Should Businesses be allowed to discriminate?

[Royal Hindustan]

I hate bigots, but they are free to do what they want. You don't want to serve gays, fine, don't. It's you who'll be losing out on sales. As for hiring, if competent people are rejected in one place, then another, more open place would hire them, and that place would benefit from their skills. Plus, would you really want to work in a hostile environment that doesn't suit your needs?

[Ifreann]

You seem to think businesses will lean into non-discrimination on their own accord because, apparently, people are not racist. As NSG has proven in and of itself, that is a fallacious assumption to make, that people will be happy with non-discriminating businesses.

So? I'm not going to shop at racist businesses. You shouldn't either.

It's not the government's place to tell businesses who they can hire, fire, or serve.

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Those who can get the goods are generally referred to as "paying customers", with the operating word being "paying" and not "customer".

I bet everyone thinks you're so cool and that you have so many friends after that post.

Oh, wait. Never mind. That post was IRRELAVENT to my argument.

See, my argument is that you are not entitled to goods or services. I used the "those who can get them" to show that not everyone is entitled to them, proving my point.

But, if it makes you feel that good about yourself, I will update my previous post.

Are they entitled to them? No. PAYING CUSTOMERS can enjoy them, those that can't don't. No one is entitled to goods.

By that logic, I don't need to work. I'm entitled to food, water, and shelter.

Yes, you are not entitled to them. But if a customer can pay for your services, then why not provide said services?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Racists won't go shopping at non-racist businesses. If a business tries to be as non-discriminatory as it possibly can in an area where people sincerely believe racist BS, and it is a small business, you're forcing a small business to close because of the location of the business, and not because they are discriminatory.

So? Businesses close all the time because they are put in a bad location. For example, I live within a few miles of a Hardee's that has closed down at least three times becuase of unprofitability, yet they keep trying again.

My point still stands.

[Galloism]

They no longer want your services. They found someone else who doesn't support them gay people.

Then it's very odd that they just keep continuing to pay me, but I won't argue

Obviously, they also stop paying you.

[Greed and Death]

What kind of backwards ultraconservative asswipe wrote that bill?

This guy.

Edit: as a side note, he even looks like a douchebag.

He is bound to be caught with a rent a boy soon enough.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Racists won't go shopping at non-racist businesses. If a business tries to be as non-discriminatory as it possibly can in an area where people sincerely believe racist BS, and it is a small business, you're forcing a small business to close because of the location of the business, and not because they are discriminatory.

So? Businesses close all the time because they are put in a bad location. For example, I live within a few miles of a Hardee's that has closed down at least three times becuase of unprofitability, yet they keep trying again.

My point still stands.

So you believe that a discriminatory community should have discriminatory businesses? Why?

[Royal Hindustan]

Racists won't go shopping at non-racist businesses. If a business tries to be as non-discriminatory as it possibly can in an area where people sincerely believe racist BS, and it is a small business, you're forcing a small business to close because of the location of the business, and not because they are discriminatory.

So? Businesses close all the time because they are put in a bad location. For example, I live within a few miles of a Hardee's that has closed down at least three times becuase of unprofitability, yet they keep trying again.

My point still stands.

A business is a for profit entity. It's great if it works for morals, but it doesn't fucking need to. You are basically saying a business should become a martyr, you know, without the self determination.

[Galloism]

So? I'm not going to shop at racist businesses. You shouldn't either.

It's not the government's place to tell businesses who they can hire, fire, or serve.

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

Health codes are oppression.

[Republic of the Cristo]

You are putting words in my mouth. You make me sound like some anarcho capitalist. All I said was that a business has the right to provide for refuse service to any customer it so choses.

Clearly they do not.

I do believe that some restrictions should be put on business to ensure that they are not harming the general public. Yes, selling such items to children harms everyone. Not only does it harm the children, but it also harms their friends and family.

By that logic it is perfectly acceptable to prohibit businesses from denying people serviced based on their race, sex, etc, since such practices harm the general public.

---

Here is one right here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_(Indiana)

Also, the civil rights act of 1964 full summary is as follows

"An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

This only ended discrimination in publicly owned facilities.

Besides, we are not arguing if businesses are allowed, rather should they be.

"[P]ublic accommodations" doesn't mean "publicly owned".

Yes, yes they do. I sent a source up above, but that is not what this thread is about.

No, it is not perfectly acceptable to prohibit them from discriminating. If a business refuses to provide a service, then people can go to another business. Pretty simple here. Where one business will not accept your kind, another certainly will. Problem solved!

Also, Public accommodations can mean publicly owned or privately owned or both. This all depending the circumstances. Here is a more official definition. " Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public."
Although they can be used to mean both Private and Public, the 1964 civil rights act ( as mentioned in the first paragraph of the general summary) outlines publically owned facilities.

THIS IS NOT THE INTENDED QUESTION. WE ARE THREAD JACKING, THE QUESTION WAS SHOULD THEY. BACK ON TOPIC!

[Royal Hindustan]

So? I'm not going to shop at racist businesses. You shouldn't either.

It's not the government's place to tell businesses who they can hire, fire, or serve.

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

Let the business owners decide. No one wants to work for some place they don't like, or they don't shop at that place. Many of my friends stopped eating Chick fil A, because of their anti-gay stance. When you let the free market take it's course, you give people a right to choose, which is essential to the American ideal of freedom.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

Health codes are oppression.

You mean to tell me that the government telling me I cannot do computer forensics for use in court cases is oppression against my practice?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Yes, you are not entitled to them. But if a customer can pay for your services, then why not provide said services?

