Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

[Master PO]

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)That's absurd. There have been numerous instances in the history of this country where the law emphatically did not reflected our rights and the law subsequently had to be changed. 2.) 2.)Therefore, arguing that since something is against the law it SHOULD be against the law is not an answer to the question at hand.

1.) good grief whos post did you read? who in the hell said the laws always reflect our rights and vice versa, i certainly didnt LMAO I agree your strawman is absurd
2.) i agree that wouldnt be an answer good thing i didnt do that :shrug:

like i said ON THIS TOPIC and BASED ON THE OP, in the US the laws reflect our rights on this issue already and thats how it SHOULD be. Can't make it any more clear for you. Let me know if you are still confused.

 

[justabubba]

So you can create an Asian-Only Home Depot?

you can create a private organization that sells hardware to only those with membership in that organization
call it Kosko

 

[blaxshep]

Why not, I can't imagine a racist business staying in business in modern times.

 

[Fletch]

1.) good grief whos post did you read? who in the hell said the laws always reflect our rights and vice versa, i certainly didnt LMAO I agree your strawman is absurd
2.) i agree that wouldnt be an answer good thing i didnt do that :shrug:

like i said ON THIS TOPIC and BASED ON THE OP, in the US the laws reflect our rights on this issue already and thats how it SHOULD be. Can't make it any more clear for you. Let me know if you are still confused.

Says who? You? This is a study in theory and something for which you aren't well equipped. You simply cite to current law to justify current law. That's circular reasoning. Not only that, you are simply wrong. Current law does not protect my right to choose with whom I wish to associate, and by extension, with whom I choose to do business.

 

[Fletch]

I would answer no. Not as long as they are using public roads, police/fire services, utilities, etc.

Why would the use of those things impact my rights? Plus you have to realize that since everyone utilizes those services in one form or another, you are basically saying you may only do what the state tells you to do. That sort of negates the entire concept of individual rights.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Says who? You?
2.)This is a study in theory and something for which you aren't well equipped.
3.) You simply cite to current law to justify current law. That's circular reasoning.
4.) Not only that, you are simply wrong.
5.) Current law does not protect my right to choose with whom I wish to associate, and by extension, with whom I choose to do business.

1.) me? no, laws and rights do
2.) hey look failed insults after a poster makes a mistake
3.) sorry this never happened, but you are free to repeat that failed strawman as many times as you like, it will just never be true lol
4.) rights and laws disagree with your opinion
5.) in this case it does, see the court cases on it, your opinions dont matter to that

let us know when you have more than strawman to post

 

[Fletch]

1.) me? no, laws and rights do
2.) hey look failed insults after a poster makes a mistake lol
3.) sorry this never happened, but you are free to repeat that failed strawman as many times as you like, it will just never be true lol
4.) rights and laws disagree with your opinion
5.) in this case it does, see the court cases on it, your opinions dont matter to that

let us know when you have more than strawman to post

You citing a simplistic phrase like 'rights and law disagree with you' only serves to prove my point: you aren't equipped for a discussion of the theoretical. Let me see if I can help you, though I doubt it. Imagine there are no laws, and you and I are trying to decide what those laws SHOULD be. That is what this thread is about. Now either approach it that way or I wont waste any more time with you.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You citing a simplistic phrase like 'rights and law disagree with you' only serves to prove my point:
2.) you aren't equipped for a discussion of the theoretical.
3.) Let me see if I can help you, though I doubt it.
4.) Imagine there are no laws, and you and I are trying to decide what those laws SHOULD be.
5.) That is what this thread is about.
6.) Now either approach it that way or I wont waste any more time with you.

1.) if you say so, im sorry facts upset you
2.) wrong again as i pointed out many times rights and laws agree and i agree with them in this case but for some unknown reason you cant grasp this simple concept and you are trying (and failing) to blame others for your topical shortcomings.
Theres no theory for me to partake in because I think its the way it should be right now and wouldnt change it, again YOUR mistake

would you like me to lie and make somethign up? LMAO

3.) no you cant because like the thread and i have already proved, its your mistake, theres nothing to help me with
4.) Ill say it again for like the 5th time, on this issue I would ,make the laws just what they are now, again let me know when you dont get . . .
5.) again no matter what you believe, you are 100% factually wrong as proven
6.) already did, hopefully you see where you made your mistake at and you learn from it and keep your posts from completely failing with illogical assumptions that have no support behind them

you're welcome
let me know if theres any other mistakes in your posts I can help you with

