- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro
Key word imposes. But then again you are another appeal to government type, have always been on this forum so I'm not surprised ou aren't grasping the concept.Businesses are not free to reap the benefits of operating in our society without complying with the laws that our society imposes.Actually, no, society does not have a right to mandate use of private property, though it does so anyway, then again......I'm not surprised. What is the necessary, the proper, and the compelling interest? Hint, they are three items necessary for constitutional addition of law.We as a society have a right to say that we do not support discrimination. If the business doesn't want to comply, they can move to a country where discrimination is permitted.
Translation, Hatuey is backed into a corner and can't support his arguments.Entirely. Show me where I said any of these things:
Or were you quoting somebody else and projecting those quotes on to me? Thus making it a strawman?
Translation: LMR has nothing to else to provide to the thread so he complains about people being stupid in true Libertarian fashion.
I laid out my argument. If somebody runs a business and this business is taxed by the government, the government endorses the policies of the business by legitimization through taxation. It is the reason illegal drugs are not taxed while legally sold drugs are.
Thank you for the link....
So, sexual orientation trumps religious belief.....
I think have a problem with that.....
But the point is moot as the law now stands....:shock:
I think using the law is the wrong way to go. Again, the market decides who wins and the market sides against bigotry. In both examples the law is wrong, the market would win anyway.nope, the religious couple are allowed in a gay bar by law, so why can't the gay couple stay at a B&B?
I think using the law is the wrong way to go. Again, the market decides who wins and the market sides against bigotry. In both examples the law is wrong, the market would win anyway.
When what? You mean the market taking care of the trash? No one knows the timeframe, but it is a certainty as negative publicity has a multiplier that can't be quantified, but it's obvious that bad press usually gets worse, and when a reputation is ruined so is a business. Hell, I saw it happen down here to an upscale club when a group of black men were assaulted by their bouncers, they lost about 40% of their business within a couple of months. That is a severe beating in the bar industry.The question is when?
Do you find it simple to ignore negative externalities?
Businesses are not free to reap the benefits of operating in our society without complying with the laws that our society imposes. We as a society have a right to say that we do not support discrimination. If the business doesn't want to comply, they can move to a country where discrimination is permitted.
When what? You mean the market taking care of the trash? No one knows the timeframe, but it is a certainty as negative publicity has a multiplier that can't be quantified, but it's obvious that bad press usually gets worse, and when a reputation is ruined so is a business. Hell, I saw it happen down here to an upscale club when a group of black men were assaulted by their bouncers, they lost about 40% of their business within a couple of months. That is a severe beating in the bar industry.
You negated your argument. The bold highlights it i added possibly for accuracy.
This is already the law in GB. If their behavior was disruptive to the business (leading to a decrease in potential profits) then the manager/owner has grounds to dismiss them from the premise.
The manager should have all the grounds to dismiss anyone they want from their business as it is THEIR business.
I never said it was not. But to act as though it does not exist until **** hits the fan is irresponsible. Once the hate mail and death threats begin, should government get involved? It seems optimal to me (IMHO) to diffuse such situations.
This is not a case of casual ignorance.
Not just the people who were discriminated against, but the extreme folks who are actively engaged in such behavior. It is just not worth it.
But why not take the necessary steps to prevent such ridiculous spillover effects? Do you know how the government diffused the violence, bloodshed, and massive political protests of the civil rights era?
They violated contract in which the gay couple had been booked and given a deposit. Not only did they violate their agreement, but they broke the law :
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then this has absolutely nothing to do with "the rights of a business" hence is a violation of British law. So until you can prove that by accommodating them, the firm would have reduced their profitability..... your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
Yes we know: Rirrat does what she wants:2wave:
The problem with this argument is that plane crashes kill people immediately, there is a causal relationship which is immenently provable(necessary action to reduce plane crashes), we have a right to responsibility to uphold individual rights to life, the public's immediate safety must be protected from a clear and present danger and this is within the scope of the government's authority(Proper). Again, where is the probable compelling interest for the public to say that beyond a shadow of a doubt that laws to end bigotry trump a person's individual property rights?There is no exact time frame, and there is no guarantee it will be soon. In the long run, markets self correct. In the long run we are all dead.
Question(off topic): In the absence of airline maintenance regulation, how many plane crashes would you view as acceptable to provide the mechanism for irresponsible firms to fail? 1 a year? 5 a year? 10 a year?
When it comes to empowering further any form of government, they don't.At what point do the negative externalities begin to matter to you?
Strawman? Hardly. I have provided plenty of reasons why private property rights should be upheld, you have not provided any solid logic to support your position. Logically people who don't pay for a business, rather confiscate every dime it can get from that business should not be dictating policy unless it is to protect against immediate danger.
It would follow logically by his arguments.Not to mention the fact that the state taxes all of us and thus "profits" from all of us citizens. And yet, as a private citizen I can allow or disallow whomever I want on my private property (i.e., my home, for instance). I can discriminate for any damn reason I want. His argument appears to be that I should be forced to allow anyone at all into my home since the state "profits" from me and my home (property taxes) and if I discriminate about who I let in my home, and they let me do that, then they are condoning that discrimination.
I don't give a flying **** what the law IS. What the law IS doesn't make it right. What we're saying is that the law should NOT be as it currently IS, and explaining to you why. Telling me "That's the law, so there" isn't much of a point.
Your obsession with negative freedom and using that as an argument is not the point. I already outlined the negative externalities associated with allowing discrimination. As always, an appeal to emotion.
The problem with this argument is that plane crashes kill people immediately, there is a causal relationship which is immenently provable(necessary action to reduce plane crashes), we have a right to responsibility to uphold individual rights to life, the public's immediate safety must be protected from a clear and present danger and this is within the scope of the government's authority(Proper). Again, where is the probable compelling interest for the public to say that beyond a shadow of a doubt that laws to end bigotry trump a person's individual property rights?
When it comes to empowering further any form of government, they don't.
Unfortunately the law disagrees with you.
Thank you for the link....
So, sexual orientation trumps religious belief.....
I think have a problem with that.....
But the point is moot as the law now stands....:shock:
Since society has spoken and the law is the law (which seems to fit arguments as long as they are CONVEEEENIENT) then why the hell are we still on daily about gay marriage? Hell...society has spoken. the people have made their opinions clear and known. Law has been established.
nope, the religious couple are allowed in a gay bar by law, so why can't the gay couple stay at a B&B?
Its quite simple. The Constitution talks about rights given to individuals, not businesses or corporations (but then again...certain activists on the Supreme Court want to believe that corporations are people)...
Its quite simple. The Constitution talks about rights given to individuals, not businesses or corporations (but then again...certain activists on the Supreme Court want to believe that corporations are people)...
Not to mention the fact that the state taxes all of us and thus "profits" from all of us citizens. And yet, as a private citizen I can allow or disallow whomever I want on my private property (i.e., my home, for instance). I can discriminate for any damn reason I want. His argument appears to be that I should be forced to allow anyone at all into my home since the state "profits" from me and my home (property taxes) and if I discriminate about who I let in my home, and they let me do that, then they are condoning that discrimination.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.
In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.
....
Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.
Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public. They actively invite and seek the patronage of the public and therefore are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that protect workers seeking employment or promotion. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?