A business open to the public isn't really in the same category as PRIVATE property like the house you live in.

 

if they're not funded by public funds then yes it is private property. A baker, restaurants, laundry mats, whatever storefront you want they are privately owned and operated should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason right or wrong. 

---

if they're not funded by public funds then yes it is private property. A baker, restaurants, laundry mats, whatever storefront you want they are privately owned and operated should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason right or wrong. 

 

You can say it's all the same.  It isn't really.  If you have a business like a restaurant, it's open to the public.  The property belongs to you, but it's not EXACTLY the same as your house or your car or your bank account, something like that.

---

Not "harming someone's property rights" in itself is a moral

 

Not in the same manor of morality you're trying to legislate. Making the line you can't harm someone else or there property is a reasonable line in the sand for any civilization. Once you go past that line and start trying to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior you're setting up a ranking class on perceived morals. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but why should my beliefs be legislated for or against? what if someone thinks heterosexuality is immoral, why is one of our moral beliefs superior to the other? Same goes for substances, prostitution, pornography, and do the line. By stating the line is not harming another parties property rights, you are setting the line at not forcing someone into prostitution, not forcing someone into pornography, not forcing someone to watch any of those acts, not allowing someone to be harmed in the process of those acts. Basically i advocate a government that says you can't kill someone unless it's self defense, you can't steal, you can't destroy anyone else's property otherwise do as you will.

---

You can say it's all the same.  It isn't really.  If you have a business like a restaurant, it's open to the public.  The property belongs to you, but it's not EXACTLY the same as your house or your car or your bank account, something like that.

 

why not? when did being open to the public mean you can no longer choose what parts of the public you want to serve? after the anti-discrimination movement, which was a just cause but misguided in how to implement it.

 

we as a society have bought into this notion that business isn't really private property and that's how they've sold this bill of goods to you. but business is very much private property especially at the smaller levels. now you can make an argument for once the business goes "public" and is selling stocks its not really private property anymore but how many companies selling stocks are looking to exclude any customer for any reason? 

---

Not in the same manor of morality you're trying to legislate. Making the line you can't harm someone else or there property is a reasonable line in the sand for any civilization. Once you go past that line and start trying to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior you're setting up a ranking class on perceived morals. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but why should my beliefs be legislated for or against? what if someone thinks heterosexuality is immoral, why is one of our moral beliefs superior to the other? Same goes for substances, prostitution, [BAD WORD REMOVED], and do the line. By stating the line is not harming another parties property rights, you are setting the line at not forcing someone into prostitution, not forcing someone into [BAD WORD REMOVED], not forcing someone to watch any of those acts, not allowing someone to be harmed in the process of those acts. Basically i advocate a government that says you can't kill someone unless it's self defense, you can't steal, you can't destroy anyone else's property otherwise do as you will.

 

What do you mean, "trying to legislate"?  It's been legislated.  So the idea that you "can't legislate morality" does not make sense to me.  You can; where you draw your line on what morals are important enough to make law is up for debate.  One of the main purposes of the law is to prohibit unacceptable behavior, provide justice for the people, and punish those who break it.

---

why not? when did being open to the public mean you can no longer choose what parts of the public you want to serve? after the anti-discrimination movement, which was a just cause but misguided in how to implement it.

 

we as a society have bought into this notion that business isn't really private property and that's how they've sold this bill of goods to you. but business is very much private property especially at the smaller levels. now you can make an argument for once the business goes "public" and is selling stocks its not really private property anymore but how many companies selling stocks are looking to exclude any customer for any reason? 

 

We're just going to go in circles.  All I'm saying is you can argue the free market philosophy all day long.  It won't work and won't happen.

---

If you have a license to do business (as food preparation outfits must), then you have to serve the public and you may not discriminate based on gender, race, or sexual orientation.

 

Wanna do business without a license?  You can risk it, but you'll probably get zapped eventually.  Mainly because you can poison the hell out of people, and authorities don't tend to look on that favorably.

 

As for renting out the apartment under you, most places don't require a license.  Like SC, I have rented my property before successfully without extensive government interference.

