• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you patronize a business that discriminated against LGBT people?

Would you?

  • Total voters
    64
Unrepresented said:
It's a statement about individualism v collectivism. If you fail to support others, others will fail to support you.
Click to expand...

But you are advocating using government force against another private citizen - just as the fascists sought to use government force against Jewish business owners.

The business owner is not seeking to use government force or coercion against the LGBT community, they are simply exercising their right to do business with whom they wish.

Your viewing this exactly backwards - just as most Americans have come to view these issues in the most unAmerican of ways, i.e. that the Constitution is a positive document which gives the FedGov almost unlimited power over the people.

The Constitution was designed to be a negative, constrictive document that constrained and prevented the government from imposing anything upon the people that it was not expressly empowered by the Constitution to do.

The Constitution has been turned on its head. Instead of the people being free to conduct their lives as they see fit, free from government interference in their lives, we now live in a country in which the FedGov is empowered to arrest people without warrant, seize their property in direct violation of the 4th amendment, hold them without charge, and kill them without due process. Of course the government is also empowered to force the citizenry to purchase private financial instruments, and to dictate the terms upon which a supposedly private business can conduct its business.

That brief summation is entirely characteristic of fascism, and entirely unAmerican, anti-liberty, and unconstitutional.

Yet, here we are - "... in America today, the path to tyranny can be laid by entirely legal means."

The threat here, as in almost all cases, is the government. It is not the business owner who, may or may not be a bigot. If he wants to be a bigot, don't do business with him - but you have no right to force him to do anything, nor does the government.
 

won't someone PLEASE think of the white hetero christian male?!?

yeah right, christians are by far a larger population, so a lgbt business refusing service to them is not even a blip on the radar compared to the damage done by laws like indiana's that specifically target lgbt

cry more
 
You've managed to completely ignore the fact that this thread isn't about imposing government force on business owners.
 
I would not want to patronize any establishment that discriminates. Period. My country is great because such bigotry is not one of it's founding principles.
 

I'm not saying a boycott is tyranny of the majority - a boycott is the exercise of free expression by an group of people. Nothing illegal about that. I am not speaking against boycotts.

I am speaking against the government acting as a positive agent for the majority, outside its proper authority. The FedGov should have no say in the daily dealings of private businesses.

This is America - America is supposed to be about freedom. If the LGBT group is refused patronage by one business, they are free to patronize another business who would only be too happy to accept their money. Everyone remains free to live their lives as they see fit.

Where this goes off the rails is when, in this case, the LGBT community and their supporters seek to use the power of government to coerce another citizen to accede to their demands and force them to do business with them against their will.
 

Most Americans are perfectly happy with the government having a say in the inner workings of business. We are a better country because of it.

No one is forcing you to engage in commerce. You do not have to operate a business. But when you decide to do so, you decide to operate under the rules government, elected and voted in by the people, have imposed on you.
 
Unrepresented said:
You've managed to completely ignore the fact that this thread isn't about imposing government force on business owners.
Click to expand...

No I didn't - I said I wouldn't have a problem doing business with a business who discriminated against someone else... it would depend.

That said, I don't begrudge them their freedom to do business with anyone they wish - including to refuse me service. It's their business.
 

You may not begrudge them for doing so, but legally you would have the right to sue them ;-) as it's illegal. No one cares about how you FEEL, we care about what is legal. And whether or not you hold ill will towards a business for discriminating against you is irrelevant. They are legally acting in the wrong.
 

So in this mess of a tangent I was able to manage the understanding that you are okay with a business discriminating against anybody for any reason. Even if they were blacks, Jews, Hispanic, etc. What if you lived in a town (let's say some place like Alabama) as a black gay atheist. Do you think you could live with the same respect as your neighbor if the bakery, pizza shop, super market, and mechanic were able to discriminate and have signs that read "No Blacks, gays, atheist, etc" ?
 

No we're not a better country for it... b/c the government has no such authority to begin with. You're agreeing that the government can operate outside the very law that is supposed to limit it.

Just as most Americans agree that the Patriot Act is necessary - neverminding that it too is entirely unconstitutional, and a direct threat to everyone's liberty - the same as these laws that seek to control a supposedly private business.

Again, that is fascism.
 

How is legal?? or illegal??

Where does the FedGov have the authority??

In the case of Indiana, they are simply standing up for the rights of business owners - the law stands up for liberty.

It is amazing how this escapes Americans today.
 

It's their business, lol...

If I were discriminated against in such a way that I couldn't live day to day - I would move. I surely wouldn't go crying to government.
 
Take heart guys...

This is your country now. The government is completely unconstrained by the rule of law. As a result, none of us is safe from the awful power of government.

