Religious Right in Arizona Cheer bill that allows them to not act like Jesus would...

My argument against it is it completely erodes individual liberty. I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, if I am a private business.

Like I said, if the people are so against this notion, I should be out of business within a month. If a restaurant put a sign in their window that said "no blacks allowed", guess what? I would not go to that restaurant. And I imagine 90% of people that don't live in the deep south would either.

But... that would allow a free market to work. And we can't be having that...
 
weso1 said:
I'll try to state my position on this issue as eloquently as jpx did.

I done think the man who makes cakes should not have to make them for a *** wedding if he doesn't want to. Aint no nevermind to me whether or not ***s get married, but y'all have to understand that some folks just don't agree with *** marriage. I reckon he done did make cakes for ***s for other events, but just not for thar wedding. All y'all will not expect cake maker to make cake for a satanic ritual would you! Not tryin to compare the two, but just sayin that he done has the right to refuse to make a cake for something he... what's the word I be looking for... not agrees with.
Click to expand...

***s are Satan. Got it.
 
sturg33 said:
My argument against it is it completely erodes individual liberty. I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, if I am a private business.

Like I said, if the people are so against this notion, I should be out of business within a month. If a restaurant put a sign in their window that said "no blacks allowed", guess what? I would not go to that restaurant. And I imagine 90% of people that don't live in the deep south would either.

But... that would allow a free market to work. And we can't be having that...
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you can legally refuse service to any"one"
The catch comes when/if a business has a pattern of refusing service to similar peoples. Color-race-religion or sexual preference. Etc
People vote along lines of their civil rights because they do kinda affect their everyday lives - as in where and when you can go places- what events you can attend or what/how you decide issues of your body

Am I safe in assuming you are a Neo-Conferderate that would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I remember labeled public water fountains for "Negroes" and White People and restaurants advising "Negroes " not totry to eat inside.
How would you solve these social picadillos?
 
57Brave said:
Pretty sure you can legally refuse service to any"one"
The catch comes when/if a business has a pattern of refusing service to similar peoples. Color-race-religion or sexual preference. Etc
People vote along lines of their civil rights because they do kinda affect their everyday lives - as in where and when you can go places- what events you can attend or what/how you decide issues of your body

Am I safe in assuming you are a Neo-Conferderate that would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I remember labeled public water fountains for "Negroes" and White People and restaurants advising "Negroes " not totry to eat inside.
How would you solve these social picadillos?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between public water fountains and private water fountains. I'm absolutely not OK with the government discriminating.

But I'm absolutely fine with private business discriminating. It is their right to do so. And they can pay the consequences with the lost business.

No - I would not have supported the 64 civil rights act - specifically because of the private business section
 
Krgrecw said:
sturg33 said:
Why can't I refuse service to someone who is ***? (Other than a bureaucrat told me I can't)?

Frankly, it seems like it should be the responsibility of the consumer to find a photographer that fits his/her needs. And it's the responsibility of the photographer to find a couple that aligns with his/her business/core values.[/

You can refuse service to someone is *** but you can't do it because they are ***. All the bakery has to do is fill up its walls with Biblical Mumbo jumbo and make the store uninviting to ***s, where they wouldn't want to go in.
Click to expand...

I said this before and it has happened to me on several occasions in Iowa and Wisconsin. They made it their point I was not welcomed in their establishment, instead of crying "racist", "look at what they are doing", I just don't go there and if I have friends that went there, I tell them how much they sucked. They will get the picture and won't go as well.

Because of the this publicity, just like chic-fil-a, their business will blossom.

If I don't want to do something for you because I don't agree with it and the GOVERNMENT forced me to, you ain't getting the best service, you can believe that.
Click to expand...
 
sturg33 said:
Curious how ensuring a business takes picture of your *** wedding is a "civil right"

Also curious why the *** person's "right" to be served is always trumping the business owner's "right" to refuse service
Click to expand...

Well let's try an example that's a little more essential than weddings or photographs. Say you live in a neighborhood with only one grocery in a substantial radius—a common circumstance in many large urban areas, as well as elsewhere—and the proprietor determines that you self-identify into a category of which he or she doesn't approve. Like most humans, you need food to live; like most humans, in this country at least, you also lack the space or means to generate or cultivate such food entirely by yourself.

Learning of your self-identification, the grocer decides to materially extend their disapproval: he or she exercises her or his right to refuse to sell you food. Now, you must travel far from your home, at great personal cost—both in terms of time and money—to acquire the materials necessary for sustenance. Perhaps, indeed, you literally cannot afford the additional expense, lost time, or either of those things. Perhaps, indeed, you will become malnourished, bankrupt, or both without some sort of intervention.

Do you really believe a business' rights-of-refusal are so paramount, so sacrosanct, that the government should not—cannot, rightfully—intervene in such a situation?
 
Civil coexistence always includes some infringement upon rights. Sometimes, it's even a good thing: my right to murder people has been substantially infringed by the government (unless it's a black teenager equipped with tell-tale hoodie, skittles, and can of iced-tea!). So, in these situations, it's useful to consider—borrowing the language of the capitalists—the relative costs and benefits of one infringement versus the other.

Is the grocer—or the baker, or the photographer—really gaining anything of much utility (beyond a petulant statement of disapproval) through the absolute preservation of their rights-of-refusal? Meanwhile: what is the customer losing in this instance? Possibly, as in my example, their only reasonable access to certain goods or services.
 
sturg33 said:
Yes
Click to expand...

i_don_t_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore_by_gbrsou-d6uh5ce.jpg
 
jpx7 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Starting your own business is hard. Not many people can do it, and even fewer are willing to do it.

If someone takes a mega-risk in starting a business, he/she is doing a lot of great things for the community.

1. He's providing a service that people want (in your example, food)

2. He's providing jobs that people need

3. He's paying a lot more in taxes to our great friend

To me, that person should have absolutely every right to run his business the way he feels it should be run (providing their not impacting the rights of others).

If that person decides he doesn't want a *** person shopping in his store, then he should be allowed to be open about that and not allow it. In your example, there are two options that I see:

1. The person can try to start a competing business - but that would be extremely risky and like I said before, few can or are willing to do it.

2. The person should move

I simply don't believe that the government should have the ability to dictate how you run your business. But obviously, that is not the world we live in.

Now, back to the original example - let's make sure we force that photographer to take nice wedding picture for something he is 100% morally opposed to. Yeah, that seems like the right thing to do.
 
sturg33 said:
To me, that person should have absolutely every right to run his business the way he feels it should be run (providing their not impacting the rights of others).
Click to expand...

What about the right to life, with which starvation is counter-indicated? How do you justify you implicit claim that the business' refusal of service doesn't impact the refused individual's right to remain alive?

sturg33 said:
If that person decides he doesn't want a *** person shopping in his store, then he should be allowed to be open about that and not allow it. In your example, there are two options that I see:

1. The person can try to start a competing business - but that would be extremely risky and like I said before, few can or are willing to do it.

2. The person should move
Click to expand...

If a person isn't affluent enough to travel far out of their way to procure foodstuffs from a grocery that doesn't deny them service on grounds of self-identification, they almost certainly can't afford to move, and they damn sure can't afford to start a competing business.
 
jpx7 said:
What about the right to life, with which starvation is counter-indicated? How do you justify you implicit claim that the business' refusal of service doesn't impact the refused individual's right to remain alive?
.
Click to expand...

You're implying it's the business owner's responsibility to ensure everyone is fed...
 
I don't think I've ever seen anyone be as consistently dense while arguing as you, sturg..congrats. The way you see so many issues as black and white is astounding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top