Quote:I would support whatever is in the contract, between the company and the community that contracted the company. I imagine they would require the company to permit full access to all individuals before accepting the bid. You're creating an imaginary scenario where a racist community or a homophobic community contracted a racist or homophobic company to build a road for strictly heterosexual and approved race ethnicity and then you're asking if I would support that?

 

Personally no I wouldn't support it I wouldn't drive on it,I wouldn't live in that community. If you're asking if a private community contracts a private company to enforce these hypothetical conditions do I think they have the right to do it, well then yes. There is 0.0000000% chance that would or could ever happen, you're building a scenario of next to no probability to tear down a point about private association.

 

Likewise I can give you plenty of examples where government having a monopoly of force has done that very exact thing, made roads and public access exclusive to a set group and persecuted minorities, but you're bent on private individuals being the evil. When you examine history it's only when evil has a monopoly on force that discrimination really occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

No when 3/4's of the market is dependent on government grants, loans and subsidies you don't have a free market.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Some factions of the right are starting to push hard for new discrimination laws since the racist ones failed decades ago. It's not unreasonable to posit legal discrimination could be used in regards to privatization of things all of society use to live their lives. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if people just stopped trying to discriminate against others. We have a modern society maybe it's time to start acting like it as a nation. 

---