---

If you have a license to do business (as food preparation outfits must), then you have to serve the public and you may not discriminate based on gender, race, or sexual orientation.

 

Wanna do business without a license?  You can risk it, but you'll probably get zapped eventually.  Mainly because you can poison the hell out of people, and authorities don't tend to look on that favorably.

 

As for renting out the apartment under you, most places don't require a license.  Like SC, I have rented my property before successfully without extensive government interference.

 

I understand the law as it is, i just fundamentally disagree with it.

---

Is it fair for a business to be located on a publicly funded road, buy water, internet, electricity and sewage disposal from public utilities and deny certain segments of the public access to their product or service?

 

Before you answer, remember usage fees for most of those services are paid for by the business owner, but the price is subsidized by public tax revenues. More important, he cannot run a successful business without each of those services.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Is it fair for a business to be located on a publicly funded road, buy water, internet, electricity and sewage disposal from public utilities and deny certain segments of the public access to their product or service?


Before you answer, remember usage fees for most of those services are paid for by the business owner, but the price is subsidized by public tax revenues. More important, he cannot run a successful business without each of those services.

It has to be since using public utities isn't optional. The state holds monoploy on roads and utilities so that can't be used as a qualifier against property rights. Besides just because your home is on a public road and uses public utilities subsidized by tax payers does that mean I should have equal access to your home? Of course not, so the only real qualifier your using is the business asspect of it. If it's a business we ignore their property rights for the sake of fairness.

---

It has to be since using public utities isn't optional. The state holds monoploy on roads and utilities so that can't be used as a qualifier against property rights. Besides just because your home is on a public road and uses public utilities subsidized by tax payers does that mean I should have equal access to your home? Of course not, so the only real qualifier your using is the business asspect of it. If it's a business we ignore their property rights for the sake of someone else's notion of fairness.

---

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

If you have a license to do business (as food preparation outfits must), then you have to serve the public and you may not discriminate based on gender, race, or sexual orientation.

 

Wanna do business without a license?  You can risk it, but you'll probably get zapped eventually.  Mainly because you can poison the hell out of people, and authorities don't tend to look on that favorably.

 

As for renting out the apartment under you, most places don't require a license.  Like SC, I have rented my property before successfully without extensive government interference.

 

True libertarians will say they don't believe there should be any food regulations either.  The free market will just correct itself because people who get sick will just stop going there.

---

True libertarians will say they don't believe there should be any food regulations either.  The free market will just correct itself because people who get sick will just stop going there.

 

Do those regulations work? Maybe it's time to revisit the hand washing thread again?

---

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

Do those regulations work? Maybe it's time to revisit the hand washing thread again?

 

I'm glad they're there.  Inspections are necessary.  And consider the fact that the regulations did not exist until journalists did their job and uncovered shady business practices going on BEHIND THE SCENES.  The all-knowing free market failed, Brotato chip.

---

I'm glad they're there.  Inspections are necessary.  And consider the fact that the regulations did not exist until journalists did their job and uncovered shady business practices going on BEHIND THE SCENES.  The all-knowing free market failed, Brotato chip.

 

But do they work? Does that sign in the bathroom that says employees must wash their hands mean that they wash their hands?

---

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

True libertarians will say they don't believe there should be any food regulations either.  The free market will just correct itself because people who get sick will just stop going there.

 

I used to be a Libertarian.  Then I started listening to what they actually believed.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

But do they work? Does that sign in the bathroom that says employees must wash their hands mean that they wash their hands?

 

Obviously they wont be 100% effective, but to say they do NOTHING is not right imo.

---

But do they work? Does that sign in the bathroom that says employees must wash their hands mean that they wash their hands?

 

With all due respect, that's a dumb argument. No sign, or notice of any type, ensures a law will be observed. It is merely fair notice. People are going to break rules and laws, even if the penalty is as bad as incarceration or death.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

With all due respect, that's a dumb argument. No sign, or notice of any type, ensures a law will be observed. It is merely fair notice. People are going to break rules and laws, even if the penalty is as bad as incarceration or death.

 

We've already washed our hands of this argument once.

---

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