Private businesses should legally be allowed to deny service to anybody they want for any reason.

[cpwill]

No, you don't seem to believe in justice at all.

Quite the contrary. For example, Adultery, being wrong, would be punished under a system of perfect Justice.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Master Debator]

Another bar would open to fill the demand not being met.

That ignores reality. You can't guarantee that a business will spring up to meet the need nor does that address why the question of why society should allow businesses to discriminate in the first place.

 

[CaughtInThe]

^^^
The OP is fine with that.

A libertarian/conservative would argue that people would stop going to this bar and it would go out of business. But that's not the reality of human behavior. If the bar was in a town with a lot of racists then he could continue to this practice with impunity. And if he were the only bar in town, the minority Blacks and Hispanics would be left without this service. That's the problem with libertarian idealism.

and people haven't even thought of the reverse yet.

their white daughter traveling home late at night, needs gas, comes to the only gas station in an almost all black town. they won't serve her.

 

[Paradoxical]

So your argument is only entrepreneurs pay taxes? Okay, now prove it.

:shrug:

Never said that. But I will say deadbeats and half the populace do not. Does that mean I should tell them they can't use the roads I pay for? Based on YOUR logic, I could.

 

[CaughtInThe]

there are americans still alive from that era.

hell, that's half our problem. it was normal to them.

 

[distraff]

If some bakery owner wants to deny service to openly gay people, or if Cleetus the bar owner wants to deny service to people of color in his bar out in the sticks, that should be legally acceptable in my opinion. If somebody is willing to limit their own sales because they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve somebody, they should be allowed to deny their service. Somebody that invested in and built their own business should not be forced by the government to do business they don't want to do. If I want to turn down your money I should be legally allowed to do that for any stupid or illogical reason that I want. Nobody should have legal grounds to sue me because I refused to do business with them. It is ridiculous that it triggers national outrage and people get sued over not providing their private service to individuals.

Personally I wouldn't purchase services from a business like that and I would encourage others to do the same, but the government shouldn't be involved. It's all about not giving the government precedence to exert more control over the private sector. The government always has a good reason when it takes us an inch closer to their complete control of our lives and decisions.

So you oppose the civil rights act that bans businesses from discriminating against African Americans?

 

[Master Debator]

Actually I would like to hear more about this notion ya'll have picked up that, the extent to which one pays taxes should be the extent to which one controls government.

That is actually not the argument. That's the retort to those who think businesses operate independent of society and government and who's existence is solely thanks to some strapping entrepreneur. That is not the case. Businesses are legal entities created by society and government. Without them they do not exist.

 

[Irredentist]

Quite the contrary. For example, Adultery, being wrong, would be punished under a system of perfect Justice.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

There is no perfect system of justice. You will never punish everyone who is guilty. You can only enforce behavior, to some degree. Justice is the means to achieve this. To build a better society. Adultery is a petty concern for petty people. Not the business of government.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Tennessee store puts 'No Gays Allowed' sign back up after Supreme Court cake ruling | TheHill


Amyx Hardware

 

[CaughtInThe]

i use to go peek at the KKK message boards and i swear to you that these types of threads dominated the conversation.


and the one thing i remember them talking about politically before the last election, was if Trump was gonna do a bait and switch on them.

 

[Master Debator]

Never said that. But I will say deadbeats and half the populace do not. Does that mean I should tell them they can't use the roads I pay for? Based on YOUR logic, I could.

That actually isn't my logic. Try to follow a conversation. It wasn't that difficult.

:shrug:

 

[cpwill]

There is no perfect system of justice

There is indeed such a system. It is simply not humanly possible to achieve.

You will never punish everyone who is guilty. You can only enforce behavior, to some degree. Justice is the means to achieve this. To build a better society. Adultery is a petty concern for petty people. Not the business of government.

You stated that A) Because something was wrong B) it should be banned. Adultery is wrong. It is bad for society. It should therefore be banned. Also lying. Also pornography, and homosexuality, and (heck, so long as we are imposing our moral vision on people Because We Can), cheering for the Patriots and Auto Salesmen who do their own television commercials, along with any form of speech that advocates for allowing those things.

Since the only perfect justice (and, as you have pointed out, JUSTICE MUST BE ENFORCED OR IT DOES NOT EXIST, meaning that, if it not enforced always and perfectly, it does not exist) available is God's Justice, then we must impose completely the moral rulings of the Christian faith (being, I have decided, the correct one) on EVERYONE.

Or else, after all, we won't be "Just". And making sure that everything is Just is, of course, the reason we have Government.

 

[CaughtInThe]

That actually isn't my logic. Try to follow a conversation. It wasn't that difficult.

:shrug:

You'll need much patience.

