You hate cake?? What kind of crazy talk is that??????



Back on point...yes, you'd do business somewhere else, but what if there was no where else? You live in a small town (probably to small for a bakery...but let's pretend) what if the one store in town refused to provide you with service for whatever reason? Why should you have to drive an hour or more to get the same service that someone else in your town can get?


I know it's not the point you are making, but it seems like the same arguments that were used when blacks fought for the right to sit at the front of the bus or to use any bathrooms, not just colored bathrooms. Using your logic, the blacks should have just used their own bathrooms and been happy about it because the white people didn't want them in theirs any way.

One where is guaranteed that I am owed the right to shop in a bakery in my town?


As for blacks they absolutely did the right thing under MLK jr staged public protest and shamed businesses refusing to serve them that wasn't government, it was only after individuals organized and pressured society to question their values did we see change. The million man march wasn't government that was free people standing up for themselves. That is how change happens free association, it's why the civil rights movement worked and reformation didn't.

---

I stated there are protected minority classes, currently sexual orientation is not one of them. Now if you want to argue it should be then we can have that discussion, if you want to argue should there be any protected minority classes  we can have that discussion as well. What I won't do is get into a pointless shame game with you, where you try to pretend I'm a nazi or bigot. 

 

The nazi's where big fans of your neo-conservative state with militarized police, legislative moral authority, social economics and foreign intervention. But you want to make the accusation I might like Germany in 1930 because I believe in protecting free association and choice. Your not defending rights until your defending the rights of someone you oppose. 

 

Perhaps for once your capable of a having a discussion minus your sarcastic undertones, if so I will gladly have that discussion with you.

 

You are evading the point. I, too, support free association and choice. But if you have a business open to the public then it's open to the public. I'm not trying to shame you. Are you not arguing that you should be able to deny service to Jews, blacks, left-handed people? How is that sarcastic?

 

I think you don't feel comfortable arguing for discrimination - but that's what it is. And no smoke screen of "free association and choice" will cover that. You want that join the Elks or whatever.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

You are evading the point. I, too, support free association and choice. But if you have a business open to the public then it's open to the public. I'm not trying to shame you. Are you not arguing that you should be able to deny service to Jews, blacks, left-handed people? How is that sarcastic?


I think you don't feel comfortable arguing for discrimination - but that's what it is. And no smoke screen of "free association and choice" will cover that. You want that join the Elks or whatever.

The sarcasm was you suggesting id prefer 1930 Germany, I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that's sarcasm at least.


There's a difference between open to public and funded by the public. I have no problem defending the rights of people I disagree with in this case discrimination. Private companies not receiving public funding should be free to conduct business however they see fit, so long as they do not harm someone or someone else's property.

---

The sarcasm was you suggesting id prefer 1930 Germany, I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that's sarcasm at least.

There's a difference between open to public and funded by the public. I have no problem defending the rights of people I disagree with in this case discrimination. Private companies not receiving public funding should be free to conduct business however they see fit, so long as they do not harm someone or someone else's property.

Dude. If you own a restaurant, you are subject to certain laws and regulations. There will be health inspections for example. Who pays for these health inspections of your private restaurant? The taxpayer. The general public. I'd also be willing to bet your restaurant is alongside a road, again serviced with the general public's tax dollars. So there are no private companies "not receiving public funding." If I have to pay to make sure you are keeping your business clean, and to make sure people have access to it, you better believe I can come eat, too.

---

You are evading the point. I, too, support free association and choice. But if you have a business open to the public then it's open to the public. I'm not trying to shame you. Are you not arguing that you should be able to deny service to Jews, blacks, left-handed people? How is that sarcastic?

 

I think you don't feel comfortable arguing for discrimination - but that's what it is. And no smoke screen of "free association and choice" will cover that. You want that join the Elks or whatever.

 

People discriminate every day.  You do it with the food you eat (why did you go to McDonalds instead of Burger King?  That reason is discriminatory).  You do it with the friends you have and the people you won't be friends with for certain reasons (you think that guy is an idiot because he believes a certain thing, which is discriminatory).  You do it with what roads to take to get to work (avoiding certain roads because of higher traffic is discrimination against the higher trafficked roads).  You do it when you buy a car (choosing one over another for any reason is discrimination against the one you didn't choose).  Discrimination happens every day of your life and you make discriminatory decisions every single day of your life.