If you provide a service to someone, you are participating in the act they requested. Baking a wedding cake is a participation in the wedding. Providing flowers for a party is a participation in the party. Photographing a neo-Nazi rally is participating in the rally.
By participating in something, you are indirectly condoning it by providing your skills, service, or capital to facilitate it. To some people, participating in an event can be sinful.

This is why people can turn down participating in a gay wedding by matter of conscience. It's why a Jew should be allowed to turn down participating in a Nazi rally as a matter of conscience, and it's why a Muslim caterer should refuse to participate in handling pork as a matter of conscience.

[BK117B2]

So? I'm not going to shop at racist businesses. You shouldn't either.

It's not the government's place to tell businesses who they can hire, fire, or serve.

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

Because it is theirs, not the government's

Telling someone to do something doesn't magically make it your business

[Geiseria]

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

Let the business owners decide. No one wants to work for some place they don't like, or they don't shop at that place. Many of my friends stopped eating Chick fil A, because of their anti-gay stance. When you let the free market take it's course, you give people a right to choose, which is essential to the American ideal of freedom.

Thank you! I've been saying this all thread long!

[BK117B2]

Then it's very odd that they just keep continuing to pay me, but I won't argue

Obviously, they also stop paying you.

And yet they just keep paying me, what an interesting paradox

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, you are not entitled to them. But if a customer can pay for your services, then why not provide said services?

If you provide a service to someone, you are participating in the act they requested. Baking a wedding cake is a participation in the wedding. Providing flowers for a party is a participation in the party. Photographing a neo-Nazi rally is participating in the rally.
By participating in something, you are indirectly condoning it by providing your skills, service, or capital to facilitate it. To some people, participating in an event can be sinful.

This is why people can turn down participating in a gay wedding by matter of conscience. It's why a Jew should be allowed to turn down participating in a Nazi rally as a matter of conscience, and it's why a Muslim caterer should refuse to participate in handling pork as a matter of conscience.

A Nazi rally and a Muslim caterer are two different things that have nothing to do with making something.

And does that mean that if I repair a computer of someone who is a pedophile, I am participating in pedophilia?

[Royal Hindustan]

I quote David Starkey, an atheist homosexual, and one of my favorite historians:

"We are creating a new tyranny. This business was a small one, and what they should have done was put a sign up and say, we are a Christian business, and we don't believe in certain ideals."

This hotel doesn't offer you service, alright, it's called booking another one. Stop acting like children.

[Geiseria]

So? I'm not going to shop at racist businesses. You shouldn't either.

It's not the government's place to tell businesses who they can hire, fire, or serve.

Why the hell not? Governments tell businesses to do or to not do all manner of other shit.

And they shouldn't. Whether or not they should is what the thread is about. Not whether or not they do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I quote David Starkey, an atheist homosexual, and one of my favorite historians:

"We are creating a new tyranny. This business was a small one, and what they should have done was put a sign up and say, we are a Christian business, and we don't believe in certain ideals."

This hotel doesn't offer you service, alright, it's called booking another one. Stop acting like children.

The problem comes when a hotel is the only one that exists in town, or when the hotel is the only one that has a partnership with the business you are working with.

There is not an unlimited number of hotels, and there is not an unlimited number of partnerships.

[Royal Hindustan]

If you provide a service to someone, you are participating in the act they requested. Baking a wedding cake is a participation in the wedding. Providing flowers for a party is a participation in the party. Photographing a neo-Nazi rally is participating in the rally.
By participating in something, you are indirectly condoning it by providing your skills, service, or capital to facilitate it. To some people, participating in an event can be sinful.

This is why people can turn down participating in a gay wedding by matter of conscience. It's why a Jew should be allowed to turn down participating in a Nazi rally as a matter of conscience, and it's why a Muslim caterer should refuse to participate in handling pork as a matter of conscience.

A Nazi rally and a Muslim caterer are two different things that have nothing to do with making something.

And does that mean that if I repair a computer of someone who is a pedophile, I am participating in pedophilia?

Of course not, but I for one would not want to work with a pedophile. I should reserve the right to refuse him service. (Before I get fucking ripped apart, I am in no way comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I am merely giving an example).

[Anollasia]

No. Business is business.

[New Greater Japanese Empire]

Eh, why not? I'm someone who constantly trumpets free will and free speech, so if they want to discriminate, let them. I don't have to like what they're doing, but whatever. Of course, within reason; though the definition of that varies from person to person.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A Nazi rally and a Muslim caterer are two different things that have nothing to do with making something.

And does that mean that if I repair a computer of someone who is a pedophile, I am participating in pedophilia?

Of course not, but I for one would not want to work with a pedophile. I should reserve the right to refuse him service. (Before I get fucking ripped apart, I am in no way comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I am merely giving an example).

I never suggested homosexuals were pedophiles either, I was just placing an example of a morally, and legally, dubious person to make my point.

That just because you do something for someone doesn't necessarily mean you are participating in an activity they are doing.

[Geiseria]

If you provide a service to someone, you are participating in the act they requested. Baking a wedding cake is a participation in the wedding. Providing flowers for a party is a participation in the party. Photographing a neo-Nazi rally is participating in the rally.
By participating in something, you are indirectly condoning it by providing your skills, service, or capital to facilitate it. To some people, participating in an event can be sinful.

This is why people can turn down participating in a gay wedding by matter of conscience. It's why a Jew should be allowed to turn down participating in a Nazi rally as a matter of conscience, and it's why a Muslim caterer should refuse to participate in handling pork as a matter of conscience.

A Nazi rally and a Muslim caterer are two different things that have nothing to do with making something.

And does that mean that if I repair a computer of someone who is a pedophile, I am participating in pedophilia?

Depends. Is the person downloading child porn on a computer? Or are they simply getting children into their van? Unless the computer was or is used for pedophillia, youa re not participating in it.