Oklahoma Restaurant: Not white, straight & rich? Screw you.

[The Black Forrest]

Sounds like a complete asshole to me. I think giving him an incintive (burning down his store with him and his racist customers) would be the best way to go.

Or just go to a different store that isn't run by a fucktard.

Racism warrants gruesome murder?

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

[Greed and Death]

Racism warrants gruesome murder?

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

I do not know if i can concur but burning down stuff is fun.

[Farnhamia]

Racism warrants gruesome murder?

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

But you aren't advocating gruesome murders, right? Right? Because that be trolling, wouldn't it?

[Greed and Death]

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

But you aren't advocating gruesome murders, right? Right? Because that be trolling, wouldn't it?

Or maybe advocating for an illegal action.

[The Black Forrest]

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

But you aren't advocating gruesome murders, right? Right? Because that be trolling, wouldn't it?

Damn it! Who left the door open? Another mod wandered in.

[The Black Forrest]

Why not? Racism performed countless gruesome murders.

I do not know if i can concur but burning down stuff is fun.

Almost as fun as burning old gun powder.

[The Black Forrest]

But you aren't advocating gruesome murders, right? Right? Because that be trolling, wouldn't it?

Or maybe advocating for an illegal action.

Yes because I have had a long obvious history of advocating violence and trolling this board.

[Spartan Philidelphia]

Or maybe advocating for an illegal action.

Yes because I have had a long obvious history of advocating violence and trolling this board.

You wouldn't hear such disrespectful accusations if you were the White Forrrest.

[The Antartic Colonies]

Xerographica - this is fantastic. I was wondering if you ever noticed my post & criticism of your stance on this issue. To be fair, I think you have brought up some good counter-arguments, but I think you may not have really defended your points well enough to sway me. Perhaps I am too entrenched into my own opinions, but I suspect the same can be said of you - I don't sense you've really understood my arguments. Allow me this chance to offer my follow-up to your responses.

This is a bad argument on several levels. The first paragraph argues that he has a right to choose his customers - that's wrong. If you're running a legal & publically accessible business, then you DO NOT have the right to be selective. If you want to choose your customers, don't bother with the business license and just run a pub in your own garage.

And this argument of yours is so great? All you've said is I'm wrong. That's it. You haven't explained how we are better off by creating laws which prevent business owners from engaging in discriminating practices. Would we be better off if we prevented consumers from engaging in discriminating practices? Why would you really want racists to have the freedom to not give their money to businesses owned by minorities? Why would you want atheists to have the freedom to not give their money to businesses owned by theists? Why would you want theists to have the freedom to not give their money to businesses owned by homosexuals?

Yes, I think my arguments were valid. You are correct that I was brief and didn't elaborate, but I thought I made my case in an earlier part of my post. Let me explain why:

1) At a fundumental level, setting up a business with a business license is an agreement with the state & federal government stating that the business owner wants legal recognition of their establishment. This is not a requirement - kids run lemonaid stands without filing for an LLC, for example. In return, the business owner makes a promise to abide by all local, state & federal laws - currently these include a promise not to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. So, in this first point, Gary's Chicaros is wrong legally.

2) On what grounds does Gary's Chicaros defend its discrimination? There is no evidence that being black, gay, or a liberal guarantees you to be a morally bankrupt person or less able to perform a fair & reasonable business transaction. Even if you argued bell curves & statistics, it is well known that correlation does not always equate to causation - for example, the average person is a 5'7", 170 pound hermaphrodite, but most of us do not fit that exact description. Ultimately, discrimination is a presumption that one or more perceived superficial traits equates to being less human or less trustworthy than others - this is a form of baseless slander and is therefore wrong morally as well.

3) I think you can agree that people have a right to spend their money as they see fit, regardless of their biases. As a private consumer, you have every right to withold business to anyone for any reason. This is legal and has been defended in court. A business is not allowed to discriminate in who it offers its services - that is illegal (see point #1). So, your counterpoint of equating the "right to discrimiate" to the "right to select where you do your business" is not valid.