 

I am of the mind that a business that is not a tax funded business should be able to do business how they think they should do business.  However, the door swings both ways.  If I own a restaurant and I don't want to cater to your gay wedding because I don't believe in gay marriage, you have the right to go to a competitor of mine and obtain their services instead.  You also have the right to spread through word of mouth that I refused service to you because of your sexual orientation.  I, as the business owner, am making a decision in the interest of my business to not do business with a certain type of person.  This is the true definition of a free society.  A free society has their born right to make their own choices, not to have their choices forced on them by a "higher power".  

 

In my opinion, the civil rights movement and subsequent laws should apply to government funded, tax funded, and tax subsidized businesses and government offices.  Those laws should not apply to privately owned businesses with no government or subsidized support.

---

Dude. If you own a restaurant, you are subject to certain laws and regulations. There will be health inspections for example. Who pays for these health inspections of your private restaurant? The taxpayer. The general public. I'd also be willing to bet your restaurant is alongside a road, again serviced with the general public's tax dollars. So there are no private companies "not receiving public funding." If I have to pay to make sure you are keeping your business clean, and to make sure people have access to it, you better believe I can come eat, too.

 

Those types of offices aren't paid with public funds.  Their paid by local cities and counties who collect business tax receipts, alcohol licenses, and food licenses.  These "taxes" are paid by the privately owned businesses who do business in those areas.  The roads the businesses are located are, again, maintained by cities and counties who collect gas tax.  A private business pays for licenses, certifications, inspections, and taxes in order to do business.  That's part of their overhead.  So your argument is not a valid argument.

---

It's funny how such trivial things, no one can agree on.

 

So, it is legal to discriminate according to dress code. 

 

What if I cannot afford a suit but, I want to go to the fancy steakhouse? Night club? Etc.

 

Is that right? Or is it the right of the business owner to determine what goes on in their establishment. 

 

When the government is regulating everything, you are not free.

---

Those types of offices aren't paid with public funds.  Their paid by local cities and counties who collect business tax receipts, alcohol licenses, and food licenses.  These "taxes" are paid by the privately owned businesses who do business in those areas.  The roads the businesses are located are, again, maintained by cities and counties who collect gas tax.  A private business pays for licenses, certifications, inspections, and taxes in order to do business.  That's part of their overhead.  So your argument is not a valid argument.

Fair enough. But the people who collect these taxes, the infrastructure that facilitates the tax collection, etc are public workers and public utilities paid for by the general public.

---

Fair enough. But the people who collect these taxes, the infrastructure that facilitates the tax collection, etc are public workers and public utilities paid for by the general public.

Well if thats your criteria no one should be allowed to refuse their home to a stranger. The road accessed to your home isn't yours. You didn't build the infrastructure so when I show up at your front door I'm owed the same respect in your home and damn it I don't care of you don't like me you didn't build that someone else did!

---

Fair enough. But the people who collect these taxes, the infrastructure that facilitates the tax collection, etc are public workers and public utilities paid for by the general public.

 

Again, business tax receipts to city and county municipalities, business licenses, etc pay for these.  Your argument is dead.  Like somebody else said before, if this is your line of thinking then since your house is located on a public road, that means you can't refuse to let me in.  Since that would be discrimination.

---

Again, business tax receipts to city and county municipalities, business licenses, etc pay for these. Your argument is dead. Like somebody else said before, if this is your line of thinking then since your house is located on a public road, that means you can't refuse to let me in. Since that would be discrimination.

I'm not selling anything from my residence. Your point remains moot.

---

I'm not selling anything from my residence. Your point remains moot.

 

Apparently it doesn't matter.  The roads and infrastructure that supply your home with water and power are funded by public subsidized funding.  You pay a company that was approved and overseen by the state.  Since those subsidies are paid by the "public", by your logic that means that I have a right of easement to your property.

 

Reality is very different from your perception, and you don't understand your own fundamental right of freedom of choice.

---

I'm not selling anything from my residence. Your point remains moot.