 

[cpwill]

That is actually not the argument. That's the retort to those who think businesses operate independent of society and government and who's existence is solely thanks to some strapping entrepreneur. That is not the case. Businesses are legal entities created by society and government. Without them they do not exist.

....no, without government, corporate entities have no government standing. That is not the same as "people are unable to engage in trade without government". People and trade pre-exist the State.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Irredentist]

There is indeed such a system. It is simply not humanly possible to achieve.



You stated that A) Because something was wrong B) it should be banned. Adultery is wrong. It is bad for society. It should therefore be banned. Also lying. Also pornography, and homosexuality, and (heck, so long as we are imposing our moral vision on people Because We Can), cheering for the Patriots and Auto Salesmen who do their own television commercials, along with any form of speech that advocates for allowing those things.

Since the only perfect justice (and, as you have pointed out, JUSTICE MUST BE ENFORCED OR IT DOES NOT EXIST, meaning that, if it not enforced always and perfectly, it does not exist) available is God's Justice, then we must impose completely the moral rulings of the Christian faith (being, I have decided, the correct one) on EVERYONE.

Or else, after all, we won't be "Just". And making sure that everything is Just is, of course, the reason we have Government.

Adultery and lying aren't wrong or bad for society. Neither is pornography or homosexuality. If that is your God's idea of justice then that it is definitely not perfect. However, I can agree with you about the Patriots and auto salesmen.

 

[cpwill]

Adultery and lying aren't wrong or bad for society. Neither is pornography or homosexuality. If that is your God's idea of justice then that it is definitely not perfect. However, I can agree with you about the Patriots and auto salesmen.

Fortunately, not believing in and desiring God's Will is also unjust, so in this new system where were toss out Liberalism and replace it with the authoritarian imposition of Justice, you will be required to believe that adultery, pornography, etc., is wrong, and then you won't have an issue

 

[Irredentist]

Fortunately, not believing in and desiring God's Will is also unjust, so in this new system where were toss out Liberalism and replace it with the authoritarian imposition of Justice, you will be required to believe that adultery, pornography, etc., is wrong, and then you won't have an issue

Beliefs and desires are never unjust. Only actions can be unjust. To reject others simply for their beliefs is hateful.

 

[Master Debator]

....no, without government, corporate entities have no government standing. That is not the same as "people are unable to engage in trade without government". People and trade pre-exist the State.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

More specifically you mean barter. Barter exists without government. If you want to trade sheep for shoes in the wilderness you are free to. If you want to run a business in a society with rules and laws you have to adhere to those rules and laws.

:shrug:

 

[Sand Castle]

Roads have zilch to do with you SJWs imposing your morals on me.

Like I said unless you are completely independent of the U.S. and what all of are tax money offers, you are no libertarian

 

[Sand Castle]

I/we pay lots of taxes for those roads. They are crappy too. Gubment people are unaccountable.

There are roads and you like to do a one on one tax dollar vs road, works well for you.

Open your eyes you enjoy far more benefits from government and all of our collective tax dollars. Water, sewer, local inspection, emergency services, etc

 

[cpwill]

More specifically you mean barter. Barter exists without government. If you want to trade sheep for shoes in the wilderness you are free to. If you want to run a business in a society with rules and laws you have to adhere to those rules and laws.

:shrug:

If you mean to argue that "power = power", then I have to agree.

If you are trying to argue that "because we are able to take money from you to pay for things like roads, we own you", then, not so much. That the State has the ability to take from, imprison, or kill me does not make it always right for it to do so.

 

[cpwill]

Beliefs and desires are never unjust. Only actions can be unjust. To reject others simply for their beliefs is hateful.

On the contrary, beliefs can absolutely be unjust. Which is why you must be forced to change them.


In the old, Liberal formulation, you could claim individual rights... But we've agreed to toss those in our pursuit of authoritarian pursuit of Justice.

 

[Master Debator]

If you mean to argue that "power = power", then I have to agree.

If you are trying to argue that "because we are able to take money from you to pay for things like roads, we own you", then, not so much. That the State has the ability to take from, imprison, or kill me does not make it always right for it to do so.

Right in what sense? Your personal opinion? :shrug:

 

[vegas giants]

On the contrary, beliefs can absolutely be unjust. Which is why you must be forced to change them.


In the old, Liberal formulation, you could claim individual rights... But we've agreed to toss those in our pursuit of authoritarian achievable of Justice.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Yes we have.


Welcome to the republic.


But you are not a prisoner here

 

[vegas giants]

If you mean to argue that "power = power", then I have to agree.

If you are trying to argue that "because we are able to take money from you to pay for things like roads, we own you", then, not so much. That the State has the ability to take from, imprison, or kill me does not make it always right for it to do so.

You are free to have any philosophy you like...just pay your taxes