The second paragraph is based on a false premise. Offering options like "Slavery or Death" is not sane, ethical, or even realistic - so let's not pretend they are "the best options". Illegal practices are illegal for a reason - otherwise, the law should be changed. Just because it makes money does not mean it should be allowed. If I started a business where I adopt orphans in China, raise them in camps in Mexico, and then harvest them for organs to sell in the U.S. and U.K., I doubt many people would find that ethical regardless of how much money I make or what you can say about population control, legalities in the countries I run my business, or whatever other arguments you can muster.

Taking organs from orphans is taking something valuable from people against their will. It's theft. But it's not theft when somebody chooses, for whatever reasons, not to give you their kidney. Just because you have a body doesn't mean that you should be forced to give your kidney to whoever wants one. Just because you have a business doesn't mean that you should be forced to give your product to whoever wants it. Everybody should be free to discriminate. Everybody should be free to not give their time, kidneys, biscuits to anybody for any reason.

Once again, I take issue with your argument. You make two separate points here, so I will address them separately.

Theft is not limited to a forceful separation of people and property. Televangelists who seduce their congregation to give money to support a bogus church, or a con artist who tricks someone into a transaction based on fabricated claims is also a form of theft. Personally, I even extend that into gambling - no one plays Texas Hold'em to give away their money. So, in the hypothetical business above, euthenizing or brainwashing the orphans to prevent them from resisting the harvesting of their organs is also a form of theft - not just if you strap them down on the surgical table kicking and screaming.

Like I stated above, in the United State you are not free to discriminate when you run a business that is open to the public. Like I stated before in the earier post - if you want the freedom to choose your patrons, don't file for a business license nor run it in a public place. Once again, you cannot equate the freedoms you have as a consumer and/or patron as you do being a business owner. Business owners have their own set of limitations and privileges.

There are alternatives to sweatshops - how about running an *honest* business? So long as people are willing (and able) to cut corners on business practices, there will be the "Race To the Bottom" mentality. That is why wrongdoers should be shut down instead of defended as "the best options". If you can't run an honest business, I'm sure someone else can - what's more "free-market" than that?

You're a logical failure. If someone can and does put a better option on the table...then there's absolutely no reason to remove the less better options from the table.

Seriously? Are you a libertarian? Libertarians want to remove public healthcare, public education, public welfare and numerous other options from the table. Why? Because they have faith that once these terrible public options are removed from the table that far better private options will be placed on the table.

The focus should be on encouraging construction rather than encouraging destruction. This thread is filled with knockers shouting, "tear it down! tear it down!" This mentality destroys value. What we need are people shouting, "build better options! build better options!". This mentality creates value. Don't encourage the destruction of a restaurant that isn't perfect...encourage the construction of a restaurant that does things better. Don't be a libertarian. Don't be a knocker. Be a builder.

Your first statement seems contradictory - it is the law of economics that removes lesser options when better ones become available because they are no longer viable for investment by an entrepeneur. So, yes the worse options should be removed when better options are introduced.

Quite frankly it should be evident from my posts that I am not a libertarian, but that isn't the focus of the debate. Further, I think it is a dumb argument to say that public services sour the market for private ones. The proof is in the pudding - if a private option can compete and beat a public one, then let's see it. Private businesses are killing the USPS, so I can believe in the U.S. there is ample opportunity for competition. If anything, keeping a public option helps set a "low water mark" on what should be offered. If you can't run a business on par with the Government, don't waste your time trying.

You remind me of the old phrase "The pot calling the kettle black." Don't be a knocker for public services. My take on this argument against public services is not that public services are so bad for consumers as they are bad for businesses trying to compete for consumer's business. I can accept the argument that a poorly-run public service is a waste of tax dollars, but that needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I'd argue that bad practices should be removed. Slavery was abolished because it was a vile and immoral practice, even though it made a lot of money. To be fair, I'd draw the line on a business when it is in the interest of the common good to end the practice. Ice-pick lobatomies, shoe-fitting x-ray machines, and forced sterility are all practices that were ended in the U.S. because the public demanded them to end and made them illegal - as well as racial discrimination.