 

[Fletch]

1.) if you say so, im sorry facts upset you
2.) wrong again as i pointed out many times rights and laws agree and i agree with them in this case but for some unknown reason you cant grasp this simple concept and you are trying (and failing) to blame others for your topical shortcomings.
Theres no theory for me to partake in because I think its the way it should be right now and wouldnt change it, again YOUR mistake

would you like me to lie and make somethign up? LMAO

3.) no you cant because like the thread and i have already proved, its your mistake, theres nothing to help me with
4.) Ill say it again for like the 5th time, on this issue I would ,make the laws just what they are now, again let me know when you dont get . . .
5.) again no matter what you believe, you are 100% factually wrong as proven
6.) already did, hopefully you see where you made your mistake at and you learn from it and keep your posts from completely failing with illogical assumptions that have no support behind them

you're welcome
let me know if theres any other mistakes in your posts I can help you with

I was right. I cant help you understand. I gave it a shot though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don't live in a small town in a rural area then.

Actually I did, small town in upstate New York. It was about 30 miles to the nearest "city" (about 20,000) for any real shopping and services.


>>>>

 

[paddymcdougall]

Actually I did, small town in upstate New York. It was about 30 miles to the nearest "city" (about 20,000) for any real shopping and services.


>>>>

You knew the feeling then! they haven't changed... the town I live "in" (I'm 10 miles from town) has a population of 2,000 or so... 45 miles each way to get to a city with box stores and whatnot.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Of course. Private property rights. "Public accommodations" is a legally created fiction.

On the practical side, you can still discriminate against somebody today, you just can't do it openly. Anybody can fabricate a reason.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You knew the feeling then! they haven't changed... the town I live "in" (I'm 10 miles from town) has a population of 2,000 or so... 45 miles each way to get to a city with box stores and whatnot.

The town I grew up in had: 1 Grocery store (chain), 1 convenience store (chain), 1 McDonald's, 6 gas stations (4 chain), 1 small motel just outside the village limits (chain).

While each was a locally owned franchise, the corporate office would still require franchises to comply with corporate non-discrimination policies.


>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whatever reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, I think that the freedom of association, as strongly implied in the First Amendment, must include an absolute right on the part of every consumer and every merchant to choose with whom he will or will not do business. I am alarmed when I see anti-discrimination laws used to compel decent merchants to participate in immoral events against their will, such as sick homosexual mockeries of weddings; or punished for declining to do so—an overt application of law to support that which is evil at the expense of that which is good.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the genuine unfairness that has been experienced in our past, especially by those of the Negroid race, who sometimes found themselves in towns where no restaurant or motel or other necessary provider would service them; and it does seem seriously unjust and unfair that one's ability to secure and maintain employment, or to secure necessary goods and services, should be impaired as a result of traits that have nothing tiredly to do with the transactions in which they seek to engage.

I am alarmed, also, at the concept of protected classes” to which anti-discrimination laws are applied. I think this concept blatantly violates the “equal protection”*clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by selectively forbidding discrimination against members of these “protected classes”, while allowing equally-unjust discrimination against others for reasons that do not fall under these “protected classes”. Again, this sometimes results in the law being forced to uphold evil over good. For example, in many jurisdictions, being a sick, immoral sexual pervert makes one a member of a “protected class”, but holding and expressing decent moral values that would condemn this pervert for what he is does not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'd say that's fine provided it was also legal for a jurisdiction to discriminate for any reason what person or entity can set up business in their community. The community is owned by and run by the citizens of that community and their representatives. If a business wants to set up and discriminate, let them do it without access to the power grid, the water supply, the police or fire departments, etc. Seems fair to me.

You might have vestige of a point, if business that were thus denied the benefit of these public resources, were also exempt from having to pay taxes to support these resources.

 

[paddymcdougall]

The town I grew up in had: 1 Grocery store (chain), 1 convenience store (chain), 1 McDonald's, 6 gas stations (4 chain), 1 small motel just outside the village limits (chain).

While each was a locally owned franchise, the corporate office would still require franchises to comply with corporate non-discrimination policies.


>>>>

You had a McDonalds? awesome. Where I went to college, we didn't have McDonald's till my sophomore year. We also got a Domino's pizza then. nirvana!

My current town doesn't have McDonald's. We have a Burger King, which is the slowest "fast food" place I have ever heard of. Takes forever to get service according to people I know who have gone there (I haven't gone there myself).