Sadly, somewhere along the line you people were indoctrinated into believing that government should be positively empowered outside the rule of law. Be in the name of democracy, or fairness, or whatever... as a result, the government is a beast that will continue to manipulate the people and society until such time as all of our liberties will be completely crushed.

What is happening here in America today, is exactly what happened in previous great societies that died, went the way of democracy, collapsed, and emerged under authoritarian rule of flavor or another.

What is happening in America today, is exactly what our founding fathers warned us against, and attempted to prevent by crafting an thoroughly negative Constitution that was intended to constrain government, and not the people themselves.

What you people are saying is the exact opposite of what liberty means, and what our country was founded upon.
 
I believe the year was 1994. Anita Bryant had come under attack for opposing gay something or other and gays wanted her to lose her contract to promote Florida orange juice. I don't remember exactly how but Rush Limbaugh was also involved. He may have had a spokesperson position as well. Gloria Steinem came to Tampa to lead a protest against Florida orange juice. She was on the news pouring a gallon of juice out on Fowler avenue in front of a grocery store.

Limbaugh suggested that people go to the grocery and buy orange juice in support of Bryant. The store sold out of orange juice. I bought a hundred dollars worth. That by the way is an impossible amount of orange juice to drink before it goes bad.

As Steinem left in her Mercedes she drove by me on my way to my truck. I raised a carton of juice as she drove by. She raised her middle finger in response. Uncivil I thought.
 
Fascism is a term thrown around a lot like communism. The fact that Walmart is legally barred from banning blacks from shopping from their stores is in no way fascism.

You find all kinds on Internet political Orin's. Luckily most people don't share your views lol. They are ridiculous.
 
wist43 said:
Where does the FedGov have the authority?? ...

It is amazing how this escapes Americans today.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how it escapes you. A long time ago business did whatever they hell they wanted.

Like Chicago's meat industry, for example, which didn't bother to pick out the rat feces or the even the rat corpses from their meat grinders.

Or like how nightclubs would catch on fire due to unsafe handling of flames because of sheer negligence, which would then burn several hundred people alive.

How about you have your next burger with a side of listeria or e. coli in a burning-down theater and then come back to us and explain why it's so terrible that our "fascist" government is stepping in to institute health codes, building codes,; zoning, license and permit laws, accommodation laws and the like.
 

The Commerce Clause has been expanded beyond its original narrow intention, and I don't have an argument against some of that, but to be sure it has been expanded to abuse.

That said, most of those types of laws are in-line with the 10th amendment, i.e. they are state matters and do not fall under the authority of the FedGov at all. Just as murder is not a Federal crime - except under certain circumstances.

You guys need to reread the Constitution and what it is supposed to mean - Federalism is not completely dead yet.
 
depends what the nature of the business is and how much I needed its product or services
 
Your Star said:
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?
Click to expand...

Yes. 100% I would also tell everybody that I knew not to shop there. Great way to find out if your friends are bigots.
 

The government is simply an extension of the exercise of free expression of the people. The people think that if a business signs a contract with the government then the government can act on behalf of the people and outlaw certain aspects of conduct and business. America is not nor has it ever been a completely free society and that is what makes society here so strong and so great.
 
Discriminate by refusing to hire or serve LGBTs? If I know about the policy, I absolutely would not patronize them. I'll not knowingly contribute to a racist or bigot's profit margin.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes. 100% I would also tell everybody that I knew not to shop there. Great way to find out if your friends are bigots.
Click to expand...

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You said yes, you would patronize businesses that discriminate, then added that you'd tell everyone else not to shop there. Am I missing something?
 
Your Star said:
If it were legal, and they made it known, would you?
Click to expand...

My initial reactoin is to say "no", but frankly with the way some people claim "discrimination" I'm uncomfortable saying that.

For example, I absolutely continued to eat at Chik-Fil-A. I did not view the charitable foundation that they give money to, then giving money to other organizations, who are opposed to same sex marriage as "discrimination" on the park of Chik-Fil-A. Now if Chik-Fil-A simply said they'd stop selling to gay Patrons...that'd be more likely to cause me to say "Fine, you won't get my business".

It'd also depend on context to me. We've been hearing a lot about the bakers recently. A baker refusing to sell anything to "gay" people would likely cause me to not bother using that baker ever. A baker simply refusing to make something specifically for a gay WEDDING...an EVENT, not a person or sexual orientation....because of their religious views would likely not cause me to withhold my business.
 
Same answer as I had to Josie's poll. I don't shop to make political and/or social statements. I shop somewhere because I perceive it to be the best value for my money. I rarely make a decision on where to spend my money based on my personal opinion of the owner or management. The only time is when I know there is animal abuse involved in the end product or service. Other than that, I don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…