The third paragraph is just plain bad. Prostitution is illegal for a reason - because it is immoral. Prostitution is immoral because it is destructive to society and the individuals that make up a society. Prostitutes are generally sex slaves, coerced by force, drug addictions, or stupidity to spread STDs and promote sexual degradation of women (and girls). If I believed in God, I'd also argue that it was also sinful and promoted adultery. So, let's avoid the obvious faux pas by not arguing a "Creation of Value" in an unsavory business market.

Nobody is saying that prostitution is a wonderful option. I'm just saying that removing it from the table destroys prostitutes' best option. And you destroy value by destroying best options. If you are genuinely concerned with the well being of prostitutes...you would build businesses that put better options on the table. If your options were truly better then the sex workers would exchange prostitution for your better options.

But you're not advocating that better options be placed on the table. And you're certainly not making the effort to build better options. This is why you're a knocker rather than a builder.

The fellow in Oklahoma is a builder. He employs people and maybe some of his employees are no longer prostitutes because he gave them a better option. Of course I have no idea if this is true...but the fact that people are choosing to work for him means that he has provided at least some people with better options. Builders give people better options. Whenever somebody gives anybody else a better option...they should be commended.

From your previous post, you seemed to condone prostitution. If you agree that prostitution is a wrong practice, then I have nothing further to argue on that specific point. Personally, I think drinking is a wrong practice but I don't have the right to forbade anyone from indulging in it because it is legal in this country, with no chance of reinstating the 18th amendment.

Back to the bigger point - prostitution is not the best option for anyone. There are places in this world where society is blatently unfair to women and there is considerable pressure upon the poor and desperate. These conditions do not exist here in the U.S. - anyone can go to a trade school or college, or start an honest business. People who instead sell themselves like that are ignorant to all of the options currently out there - and there is no excuse as a society for us to let them break the law. Arguing otherwise can be an indirect endorsement of the practice. These things need to be discouraged for the reasons I laid out earlier.

Like I argued earlier in my hypothetical business of farming human organs - if I did such a thing, would I also be a builder and worthy to be commended? Is there no room in your argument to make exception for illegal and/or immoral practice?

Finally, let me re-iterate my general point: unregulated markets can and do cause trouble. Prior to any bust in U.S. history, you can find deregulation just before an economically shaky boom. Our most recent was the improper regulation of banking practices, including giving out variable interest-rate home loans to people who couldn't afford them (and then selling them as stocks around the world). There is an argument for "Buyer Beware", so I'm not going to give a free pass to all of the people who got screwed. But, as a liberal* I believe that one of the primary purposes of Government is to serve as a vehicle for Social Justice. Therefore, the government should regulate business practices to ensure consumer safety, consumer confidence and market stability. Ensuring a business that is open to the public is open in practice is also within this scope, so I say NAY to Rand Paul's arguments and to Gary's Chicaros.

Of course you say "nay" to ethical producerism. That's exactly what knockers say. And you are a knocker that knows absolutely nothing about economics. If you actually make the effort to study economics then you would know that we have absolutely no idea what the actual demand for public goods truly is. And you probably think that it's not a problem that we have absolutely no idea what the actual demand for war truly is. You're a knocker because you struggle to think things through.

Knocking down is a race to the bottom. Building up is a race to the top.

You sound like you are framing the debate to say that any practice that makes money is good for everyone. This argument is what I and others who've posted statements critical to yours are opposed against. Making money by any means necessary is not condoned nor endorsed here in the U.S.. We have limits, and they include a racial selection bias in who you serve in a public forum. On this point, the law is the law and there is no further I can argue on that. If enough people can agree with you, feel free to change the law and shut me up. Until then, I stand resolute on this point.

You also sound very smug in your position, so I acquiesce that I will not convince you that you hold a wrong belief. Therefore, I can only warn you about discounting arguments that don't agree with your current world view. I cannot say that Gary's Chicaros didn't provide employment for people to feed their families or help send their kids to college. I cannot say that Gary's Chicaros didn't provide excellent service to those that were welcomed into its establishment. And, I cannot say that running an illegal business practice for 44 years isn't a testament that you can make a profit in spite of being a racist (or even because of being a racist). But, once again be careful you're not drawing a wrong conclusion from the evidence. People who defend immoral practice under the guise of justification run the risk of committing worse and worse atrocities. At what point can ambulatory workers or hospitals have the same prerequisites for treating patients? Aren't there enough hospitals for blacks, gays... or libertarians? At what point can public institutions begin to justify the same prejudices? Where is the line - when it stops making money?

