Should Businesses be allowed to discriminate?

[Galloism]

Never said anything about the government being forced to do any such thing. The government is the one doing the forcing.

Actually they are equivalent when looking at the options being discussed:

A) people should be able to decide for themselves when to provide their services even when it includes discrimination based on factors of which other people disapprove
or
B) government should step in and forbid people from not providing services (backed up by government force)

I edited out to say "business".

Also, your dichotomy isn't even accurate. A more accurate about the arguments being discussed is:

A) Businesses should be able to discriminate based on the unlimited right for business owner to do whatever they want with their businesses.
B) Businesses should not be able to discriminate based on the government's responsibility to have rules and regulations governing businesses to protect consumers from discrimination and businesses themselves from retaliation.

I mean, B was a huge thing.

Owners who didn't want to discriminate but felt pressured by their racist town were relieved by the passage of the civil rights act and the nondiscrimination provisions those put in play. That means they could run their business in a nondiscriminatory way without fear of retaliation.

[BK117B2]

Yes, I do. Why do you ask that in relation to a post that has nothing to do with that topic?

Because it is obvious that, in your rabid defense of businesses being able to discriminate, you fail to truly comprehend the issue at hand.

You're projecting.

[Galloism]

They do, but they are governed by the laws that govern customers, which is a different set of legal principles (hence why dine & dash is illegal, for instance).

Under those laws, they are not required to use any particular business because they are not operating a public accommodation.

Which, again, is something that is based just on government dictate....something unrelated to the topic at hand. The discussion is about what government should be doing rather than what it is doing

And the government should be requiring businesses that operate as public accommodations be nondiscriminatory over things like race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation - because it's good for society, good for customers, good for business owners who want to run ethical businesses, and good for the economy.

The only people that get harmed are racist sexist fucks, and I honestly don't give a damn about them.

[BK117B2]

They can close up shop, but they have every right to earn a living. The topic isn't about whether people should or should not trade their services.

The topic is about whether or not government should be involved in forced labor.

Again, if this is the best you have, that businesses are being FORCED to provide services, then your argument is truly pathetic, as NOBODY is arguing even remotely that they should be forced to provide services.

You are intentionally ignoring reality. That is the entire point being discussed: should government be requiring the providing of services (backed up by government force)

[Galloism]

Again, if this is the best you have, that businesses are being FORCED to provide services, then your argument is truly pathetic, as NOBODY is arguing even remotely that they should be forced to provide services.

You are intentionally ignoring reality. That is the entire point being discussed: should government be requiring the providing of services (backed up by government force)

No individual person is forced to provide services they do not wish to provide. You're using a flamethrower on a strawman.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because your question is unhinged from reality.

Actually, the question would be very telling. I notice that you would rather spend multiple posts avoiding the question than a single word to answer it.

No it wouldn't, because it doesn't make sense.

Businesses are not out there to make transactions, they are out there to persuade people to choose them for their transactions.

Two different, and completely unrelated things.

[BK117B2]

Because it is obvious that, in your rabid defense of businesses being able to discriminate, you fail to truly comprehend the issue at hand.

It's not just the fact that in his rabid defense he is failing to understand the issue.

It is that in his rabid defense of businesses being able to discriminate, he is removing himself from fucking reality.

You're the one pretending like you don't even know what the topic is about. Removing oneself from reality? That's called projection lady

[Mavorpen]

You are intentionally ignoring reality. That is the entire point being discussed: should government be requiring the providing of services (backed up by government force)

No individual person is forced to provide services they do not wish to provide. You're using a flamethrower on a strawman.

Poor Charlie.

[BK117B2]

Never said anything about the government being forced to do any such thing. The government is the one doing the forcing.

Actually they are equivalent when looking at the options being discussed:

A) people should be able to decide for themselves when to provide their services even when it includes discrimination based on factors of which other people disapprove
or
B) government should step in and forbid people from not providing services (backed up by government force)

I edited out to say "business".

Also, your dichotomy isn't even accurate. A more accurate about the arguments being discussed is:

A) Businesses should be able to discriminate based on the unlimited right for business owner to do whatever they want with their businesses.
B) Businesses should not be able to discriminate based on the government's responsibility to have rules and regulations governing businesses to protect consumers from discrimination and businesses themselves from retaliation.

That's clearly wrong. You ignore the reality of the situation in favor of your assumptions about it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's not just the fact that in his rabid defense he is failing to understand the issue.

It is that in his rabid defense of businesses being able to discriminate, he is removing himself from fucking reality.

You're the one pretending like you don't even know what the topic is about. Removing oneself from reality? That's called projection lady

I know what the topic is about:

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?

My argument is that public accommodations shouldn't, but if you become a non-public private club you're free to do so.

Apparently I know my argument better than you do your own.

EDIT: Also, I am a man, I am sure you didn't mean to call me a fruitcup, correct?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I edited out to say "business".

Also, your dichotomy isn't even accurate. A more accurate about the arguments being discussed is:

A) Businesses should be able to discriminate based on the unlimited right for business owner to do whatever they want with their businesses.
B) Businesses should not be able to discriminate based on the government's responsibility to have rules and regulations governing businesses to protect consumers from discrimination and businesses themselves from retaliation.

