Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

Then how am I supposed to infer a definition from one example? Perhaps you expect me to develop clairvoyance? Or, alternatively, you could just provide a definition, and avoid this fool game.

Someone who is rude and abusive towards staff or other customers by impeding their shopping experience. Good enough?

Only active rudeness or abuse? Let's say a guy entered a shop with a T-shirt that says "God hates fags" on it, but otherwise said nothing out of place, should you have the right to eject him from your store?

[Ors Might]

Why do you keep offering all these odd scenarios? You can't cement over every bloody crack. Sometimes you just have to shrug, say 'eh' and walk on. The world is unfair and some humans can be cretins. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper.

Thats an odd scenario? It happens more often than you think

Prove that it happens often. Give us statistics, sources, etc

[Holy Tedalonia]

Why do you keep offering all these odd scenarios? You can't cement over every bloody crack. Sometimes you just have to shrug, say 'eh' and walk on. The world is unfair and some humans can be cretins. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper.

Thats an odd scenario? It happens more often than you think

The gay couple who are denied their pre-paid service without mention of a refund.
The what if rural store that denies service, even though for most rural places they ussually put up with no store at all and just travel out of town to stores regardless

You know, the usual.

[Galloism]

I still want to know why some public businesses should get the right to discriminate based on protected characteristics, but others shouldn't, from San Lumen's point of view.

why not?

I dont know. Considering that prostitution is a sexual act I dont think the government could or should compel someone to have intimate relations with someone they dont want too.

But why should black people not have the service of prostitutes? They're open for business to the public.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I still want to know why some public businesses should get the right to discriminate based on protected characteristics, but others shouldn't, from San Lumen's point of view.

But why should black people not have the service of prostitutes? They're open for business to the public.

I don’t particularly remember prostitution being legal in good ‘ol usa

[Telconi]

I still want to know why some public businesses should get the right to discriminate based on protected characteristics, but others shouldn't, from San Lumen's point of view.

I don’t particularly remember prostitution being legal in good ‘ol usa

Nevada would like a word with you.

[Galloism]

I still want to know why some public businesses should get the right to discriminate based on protected characteristics, but others shouldn't, from San Lumen's point of view.

I don’t particularly remember prostitution being legal in good ‘ol usa

It is in parts.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I don’t particularly remember prostitution being legal in good ‘ol usa

Nevada would like a word with you.

*runs for the state border*

[Ors Might]

I still want to know why some public businesses should get the right to discriminate based on protected characteristics, but others shouldn't, from San Lumen's point of view.

But why should black people not have the service of prostitutes? They're open for business to the public.

It’s an interesting thing to consider. The current laws dictate that private businesses cannot discriminate against protected classes. If prostitution is legalized, this carries some interesting implications. Is consent meaningful if you can be fined for discriminating against a class of clientele? Current understanding of consent doesn’t seem comparible with current anti-discrimination laws.

[Estanglia]

But why should you be discriminated against based on where you live?

a small town in Missouri is discriminated against because there is no chain stores or restaurants there?

How is that discrimination? If you want a restaurant in your town so bad open one yourself.

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

[San Lumen]

a small town in Missouri is discriminated against because there is no chain stores or restaurants there?

How is that discrimination? If you want a restaurant in your town so bad open one yourself.

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

Using our small town scenario which is quite common it’s not a good example of discrimination. A small town of a few hundred is not going to generate enough profit to justify a location. A place like Jefferson City is more profitable and makes more sense bussines wise.

[Ors Might]

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

Using our small town scenario which is quite common it’s not a good example of discrimination. A small town of a few hundred is not going to generate enough profit to justify a location. A place like Jefferson City is more profitable and makes more sense bussines wise.

If it's “quite common” why is it not a good example?

[Estanglia]

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

Using our small town scenario which is quite common it’s not a good example of discrimination. A small town of a few hundred is not going to generate enough profit to justify a location. A place like Jefferson City is more profitable and makes more sense bussines wise.

I don't see how this relates to my post.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Using our small town scenario which is quite common it’s not a good example of discrimination. A small town of a few hundred is not going to generate enough profit to justify a location. A place like Jefferson City is more profitable and makes more sense bussines wise.

I don't see how this relates to my post.

a small town in Missouri is discriminated against because there is no chain stores or restaurants there?

How is that discrimination? If you want a restaurant in your town so bad open one yourself.