Finally, I still take issue with Rand Paul's libertarian ideals because they are naive. He believes that a lawless economic system helps everyone, and that isn't true. We had that, once - back in the late 19th century. We wound up with monopolies, boom-bust economies, and a dystopian society that really doesn't generate a lot of properity for more than a select few. We chose to mandate the 40-hour work week, factory safety standards, consumer protection via the FDA (although today it's a joke), and have reduced the number of economic crashes to periods right after a pro-business president & congress deregulate a major industry prior to its collapse. No one wants to go back there but those who've forgotten how easy it is to rig the system when no one is enforcing the rules. We are all better for it - including those who disagreed with the rules.

Only a fool or morally bankrupt bastard would want to return to the robber-baron days of the 1800s. I suspect you believe it will be different, but I dare say it is people like you who are ignorant of economics. I will presume you are not a racist, so I will not accuse you of that. I am not that kind of person.

[Greed and Death]

Or maybe advocating for an illegal action.

Yes because I have had a long obvious history of advocating violence and trolling this board.

I will take that as a confession.
Guards off with his head.

[Vozt Yurkova]

Bad opinion that drives him to break federal law.

Guess personal opinion is a great exculpatory evidence.

"Your honor, I ban niggers and fags from the establishment because it's my personal opinion."

"Case dismissed."

Part of my point is that I don't think racist screening of a business' clientele should be illegal. You quoted the part where I said if it's going to be against the law, make it criminal. Unless it already is, and I'm being dumb. I know next to nothing about the American legal system (or even my own country's) and was reacting to a mention of lawsuits in the OP, which to me means a civil compensation claim. I mean, why would anyone need monetary compensation for not being allowed to spend money somewhere? It hasn't affected their ability to earn an income.

[Xerographica]

Xerographica - this is fantastic. I was wondering if you ever noticed my post & criticism of your stance on this issue. To be fair, I think you have brought up some good counter-arguments, but I think you may not have really defended your points well enough to sway me. Perhaps I am too entrenched into my own opinions, but I suspect the same can be said of you - I don't sense you've really understood my arguments. Allow me this chance to offer my follow-up to your responses.

Am I too entrenched in my own opinions? I grew up believing in god...but I changed my beliefs when I was around 11. Politics wise I started as a libertarian...but then I changed my beliefs when I thoroughly studied the best arguments in favor of more government (liberalism) and those in favor of no government (anarcho-capitalism). I nearly always read what my opponents suggest that I should read. As a result of all this, I'm equally familiar with the economic arguments of Paul Samuelson (Nobel Prize winning liberal economist) and those of James M. Buchanan (Nobel Prize winning market economist).

If I was firmly entrenched in my own opinion, then I simply would have assumed that those on either side of my position had nothing of value.

Now, it's because I'm thoroughly versed in the best arguments of both sides...that it's really easy for me to tell from your arguments that you haven't really done much digging into what the other side has to say. Not just that, but I'm also confident that you're not familiar with the best economic arguments in favor of government. And by best I mean most widely cited. You seem older...and I'm doubtful that you're going to start doing some serious digging. But I might be wrong.

Were Jesus and Socrates wrong? The majority thought they were wrong...so they had them killed for being blasphemers. When I really seriously think about this I am filled with self doubt. It's so easy to jump on the bandwagon. This concern leads me to ethical pragmatism. What is false today might be true tomorrow. What is gospel today might be heresy tomorrow.

So I certainly do not take rules at face value. A lot of your argument consists of pointing out the rules to me. But the rules don't reflect economics...they reflect the opinions of the majority. Rules should never reflect opinions...they should always reflect values. And values can only be revealed by personal sacrifice.

Therefore, I'm not a liberal, I'm not a libertarian...and I'm not a conservative...I'm a pragmatarian. I believe that people should be free to choose where their taxes go.