 

So you've never had a garage sale? You've never sold a piece of clothing or furniture you're not using anymore? Have you ever offered someone to stay the night at your house? Is it discrimination if you let ____ person stay in your home and not me?

 

I know it's ludicrous, that's the point. If you want to legislate away discrimination you'd have to establish a complete communal society, that's called communism. 

---

So why isn't the Hindu restaurant owner forced to act against his religious interest to satisfy my needs but the Christian business owner is force to act against their religious interest to satisfy a customers needs?

Well two different scenarios. One is forcing the Hindu restaurant to make food they don't make and the other is forcing the other company to not discriminate against a group of people (they asked for a cake which is exactly what the store sells).

---

YES

Then why isn't chief all up in arms about that?

---

People discriminate every day. You do it with the food you eat (why did you go to McDonalds instead of Burger King? That reason is discriminatory). You do it with the friends you have and the people you won't be friends with for certain reasons (you think that guy is an idiot because he believes a certain thing, which is discriminatory). You do it with what roads to take to get to work (avoiding certain roads because of higher traffic is discrimination against the higher trafficked roads). You do it when you buy a car (choosing one over another for any reason is discrimination against the one you didn't choose). Discrimination happens every day of your life and you make discriminatory decisions every single day of your life.


I am of the mind that a business that is not a tax funded business should be able to do business how they think they should do business. However, the door swings both ways. If I own a restaurant and I don't want to cater to your gay wedding because I don't believe in gay marriage, you have the right to go to a competitor of mine and obtain their services instead. You also have the right to spread through word of mouth that I refused service to you because of your sexual orientation. I, as the business owner, am making a decision in the interest of my business to not do business with a certain type of person. This is the true definition of a free society. A free society has their born right to make their own choices, not to have their choices forced on them by a "higher power".


In my opinion, the civil rights movement and subsequent laws should apply to government funded, tax funded, and tax subsidized businesses and government offices. Those laws should not apply to privately owned businesses with no government or subsidized support.

It'll never be a free society with a government. You gibe up certain rights as a citizen sometimes for your benefit and sometimes not.

---

It's funny how such trivial things, no one can agree on.


So, it is legal to discriminate according to dress code.


What if I cannot afford a suit but, I want to go to the fancy steakhouse? Night club? Etc.


Is that right? Or is it the right of the business owner to determine what goes on in their establishment.


When the government is regulating everything, you are not free.

If you are society run by government, you were/are never free. There is a huge price to pay to be truly free. To think other wise is to live in a fantasy world.


Ok so what if the business owner said you have to be white in order to come into the restaurant? Are you okay with that?


This shirt/shoes and dress code is an entirely different argument then declining to serve people simply because of their sexual orientation.

---

So it's cool to discriminate against the less wealthy.

 

Where does it stop? 

---

If you are society run by government, you were/are never free. There is a huge price to pay to be truly free. To think other wise is to live in a fantasy world.


Ok so what if the business owner said you have to be white in order to come into the restaurant? Are you okay with that?


This shirt/shoes and dress code is an entirely different argument then declining to serve people simply because of their sexual orientation.

 

In every context I believe that property rights are the superior rights. As the owner of a business if you want to be stupid enough to limit your potential clientele then more power to you. Some smart business person will set up shop and capture that available revenue and most likely you will suffer for it. But to believe that means that I suffer the slings and arrows of racist and bigot accusations even though that's the furthest thing from the truth. Just because I personally wouldn't do something doesn't meant that I don't believe others shouldn't be free to. The same with speech rights, I don't have to agree with you to believe that you should be free to say what you want.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In every context I believe that property rights are the superior rights. As the owner of a business if you want to be stupid enough to limit your potential clientele then more power to you. Some smart business person will set up shop and capture that available revenue and most likely you will suffer for it. But to believe that means that I suffer the slings and arrows of racist and bigot accusations even though that's the furthest thing from the truth. Just because I personally wouldn't do something doesn't meant that I don't believe others shouldn't be free to. The same with speech rights, I don't have to agree with you to believe that you should be free to say what you want.

But now we are talking about freedom. You cannot have freedom under a government. It is impossible. So again, should restaurants be free to allow all forms of drug users in their restaurants and also allow them to do those drugs?

---