Your attitude has crossed the line there, Zeal. Calm down; if I see you acting like that again there will be a warning.
I am minded to close this thread. Aside from anything else, zeal's only two responses are to simply ignore given opinions and simply lay out his own again, or to turn moody. That makes this whole exercise rather pointless.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Still not a solid argument. It can support all sorts of things. Something more specific is needed, a la "they own the place and they aren't hurting the person".
The fact is that human life is very vast and has many possible scenarios that would have to be addressed. Some good faith and limitations to reason should be applied. Even if one statement wasn't exactly accurate and can be derived into the absurd, don't you think?
private businesses should discriminate if they chose to. it may benefit or affect them negatively from anything to being boycotted to getting bad media or low sales which could mean death especially when your competitor is not so exclusive, opening their doors for any and all clientele so long as they pay.
but the issue can go many ways for instance, last week i was listening to some guy on the radio, a caller, talking about how he's suing a nightclub because a few nights a week the club would charge men a $20 entry fee while women got in for free. so he's claiming discrimination and pressed charges against the owner, so see, even though he is correct, discrimination is taking place, but imo, he should lose because the club is a private proprietorship.
the only places should never get away with discriminatory practices are public places, like tax payer funded parks, pools, schools, community centers or basically anything else that's either state, or city, nationally ran.
peace
Originally posted by King Kandy
I guess minorities can just go **** themselves then.
This assumes that only non-minorities own businesses. Which is false.
BTW, I've never seen a "no n!ggers" or "no f@gs" sign, but I have seen a "no men allowed" in a lesbian bar and a guy (he's black) I used to work with was denied entry into a Vietnamese owned gambling establishment, because he's wasn't Asian. I know, anecdotes.
As far as the OP is concerned, I agree, if I owned my own business, I'd expect to have the right to deny anoyone service/goods for any reason I choose. In the end, it'd only hurt my sales, potentially.
We only need to look to the past to see that minority owned businesses never competed with white-owned ones to any significant degree. Discrimination caused huge gaps in wealth between whites and minorities, no reason why the same can't happen now since people are just as racist as ever in some places.
Originally posted by King Kandy
We only need to look to the past to see that minority owned businesses never competed with white-owned ones to any significant degree. Discrimination caused huge gaps in wealth between whites and minorities, no reason why the same can't happen now since people are just as racist as ever in some places.
Don't think that argument applies to this thread.
We're talking about private businesses, you're essentially telling people they have to sell/provide goods to everyone, just cos. Is it illegal to be a bigot? No. Why we have clown-shoes dressed up like ghost calling themselves "Grand Wizards" and shouting hatred, or ass-hats wearing red bow-ties shouting out "white devils!"
In cases where it could be potentially lethal, ie privately owned hospitals, they have by default government regulation and standards in place, they have to operate a certain way, considering the nature of the business that would cover some hospital saying "no gooks!"
Granted, would it create a ****ing mess and be for the worse for America as a whole? Yes. But you shouldn't live in a place where "freedom" is all important, just to have it crushed. No.
Edit: I should take back that last part, as most people worry about their wallet first, before their bigoted ideals. So I don't think this would happen on a large scale, maybe small businesses, but I can't see Microsoft saying "no f@ggots or gooks", as sales would be affected.
Originally posted by King KandyYou can't use the examples of 50 years ago, society has changed since then. Additionally no one is proposing that the government discriminates.
We only need to look to the past to see that minority owned businesses never competed with white-owned ones to any significant degree. Discrimination caused huge gaps in wealth between whites and minorities, no reason why the same can't happen now since people are just as racist as ever in some places.
yes, but let's not fool ourselves. there are rural towns an hour from where I live where, if such discrimination existed, basic provisions of life would be unavailable to known minorities. even where I live, homosexuals would have a much more difficult time living openly.
could new York city pass such laws, yes, sure. could ayr? no
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but let's not fool ourselves. there are rural towns an hour from where I live where, if such discrimination existed, basic provisions of life would be unavailable to known minorities. even where I live, homosexuals would have a much more difficult time living openly.could new York city pass such laws, yes, sure. could ayr? no
I don't necessarily agree, but perhaps there could be a compromise possible as well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't necessarily agree, but perhaps there could be a compromise possible as well.
well, where do we see instances of being unable to bar racial minorities harming the business owner?
obviously I agree with their "rights" to the property, but in a cost-benefit analysis, I don't see what is being lost by ensuring black people can obtain food. or even buy a home in the area in the first place.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You can't use the examples of 50 years ago, society has changed since then. Additionally no one is proposing that the government discriminates.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, where do we see instances of being unable to bar racial minorities harming the business owner?
How do you define harm? Cause I could imagine there are instances where a place having a discriminatory policy could potentially further business. Is not being allowed to have it "harming" the business owner in your book?
Originally posted by inimalist
obviously I agree with their "rights" to the property, but in a cost-benefit analysis, I don't see what is being lost by ensuring black people can obtain food. or even buy a home in the area in the first place.
Well, that's in some cases likely down to you discounting the feelings of racists, as fitting into the "benefit" category.
I mean I agree with you mostly, and it's not something I'd want to not be there at all costs, like you said "in an ideal world".