Kinda like in the Bible with Noah. People were certain that he was insane...but they didn't prevent him and his family from building and boarding his boat. And Noah, even though he was confident that he was correct...he didn't try and force anybody to board his boat. Both sides were certain that the other side was making a mistake...but they didn't intervene. This is the standard. It's heterogeneous activity. It's a decentralized approach. It's hedging our bets...it's not putting all our eggs in one basket.

The alternative is centralization...conceit...hubris...overconfidence. Failure to recognize that fallibilism is a given.

Perhaps your first thought when it comes to pragmatarianism is that people will spend their taxes on the wrong things. I think people should be free to spend their taxes on the wrong things because maybe I'm the one who is actually spending my taxes on the wrong things. Maybe I'm worshiping and sacrificing to the wrong god.

So, when you say that I'm interested in returning to the 1800s...well...you're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to regurgitate your attacks on conservatism/libertarianism...then check out the Ron Paul Forums.

Regarding the rest of your arguments...like I said, they reflect that you haven't really scratched the surface. I could go through them...but I felt that it was necessary to first try and clarify my position and see if you actually made the effort to do any digging.

Hmmm...I'm probably coming off more than a bit douchey...but let's see if you can look past my style to objectively consider the substance.

[AiliailiA]

Racism warrants gruesome murder?

No, I'm a sarcastic bastard. Yes, I think racists are pretty stupid with their blatant hatred of people just because of their ethnicity or whatever, but no, I don't want them to die, I'd rather them join the more compassionate people and treat others based on content of character.

To "join with" would be greatly facilitated by "meeting with personally". By which I mean, sitting down to a meal together, or having drinks together. Such circumstances are merely an opportunity for the bigots to become more compassionate (or perhaps a better word is empathic). They're not forced to. Indeed, it would be rather paradoxical to force anyone to be more empathetic.

Gary James is free to choose his own associates. But by operating a place of 'public accomodation' he must meet a stricter standard: by his decision to serve or not-serve customers based on arbitary criteria like race, he actively discourages a black American from going out to dinner with white Americans, thus preventing them from getting to know each other better. He discourages a group of whites who have enjoyed dinner and drinks at his shed restaurant, from inviting along a black friend or work colleague for drinks and dinner.

As Mr. James himself said: "you only get one chance here. If your create an issue, you're out". Straight whites who complain to the management that their black friend from work was discriminated against in the club ... they're "creating an issue". Mr James will deny them service. Or if a straight white guy dares to bring his gay brother along to enjoy steaks and beer, that straight white guy may be banned too for "creating an issue".

Gary James, according to the news accounts, is using his position as proprietor to limit the freedom of association of his customers. As a provider of a public accomodation, with his service used by groups of people otherwise associated (ie, the typical restaurant party who arrive together, order together, and sit together) he crosses the line from choosing his own associates to imposing his own preference on others who would voluntarily associate.

[Galloism]

Now wait a minute. I was under the impression that the free market would cause racist discriminatory business practices to cease to exist, by the market forcing them out of business.

[Bezombia]

Now wait a minute. I was under the impression that the free market would cause racist discriminatory business practices to cease to exist, by the market forcing them out of business.

Sadly it appears that Free Market Jesus turns a blind eye to Oklahoma.

Or something like that.

[Ifreann]

Now wait a minute. I was under the impression that the free market would cause racist discriminatory business practices to cease to exist, by the market forcing them out of business.

Obama is using his communist powers to keep this guy in business.

[AiliailiA]

Now wait a minute. I was under the impression that the free market would cause racist discriminatory business practices to cease to exist, by the market forcing them out of business.

Obama is using his communist powers to keep this guy in business.

Regulatory barriers to entry for new businesses (like licensing regulations and charges to serve alcohol and food) are keeping "this guy" in business, by making it harder for a non discriminatory club owner to set up in direct competition to "this guy"s business.

That is a problem, one which I would solve by relieving all startup businesses of the cost of regulation. Government regulation would be funded by government (by the taxpayer, if you will). To remove all regulation is a far more radical solution than necessary to remove barriers to entry for new businesses.

But even without that burden of government regulation, an "ethical competitor" seeking to be as viable as Gary's and also to drive them out of business, has to offer something to customers which is much better than Gary's, or comparable but much cheaper.