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

He litterally looked at the first sentence and ignored the rest. Classic Comic Sans.

[Estanglia]

I don't see how this relates to my post.

He litterally looked at the first sentence and ignored the rest. Classic Comic Sans.

Oh, now I get it.

That comment was literally just there to prove one of my later points. On its own, it isn't much.

The meat of it is later, alongside the question I asked. Yeah, he skipped most of my post and its points.

[San Lumen]

He litterally looked at the first sentence and ignored the rest. Classic Comic Sans.

Oh, now I get it.

That comment was literally just there to prove one of my later points. On its own, it isn't much.

The meat of it is later, alongside the question I asked. Yeah, he skipped most of my post and its points.

I was explaining to you how it’s not discrimination to not have any restaurants or major stores in a small town.

The other points we have been over

[Holy Tedalonia]

Oh, now I get it.

That comment was literally just there to prove one of my later points. On its own, it isn't much.

The meat of it is later, alongside the question I asked. Yeah, he skipped most of my post and its points.

I was explaining to you how it’s not discrimination to not have any restaurants or major stores in a small town.

The other points we have been over

We’ve been over your discussions a thousand times before, have the same level of politeness.

[San Lumen]

I was explaining to you how it’s not discrimination to not have any restaurants or major stores in a small town.

The other points we have been over

We’ve been over your discussions a thousand times before, have the same level of politeness.

I don’t see how I have a double standard

[Galloism]

If you a restaurant in town that isn't racist, open one yourself.

You have quite the double standard, Lumen. I mean, you argue against all of our points and arguments, then as soon as it comes to this (an extension of the 'right' to service) you flip 180 degrees and start using our arguments whilst arguing against your own arguments.

Like the 'too bad' one. We said that in regards to customers being refused service.
Or the 'go to a different town' one. Same thing here.
Or the 'you don't have a right' one. We said that in regards to the 'right' to service.

It sounds to me that you're just arguing for the status quo using the argument that it's the status quo (how many times have you used 'it's the law!'?), and trying to find other reasons for it, hence the swapping of positions when it comes to this argument. Why? is my question. What makes the current status quo so good?

Using our small town scenario which is quite common it’s not a good example of discrimination. A small town of a few hundred is not going to generate enough profit to justify a location. A place like Jefferson City is more profitable and makes more sense bussines wise.

It's also worth note discrimination becomes less of an issue in a metropolitan area, as there will be other stores doing the exact same thing that don't discriminate.

[Telconi]

We’ve been over your discussions a thousand times before, have the same level of politeness.

I don’t see how I have a double standard

Discrimination against religion is wrong, unless you dislike the religion.

Discrimination against political belief is wrong, unless you dislike the political belief.

People shouldn't be forced to relocate if they are mistreated by their community. Unless you want them mistreated.

I don't believe I've seen a single ideologically consistent standard from you.

[Elwher]

What about discrimination of the basis of moral use of a product? Does the creator or the seller of a product have the moral right, or even a moral duty, to decline to sell a product when, in his opinion, it will be used for an immoral purpose?

[Holy Tedalonia]

We’ve been over your discussions a thousand times before, have the same level of politeness.

I don’t see how I have a double standard

Doesn't mean you can should just straight up ignore people's opinion. It's not quite fair if we respond to your points, when you do not respond to ours

[San Lumen]

I don’t see how I have a double standard

Discrimination against religion is wrong, unless you dislike the religion.

Discrimination against political belief is wrong, unless you dislike the political belief.

People shouldn't be forced to relocate if they are mistreated by their community. Unless you want them mistreated.

I don't believe I've seen a single ideologically consistent standard from you.

I just explained how not having any restaurants or stores in a small town isn’t discrimination

[Telconi]

Discrimination against religion is wrong, unless you dislike the religion.

Discrimination against political belief is wrong, unless you dislike the political belief.

People shouldn't be forced to relocate if they are mistreated by their community. Unless you want them mistreated.

I don't believe I've seen a single ideologically consistent standard from you.

I just explained how not having any restaurants or stores in a small town isn’t discrimination

It is, but that's also irrelevant to your ideological consistency, or lack thereof.

[San Lumen]

I just explained how not having any restaurants or stores in a small town isn’t discrimination

It is, but that's also irrelevant to your ideological consistency, or lack thereof.

How? I just showed how it’s not. Prove otherwise