any and all encroachment on our rights isn't valid.

Which is exactly the point I've been making.

All rights, freedoms etc are limited. If by doing something you infringe upon the rights, freedoms, liberty of someone else, then you are not protected in any way.

Now, if a shop owner insults someone gravely, are they protected? No they're not. Telling someone they're not welcome in their shop because of the way they were born, is that right? Is it moral? Is it reaching the edges and beyond of freedom? I'd say it is.

Especially when you look at the context. If you tell someone they're black and therefore aren't worthy of your shop, you're calling them second or third class citizens, reminiscent of segregation and slavery.

How do you know that not serving someone isn't harming them.

Because not doing something is not doing something. The only valid argument you can make here would be based on the presumption that there is an implied promise, or contract, obliging the business owner to provide a service. That's a discussion we can have, though I still think it's a weak argument. But the idea that simply not helping someone is the same thing as harming them, is nonsense. By that reasoning, every person in the world not performing the act in question is equally culpable. They're all not doing the same thing.

It's almost impossible to do nothing. "What are you doing?" "Nothing!" "Are you breathing?" "yes" "Are you looking?" "yes" "Are you feeling?" "Yes" and on and on and on. The concept of "doing nothing" is actually quite laughable.

Also, telling someone you're not going to serve them is clearly doing something. Telling them why you're not going to serve them when it basically adds up to an insult is even worse.

Is it nothing to walk into a bar and the barman says "You look like an geriatric old fools, and I don't like you, and I'm not going to serve you", do you feel nothing? Or do you feel angry?

I write in the NYT that you're a third class human being who doesn't deserve the time of day, oh, and you're wife's sleeping with Joe Biden. Would you try and sue me for that? I mean, I've come out and I've publicly embarrassed you. I've harmed you.

Yeah, that's slander, libel, harrassment, etc... We covered that above. That's not the same as refusing to bake me cake.

You're saying that segregation, that slavery, that lynching, that all of that is OKAY. It's not.

Slavery? Lynching?? Okay, now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that is OKAY? Do you still beat your wife?

The impact of your actions, as a business person, is actually quite strong, if you do things racially.

If you're promoting violence, spreading lies, or slandering others - regardless of your reasons - then you are violating the rights of others. But the imagined "right to demand service from someone else against their will" is incoherent, because inherently violates the freedom of another.

Why is promoting violence not okay? Why is spreading lies not okay? Why is slandering others not okay?

It causes harm.

"Hey, you were born black and for that reason you're a third class citizen, not worth my time, I don't even know you and I've decided you're not worth shit, so feck off"

You think this doesn't cause harm to people?

When someone gets told they're not being served because of how they look, this is how they feel.

 

[dblack]

Now, if a shop owner insults someone gravely, are they protected? No they're not. Telling someone they're not welcome in their shop because of the way they were born, is that right? Is it moral? Is it reaching the edges and beyond of freedom? I'd say it is.

Are you saying we have no right to insult someone?

How do you know that not serving someone isn't harming them.

Because not doing something is not doing something. The only valid argument you can make here would be based on the presumption that there is an implied promise, or contract, obliging the business owner to provide a service. That's a discussion we can have, though I still think it's a weak argument. But the idea that simply not helping someone is the same thing as harming them, is nonsense. By that reasoning, every person in the world not performing the act in question is equally culpable. They're all not doing the same thing.

It's almost impossible to do nothing. "What are you doing?" "Nothing!" "Are you breathing?" "yes" "Are you looking?" "yes" "Are you feeling?" "Yes" and on and on and on. The concept of "doing nothing" is actually quite laughable.

Also, telling someone you're not going to serve them is clearly doing something. Telling them why you're not going to serve them when it basically adds up to an insult is even worse.

Is it nothing to walk into a bar and the barman says "You look like an geriatric old fools, and I don't like you, and I'm not going to serve you", do you feel nothing? Or do you feel angry?

I write in the NYT that you're a third class human being who doesn't deserve the time of day, oh, and you're wife's sleeping with Joe Biden. Would you try and sue me for that? I mean, I've come out and I've publicly embarrassed you. I've harmed you.

Yeah, that's slander, libel, harrassment, etc... We covered that above. That's not the same as refusing to bake me cake.

You're saying that segregation, that slavery, that lynching, that all of that is OKAY. It's not.

Slavery? Lynching?? Okay, now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that is OKAY? Do you still beat your wife?

The impact of your actions, as a business person, is actually quite strong, if you do things racially.

If you're promoting violence, spreading lies, or slandering others - regardless of your reasons - then you are violating the rights of others. But the imagined "right to demand service from someone else against their will" is incoherent, because inherently violates the freedom of another.

Why is promoting violence not okay? Why is spreading lies not okay? Why is slandering others not okay?

It causes harm.

"Hey, you were born black and for that reason you're a third class citizen, not worth my time, I don't even know you and I've decided you're not worth shit, so feck off"

You think this doesn't cause harm to people?

When someone gets told they're not being served because of how they look, this is how they feel.

So, it sounds like your argument is based on the idea that we have no right to say something that might hurt someone's feelings?

Seriously?