Lots of non-franchise places in town; we prefer that, actually. But does mean they could discriminate.

 

[paddymcdougall]

I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, I think that the freedom of association, as strongly implied in the First Amendment, must include an absolute right on the part of every consumer and every merchant to choose with whom he will or will not do business. I am alarmed when I see anti-discrimination laws used to compel decent merchants to participate in immoral events against their will, such as sick homosexual mockeries of weddings; or punished for declining to do so—an overt application of law to support that which is evil at the expense of that which is good.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the genuine unfairness that has been experienced in our past, especially by those of the Negroid race, who sometimes found themselves in towns where no restaurant or motel or other necessary provider would service them; and it does seem seriously unjust and unfair that one's ability to secure and maintain employment, or to secure necessary goods and services, should be impaired as a result of traits that have nothing tiredly to do with the transactions in which they seek to engage.

I am alarmed, also, at the concept of protected classes” to which anti-discrimination laws are applied. I think this concept blatantly violates the “equal protection”*clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by selectively forbidding discrimination against members of these “protected classes”, while allowing equally-unjust discrimination against others for reasons that do not fall under these “protected classes”. Again, this sometimes results in the law being forced to uphold evil over good. For example, in many jurisdictions, being a sick, immoral sexual pervert makes one a member of a “protected class”, but holding and expressing decent moral values that would condemn this pervert for what he is does not.

I'm appalled by your whole post. Does your family ever let you out of the house to mingle with polite society?

 

[AGENT J]

I was right. I cant help you understand. I gave it a shot though.

translation: you were further proved wrong and now you got nothing except more posted lies that NOBODY falls for lol, I accept you concession.
facts win again

 

[Fletch]

translation: you were further proved wrong and now you got nothing except more posted lies that NOBODY falls for lol, I accept you concession.
facts win again

LOL You proved nothing; you provided no facts. I have lied about nothing and conceded nothing. That makes you 0 for 4.

 

[AGENT J]

LOL You proved nothing; you provided no facts. I have lied about nothing and conceded nothing. That makes you 0 for 4.

thread history proves different :shrug:
denying this fact only makes your post further fail, you asked me what should be the case, i gave my answer muiltiple times

so that leaves only two options. You posted a lie and said i didnt or you made a mistake and posted something that factually wasnt true because YOU missed the answer i gave muiltiple times. Either way its your mistake and issue to fix which I will simply contine to point out lol
facts win again

 

[Fletch]

thread history proves different :shrug:
denying this fact only makes your post further fail, you asked me what should be the case, i gave my answer muiltiple times

so that leaves only two options. You posted a lie and said i didnt or you made a mistake and posted something that factually wasnt true because YOU missed the answer i gave muiltiple times. Either way its your mistake and issue to fix which I will simply contine to point out lol
facts win again

You proved nothing; you provided no facts. I have lied about nothing and conceded nothing. And now, thread history proves nothing either. You are now 0 for 5.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whateve reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

Considering that the "fake libertarians" are really just a bunch of Tea Party bigots, this is not a good way to separate real from fake. Quite the contrary, the fake libertarians are the ones who adhere to libertarian ideology on these sorts of issues, while ignoring issues of civil liberty.

The Civil Rights act has been essentially in undoing generations of immoral and wholly up libertarian discrimination. A few generations of some relatively benign anti discrimination policy is necessary to counteract that. It's the so-called libertarians who want to legalize discrimination is business, without bothering about the discrimination still present against gays for instance, who are the fake ones.

So this question might be a good gauge, but not in the way you think.

 

[AGENT J]

You proved nothing; you provided no facts. I have lied about nothing and conceded nothing. And now, thread history proves nothing either. You are now 0 for 5.

sorry nobody buys your reposted lies lol
facts win again

but this is AWESOME and will be will be fun!

are you denying the fact that i answered you multiple times and you claimed i didnt? PLEASE SAY YES! because using thread history/quotes i will further prove your claims wrong

 

[Fletch]

sorry nobody buys your reposted lies lol
facts win again

but this is AWESOME and will be will be fun!

are you denying the fact that i answered you multiple times and you claimed i didnt? PLEASE SAY YES! because using thread history/quotes i will further prove your claims wrong

You proved nothing; you provided no facts. I have lied about nothing and conceded nothing. And now, thread history proves nothing either. I am, of course, not counting the new accusation of lies since that's already been counted. So you are still 0 for 5.