Taking half Gary's customers (best case scenario assuming equal product offering and equal price, and actually quite optimistic considering customer loyalty) would not make the competitor's business viable. They need to be outstandingly better, well beyond simply admitting a larger customer base.

There is this "private club" thing though. Freedom of association requires that blacks be allowed to congregate without whites present, that straights be allowed to congregate without gays present, and so on. I think we can resolve this by requiring that any such club be strictly non-profit. Any member dues should be spent on providing the meeting place and/or website, no-one working for the club is payed a wage out member dues, and no club assets are accumulated. They would not be allowed to provide anything commonly payed-for (like alcohol or food) to their members. A "club" could only provide the basics of association if they are exclusive on the basis of non-choice characteristics like race, gender or sexuality.

Or age. Nobody has a choice about their age either. OK, I admit I haven't entirely thought this through

[L Ron Cupboard]

Now wait a minute. I was under the impression that the free market would cause racist discriminatory business practices to cease to exist, by the market forcing them out of business.

At least it has stopped it becoming a franchise.

[Xerographica]

Did you seriously just try and convince me that it's difficult and risky to start a business?

No, that's something I expected to you to agree with. Since you snipped out my discusssion of why it may be not just expensive but impossible to buy land literally accross the street, let's take that as a metaphor.

I have a good friend who is gay and used to be my roommate. When we lived together he would love to complain that he was living in Glendale instead of West Hollywood. This had nothing to do with discrimination...and everything to do with a scarcity (relatively speaking) of things (in this case people) that matched my friend's preferences.

My gf, who is Korean (but a banana) was thrilled when a Kyochon Chicken opened up in Glendale. I love it as well...it's wonderfully spicy Korean BBQ chicken wings/legs. Having one in Glendale means that we wouldn't have to drive ALL the way to Korea Town (not that far). Unfortunately, it closed down shortly after it opened. Maybe the manager was inept...or maybe the demand wasn't there. I told my gf that, because she didn't go there often enough, it was her fault that they closed down. Glendale isn't Korea Town...it's Little Armenia. Zankou Chicken (which is also delicious) has been in business here for years.

Personally, I love the heck out of orchids. There's an awesome nursery in Santa Barbara...and an awesome one in San Diego...but none right in the middle...Los Angeles...which is next to Glendale where I live.

Should the mountain come to Mohammed...or should Mohammed go to the mountain?

One thing that I keep thinking about is the expression..."as happy as a kid in a candy store". Why is the kid so happy? Because there's a wide variety of items which really match his preferences. Isn't that what heaven would be like? Imagine going to heaven and discovering that there wasn't a wide variety of things that really matched your preferences...you'd want a refund...right?

If we want heaven on earth...then it's essential to understand the process by which candy stores come to have such a wide variety of things which really match kids' preferences. Basically, a kid has something that the candy producers want...money. So they are incentivized to innovate. They constantly try different combinations of inputs in order to put new and better options on the table. If the new option is truly better, then the kid gives them positive feedback by exchanging his money for the better option. And because no two kids have the same exact preferences...candy store owners strive to provide the variety of candies which will maximize their revenue.

What would a candy store look like today if kids had never been allowed to choose for themselves which candies they wanted? How could there be a wide variety of items which really match kids' preferences if they were never given the freedom to let the candy makers know what their preferences truly are? Without their individual input (spending decisions), it's a given that the selection of candies wouldn't be wide...and it wouldn't closely match their preferences. And kids wouldn't be so happy when they went to candy stores.

The standard for life is for everybody to be as happy as a kid in a candy store. There should be the widest variety of things that match our preferences as closely as possible. In order for this to happen, people have to be free to shop for themselves...and entrepreneurs have to be free to try and guess which combination of inputs will maximize their revenue.

Is this a rant? Or a random ramble? Maybe it's only remotely relevant to your questions? Is it possible that maybe your questions are the things that are only remotely relevant to reality?

The fact of the matter is...by critiquing the logistics of building an ethical alternative in Enid...you're making it clear that you don't really grasp the fundamental concepts.