That's clearly wrong. You ignore the reality of the situation in favor of your assumptions about it.

Oh yea? And what's the reality of the situation? That, according to you, I am a slave to the government simply because I can''t discriminate?

Go on, I'll wait for an answer to my question.

[Galloism]

That's clearly wrong. You ignore the reality of the situation in favor of your assumptions about it.

Oh yea? And what's the reality of the situation? That, according to you, I am a slave to the government simply because I can''t discriminate?

Honestly, you can even operate a business yourself that's a public accommodation while refusing to serve black people personally - provided you have at least one employee that is always available (during normal hours) who is willing to do so and provides equal service to what you, yourself, would provide.

I mean - no individual is required to perform labor they dislike as a function of law.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh yea? And what's the reality of the situation? That, according to you, I am a slave to the government simply because I can''t discriminate?

Honestly, you can even operate a business yourself that's a public accommodation while refusing to serve black people personally - provided you have at least one employee that is always available (during normal hours) who is willing to do so and provides equal service to what you, yourself, would provide.

I mean - no individual is required to perform labor they dislike as a function of law.

Indeed.

I mean, you would be a dick if you refuse to service yourself a client, but if there is someone else who can do the job and is willing to that's not illegal.

[Galloism]

Honestly, you can even operate a business yourself that's a public accommodation while refusing to serve black people personally - provided you have at least one employee that is always available (during normal hours) who is willing to do so and provides equal service to what you, yourself, would provide.

I mean - no individual is required to perform labor they dislike as a function of law.

Indeed.

I mean, you would be a dick if you refuse to service yourself a client, but if there is someone else who can do the job and is willing to that's not illegal.

Well, yes - but, generally speaking, being a dick is not illegal.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Because it is obvious that, in your rabid defense of businesses being able to discriminate, you fail to truly comprehend the issue at hand.

You're projecting.

Sure, I am projecting you.

[Confederation of Common Sense]

A business is a privately owned operation. it is morally wrong to deny service to certain customers however a law is unnecessary in most cases. If this is about the "gay cake' thing then that business owner had every right to because it was offensive to him

"Oh my god, I'm so offended by a gay cake!"

Then the business owner should get a fucking spine.

[Thermodolia]

No! Not at all! Nope! Nada! Zip! Zero! Zilch!

[Galloism]

A business is a privately owned operation. it is morally wrong to deny service to certain customers however a law is unnecessary in most cases. If this is about the "gay cake' thing then that business owner had every right to because it was offensive to him

"Oh my god, I'm so offended by a gay cake!"

Then the business owner should get a fucking spine.

Or get into a business that doesn't involve cakes.

[Thermodolia]

A business is a privately owned operation. it is morally wrong to deny service to certain customers however a law is unnecessary in most cases. If this is about the "gay cake' thing then that business owner had every right to because it was offensive to him

"Oh my god, I'm so offended by a gay cake!"

Then the business owner should get a fucking spine.

Where can I get one of these "gay cakes"? I thought there where just cakes, not gay ones? Am I wrong?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Oh my god, I'm so offended by a gay cake!"

Then the business owner should get a fucking spine.

Where can I get one of these "gay cakes"? I thought there where just cakes, not gay ones? Am I wrong?

No, gay cakes are clearly made out of skittles.

TASTE THE RAINBOW!

[Thermodolia]

Where can I get one of these "gay cakes"? I thought there where just cakes, not gay ones? Am I wrong?

No, gay cakes are clearly made out of skittles.

TASTE THE RAINBOW!

Silly me!

[BK117B2]

You're the one pretending like you don't even know what the topic is about. Removing oneself from reality? That's called projection lady

I know what the topic is about:

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?

My argument is that public accommodations shouldn't, but if you become a non-public private club you're free to do so.

Apparently I know my argument better than you do your own.

EDIT: Also, I am a man, I am sure you didn't mean to call me a fruitcup, correct?

Apparently you're a bit unfamiliar with your argument.

A fruitcup? I'm not familiar with that as a reference to people.

Okay, you're a man...so what?

[BK117B2]

That's clearly wrong. You ignore the reality of the situation in favor of your assumptions about it.

Oh yea? And what's the reality of the situation? That, according to you, I am a slave to the government simply because I can''t discriminate?

Go on, I'll wait for an answer to my question.

That your opinion of government responsibility is only that: your opinion

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know what the topic is about:

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?

My argument is that public accommodations shouldn't, but if you become a non-public private club you're free to do so.

Apparently I know my argument better than you do your own.

EDIT: Also, I am a man, I am sure you didn't mean to call me a fruitcup, correct?

Apparently you're a bit unfamiliar with your argument.

A fruitcup? I'm not familiar with that as a reference to people.

Okay, you're a man...so what?

Can you say why am I unfamiliar with my argument?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh yea? And what's the reality of the situation? That, according to you, I am a slave to the government simply because I can''t discriminate?

Go on, I'll wait for an answer to my question.

That your opinion of government responsibility is only that: your opinion

Okay, and? Your opinion about letting businesses serve who they want is only your opinion as well, so what's your point?