rabbitcaebannog
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 10,933
- Reaction score
- 2,274
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
If he leaves his business he loses his business. Which is a part of his property.
Yes, I agree. There are times SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly, but I disagree this is the case here.
If he doesn't want to leave his business no one is forcing him.
Because it fits your pov? There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to provide service to others. If the Constitution does not give the government the power to do something then it is unconstitutional.
So you forcing him/her to either serve people that he/she doesn't want to or give up his/her lively hood. Much like the Obamacare mandate that isn't really a valid choice. Either way you are forcing the owner to do SOMETHING in order to promote your own form of discrimination.
You're treating people as equals which is in the 14th amendment.
You're treating people as equals which is in the 14th amendment.
Its discrimination to treat people as equals?
But you're not treating people as equals. You are favoring consumers over the people that own a business and their right to freedom of association.
The 14th is about treating people equally under the law. Unless businesses make laws now a days instead of our Congress and Senate then the 14th does not apply to this situation in the way that you want it to.
But you're not treating people as equals. You are favoring consumers over the people that own a business and their right to freedom of association.
There is a law which is the civil rights law.
It protects consumers not favors them.
It protects consumers not favors them.
Having a business doesn't give one a license to do whatever he pleases.
No one has "the right to discriminate".. Discrimination is inherently anti-free
Yeah, the interest is to trade...that is where the association ends.
Oh, your (general you) right to be a bigot is a 'natural right' compared to their right to be of a different race, creed, religion etc....is that not a 'natural' right?
This is exactly why some "members-only" clubs/organizations/associations exist...exclusive membership at the exclusion of others who don't meet eligibility requirements. And if sex, race, marital status, income/education level, religion, etc., etc. are prerequisites for membership, I don't think most people would have a problem with not including those who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Of course, it's a different story when a facility that any reasonable person knows should be open to the public as you've stated and certain people are kept out, i.e., public swimming pool or a dinner on Route 66.
If businesses are allowed to discriminate, then the allowance of that discrimination must be backed by the force of law...which effectively makes it Jim Crow in all but name. You can deny it all you want...but that, sir, is a fact.
And everybody sometimes wants to punch the other guy in the face sometimes, too...but that doesn't make it right or acceptable to actually do it.
So, are you saying if I dislike serving a cranky person I'm suddenly a servant? I must be a slave then because I served plenty a cranky person in my life. I didn't run around telling people I was a slave though because I understood 98% of the time it had nothing to do with me just like the attributes of another person has nothing to do with me. I'm only a slave to my own prejudices and not a slave to another person wanting to do business with me.
Really, I need to show you that people can get into legal problems if they refuse service based on someone's attributes? A quick google search can give you cases. Denny's has been in hot water for such violations before as well as several other chains.
It couldn't be federal law if it was unconstitutional.
Yes, and its just a federal law, it's called the Civil Rights Act. A law which has no valid basis in the Constitution as there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to serve others. In fact, as I've said before it directly prohibits it. Both in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
In this case the word "protect" is just another word for "favors". Note post 1259.
No, it does. It ignores the desires of business owners to not commence in commerce, so that the consumer can get what they desire.
A business owner is not a King or a lord whose desires should trump every other human being.
Respecting both parties right to either accept or refuse being involved in commerce is not making one superior to the other.
It protects people from being treated unequal due to their attributes. It does not promote servitude. The word servitude is being misused.
Respecting both parties right to either accept or refuse being involved in commerce is not making one superior to the other.
No, protect does not mean favors.
A business owner is not a King or a lord whose desires should trump every other human being.
Hate to break it to you but people do have a right to be racist. And they have a right to freedom of association. If you force them to provide service to someone then that is indeed involuntary servitude. A form of slavery that exists for even 1 second is still slavery.
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?