You don't assume ownership of anything. You still have to pay for whatever good or service you buy. The government 'forces' people to act humanly for a reason. People don't have a right to treat another person like sh*t because they have a right to be sh*tty because they own a business.
It is not, it's Fiddy's beloved boot coming into play. All government force is ultimately backed by the gun. It is just a mere statement of fact.
I thought we were all equal? Now I'm being told it would be okay to refuse service to someone strictly because she is blonde (like myself, for instance). What law protects me? And please don't pretend people don't dislike people from all walks of life. I know people here in New England who detest white men from Alabama, call them stupid, rednecks and losers. Is that okay?
You don't assume ownership of anything. You still have to pay for whatever good or service you buy. The government 'forces' people to act humanly for a reason. People don't have a right to treat another person like sh*t because they have a right to be sh*tty because they own a business.
Then we are in agreement that the failure to provide someone a service does not worsen someones condition, but simply does not act to better it.
Well that is extreme 'all or nothing' thinking.
Yeah, if someone is having a heart attack and dies the doctor who refused to treat him just didn't better his condition:roll:
Individual freedom is key, the rights and liberties of the individual do reign supreme. We're all responsible in a free society to uphold the responsibilities and repercussions of freedom else you lose it. Consequences aren't necessarily self-inflicted either.
Any other trite, dismissive statement that doesn't actually deal with anything I have said left? Or are you done?
In a public venue, more than one person's individual freedom, rights, and liberties are involved, period. Your right to discriminate in a public venue should not overrule someone else's right to the service or product. To imagine that individual freedoms is the end of the discussion is irresponsible. Yes, it's a part of the discussion, but not the entire discussion.
No, you assume ownership the moment you claim entitlement to the property.
That all government force is ultimately backed by the gun? No, it's not. It's just reality. Push hard enough, the gun comes out. Just because it may be masked behind fines and misdemeanors doesn't mean the force isn't ultimately backed by the gun.
That all government force is ultimately backed by the gun? No, it's not. It's just reality. Push hard enough, the gun comes out. Just because it may be masked behind fines and misdemeanors doesn't mean the force isn't ultimately backed by the gun.
No, property owners don't have the right to act like lords.
So, all laws are backed by the government gun?
In a public venue, more than one person's individual freedom, rights, and liberties are involved, period. Your right to discriminate in a public venue should not overrule someone else's right to the service or product. To imagine that individual freedoms is the end of the discussion is irresponsible. Yes, it's a part of the discussion, but not the entire discussion.
No it's nothing akin to slavery. You're not being harmed. You get the same pay as any other person would pay for the same service or product. Slaves were harmed and not paid. You are simply being required to not stop the flow of the economy unless there is potential harm to you or your business. Since there is none, you can't. For them to have to get the product of service elsewhere is a hardship, even if it's a tiny hardship in some cases, it's a huge hardship in others, so it's best to draw the line cleanly where it is at.Explain to me how you have a right to someone else's labor and property? You do realize you're describing the right to slaves, right?
They are not. But the only way you can be entitled to the property is if you were somehow part owner of the property. Thus the entitlement in and of itself is proof of your usurpation of property. You're actually not entitled to another's property nor their labor.
If you are open to the general public, you are a public business. If you are a government entity, you are not a public business, as you are not a business, you are the government.But private business is not public. The government, of course, cannot discriminate.
No one's claiming the property. The good or service will be paid for so your argument is not "taking" someone's property away.
Ultimately, yes. Try not following a few, and see what happens.
Yes, you are claiming the property and the labor. If a man has a cupcake, that's his cupcake. You are claiming it.
If you are open to the general public, you are a public business. If you are a government entity, you are not a public business, as you are not a business, you are the government.
So, are you saying we should have no laws?
No one's claiming the property. The good or service will be paid for so your argument is not "taking" someone's property away.
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?