Quote:That's a pretty big false equivalency lets stay reasonable here.

 

I'll expand on what I'm saying, Anchorman's argument was that a business exist to serve the public and therefor has to be required to serve all of the public equally.

That's reasonable if all business exist to serve the public, but that's not the purpose of business at all. For example there are business to business transactions that exclude the public all together. There are exclusive transactions that discriminate against all kinds of groups. There are gender based, social economically based, racially based, ethnically based business that cater to specific demographics every day.

 

For Anchorman's argument to be true, that business exist to serve the public, we would have to accept that public service is primary to profit in order to operate a business in our society. On the surface that sounds great, people before profit! But that's not the economic system we have where the exchange of goods is the only engine driving our economy. If the purpose of business is to be public service we need to discuss changing the entire landscape of our economy, that's a big subject.

 

The reality is business doesn't exist to serve anyone other then those they choose to make a profit from. It's why you have to pay for services, it's why business of all type put qualifiers on who they will serve and it's why this notion that discrimination can be outlawed is silly at the core.