Think about Las Vegas. I don't know how true the story is...but the idea is fascinating...somebody building a candy store in the middle of nowhere. Evidently, the candy closely matches people's preferences as so many of them are willing to make the drive. Just like I'm willing to make the drive to the orchid nurseries in Santa Barbara and San Diego.

Again, the point is that we really don't want to use a large amount of society's limited resources to only create a little value. Markets work because the amount of resources somebody uses reflects the amount of value they create for others.

A civil suit against Gary James would use a large amount of society's limited resources but we would never know the amount of value it created. Why? Because it was funded by people who didn't have a choice in the matter.

If a candy store owner could create the maximum value without the choices of each and every kid...then I would be confident that we would could create the maximum value by suing Gary James. But without the direct input of consumers, without their spending decisions...it's a given that we will be using a large amount of society's limited resources to only create a small amount of value.

Economically speaking, the greater the disparity between the demand and the supply, the more value that will be destroyed. If you demand a club sandwich, but I supply a knuckle sandwich, then value will be destroyed. Successful builders are the people who accurately guess the size of the unmet demand. Unsuccessful builders are those who waste society's limited resources trying to build something that there was insufficient demand for.

Ideally there should be a way for the people of Enid to show you their true demand for an ethical alternative. But true demand can't be revealed by cheap talk surveys...which is why voting doesn't reveal demand...it simply reveals opinions. True demand can only be revealed by individuals considering their circumstances and choosing...spending...sacrificing...accordingly.

This is why we have to create a market in the public sector. Doing so would give us the opportunity to create a government organization dedicated to building ethical alternatives. Taxpayers could give their money to this organization...and the organization would determine where an ethical alternative is most likely to create the most value. Then they could either build the alternative themselves...or grant the money to the most successful/qualified/experienced builders.

Of course, maybe a government middleman wouldn't be needed. You could start a crowdfunding website dedicated to ethical alternatives. People could propose ethical alternatives and anybody could contribute any amount to the projects. For example, you could propose an ethical restaurant in Enid...and people could contribute any amount to the project. If the funding goal was reached...then you would receive the money and get started building the restaurant. In order to increase your chances of reaching your funding goal...you'd have to show people that you did your homework. Plus, it would help if you had a few successful projects under your belt. What's really quite fascinating is that I think a new law makes it possible for people to be investors rather than just donors. If people are investors...then you have a crowd of people researching the viability/profitability of ethical alternatives. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow (Linus's Law). A crowdfunding site for ethical alternatives is a pretty brilliant idea. People could make money by doing good. I'd jump on it if pragmatarianism wasn't a thousand times more brilliant.

[Gauthier]

Bad opinion that drives him to break federal law.

Guess personal opinion is a great exculpatory evidence.

"Your honor, I ban niggers and fags from the establishment because it's my personal opinion."

"Case dismissed."

Part of my point is that I don't think racist screening of a business' clientele should be illegal. You quoted the part where I said if it's going to be against the law, make it criminal. Unless it already is, and I'm being dumb. I know next to nothing about the American legal system (or even my own country's) and was reacting to a mention of lawsuits in the OP, which to me means a civil compensation claim. I mean, why would anyone need monetary compensation for not being allowed to spend money somewhere? It hasn't affected their ability to earn an income.

What part of "breaking federal law" is not criminal to you?

And if you allow someone to legally flaunt federal law, more people will want to have their own special privileges, and before you know it Jim Crow is a zombie.

[Woodstovia]

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: No
4: I don't feel I know enough about economics to answer this question

all of these questions seem pretty biased

[Zombie Adolf Hitler]

Mitt, Mitt, Mitt!
Mitt Romney style!

[Paddy O Fernature]

Someone in America doesn't like someone else? And his beliefs are reflected through his business?

Shocker.....

Seems like another day on planet earth to me. Moving on.

[Bezombia]

Mitt, Mitt, Mitt!
Mitt Romney style!

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." --Mitt Romney

[Gauthier]

Someone in America doesn't like someone else? And his beliefs are reflected through his business?

Shocker.....

Seems like another day on planet earth to me. Moving on.

And how many get away with it in violation of federal law for over 40 years?