Privately owned businesses should have the right to discriminate.

Started by inimalist9 pages
inimalist Junior Member
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I don't think that the government should infringe upon the liberties of private business owners.

even if the consequences for society could be shown to be worse than the infringement?

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by King Kandy
You don't think that would have a negative impact on the living standards of the persecuted groups?

Not necessarily. They will have trouble competing with places that have access to the larger hiring pool.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

Originally posted by inimalist
even if the consequences for society could be shown to be worse than the infringement?

Yes, just like the other freedoms people enjoy. Freedom of speech, for instance, has caused quite a few issues in America; the world would be a better place if Glenn Beck weren't allowed to talk. But I'm not going to say that Glenn Beck can't talk even though he's an idiotic, loudmouthed rabble-rouser who has tricked working-class Americans into fighting against their best interests.

REXXXX Networking
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I support the rights of privately-owned businesses to turn away anyone for any reason. That includes "lol no gays or Jews b/c I don't liek them."

A bit extreme, that. Most likely it would lead to the end of that privately-owned business. People would protest and boycott if they were blatant about such discrimination, and their competition would get more business.

Regardless of whether the government is involved or not, it's just bad business tactics.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not necessarily. They will have trouble competing with places that have access to the larger hiring pool.

I think this can be proven false based on the fact that pre-civil rights act businesses like that existed and prospered.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I don't think that the government should infringe upon the liberties of private business owners.

So you think that private business owners should be allowed to kill people?

Wild Shadow Restricted

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-20/local/me-11027_1_elks-lodge

woman sues elk lodge

man sues woman gym for membership.
http://www.wpix.com/news/local/wpix-guy-female-only-gym-060809,0,758970.story

REXXXX Networking

That's a leap, King Kandy. Probably not what he meant.

Hah, it WOULD be the Elk lodge in Santa Ana. I know exactly where that is...

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you think that private business owners should be allowed to kill people?

You're an idiot.

King Kandy Senior Member

He said that the government shouldn't infringe on private businesses freedom. I'm trying to find exactly what the boundary line is, and what his logical justification is for it. Because based on what he's brought up so far, the killing bit is totally in line with his logic.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You're an idiot.

You're an idiot. Based on what you've said in this thread, that is your perspective. Either your logic is faulty, or you are not actually saying what you truly believe.

REXXXX Networking

Kandy, Zeal, none of that shit. I won't tolerate it. Warnings if you keep it up.

And you know full well that is not at all what he meant, Kandy.

Zeal Ex Nihilo Restricted

Taking what I said to the farthest extreme that you could fathom is not an actual counter-argument.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think this can be proven false based on the fact that pre-civil rights act businesses like that existed and prospered.

Pre-civil rights businesses existed in a culture that was much more casually racist that there is today.

REXXXX Networking
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Taking what I said to the farthest extreme that you could fathom is not an actual counter-argument.

Be glad that you edited that...

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Taking what I said to the farthest extreme that you could fathom is not an actual counter-argument.

Sure it is. It's called Reductio ad Absurdum. If your logic leads to absurd consequences, it is itself absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by REXXXX
A bit extreme, that. Most likely it would lead to the end of that privately-owned business. People would protest and boycott if they were blatant about such discrimination, and their competition would get more business.

Regardless of whether the government is involved or not, it's just bad business tactics.

That's exactly why I support it in theory.

However, like inimalist says, there may be problems that can be solved by those laws, for example the blatant discrimination of blacks in the USA in the past. However, I don't know how much of that is cause and how much is effect, really.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pre-civil rights businesses existed in a culture that was much more casually racist that there is today.

Yes, and that's why we can't allow it to regress back to that state.

inimalist Junior Member
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not necessarily. They will have trouble competing with places that have access to the larger hiring pool.

this assumes there is a large enough pool of employers from the majority who are willing to hire from the persecuted group.

theoretically, a business from the minority group could become successful enough to supplant the majority run industries, but that is unlikely for reasons similar to there being few minority run corporations during segregation.

Bardock42 Junior Member

We are talking half about hiring and half about serving here, those seem to be somewhat different issues, imo.