Should a business be allowed to discrimate on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation?

[Stoked]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I was just pointing out that both private and public businesses make use of public resources and are constrained by the laws of the land. What laws apply to what businesses for what reasons is a choice we make as a society.

OK fair enough. I think that as private individuals, and by extension private businesses, should have more leeway in who they choose to be and what they stand for. I see this issue, along with most others, as a freedom issue.

I can see how others disagree and they have every right to do so.

 

[Stoked]

Yet you are ok with the state telling people what to do.

Based on what? We could go on a bender of laws that Utah is passing that I consider wrong. For example: Utah's stance on gay marriage and its alcohol laws.

I'm for more power in people's homes. Less in other people's hands telling them what to do.

 

[Scat]

Nice try. If you are going to quote someone you should use the whole quote. When you cherry pick a quote your argument loses it's validity.

Relax. GVC comments simply reminded me of the whole "You didn't build that" uproar.

 

[franklin]

Go for it.

If a restaurant wants to say they're not going to serve black people, I think they should have every right to do so. They'll see the consequences in their pay stubs. These situations generally fix themselves.

Your utopic views are darling, kiddo.

 

[One Brow]

For instance, I don't think a hipster, vegan photographer should be forced to do a promo shoot for the new local McDonald's to advertise in the town paper. I also expect McDonald's to feel likewise, not really care, and take their business elsewhere.

McDonald's doesn't get kicked out of buildings for serving meat. Context matters.

 

[One Brow]

It seems every business I have ever been in has a sign that says, more or less, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Is this saying that statement is untrue? Can a business be forced to serve everyone whether they agree with it or not?

If that's the case then I am dropping my pants and going back to that 7-11 and telling them to stick their "no shirt no shoes" sign where the sun don't shine.

All you have to do is get pants-droppers declared a suspect class.

 

[One Brow]

I never said I was ok with racial discrimination, but what do you think is going to happen to a restaurant that doesn't allow colored people? How many people are going to eat at a restaurant that openly discriminates like that?

Lot's of people. Some people will go there specifically because of such a policy.

 

[Hantlers]

Lot's of people. Some people will go there specifically because of such a policy.

More people than what they had before? Unless if they're in an area where there are essentially no colored people, they're going to lose business. They'll get national press...negative press. Economically, they'll lose.

 

[One Brow]

More people than what they had before? Unless if they're in an area where there are essentially no colored people, they're going to lose business. They'll get national press...negative press. Economically, they'll lose.

That's why segregated restaurants were so rare in the heavily black counties of the South in the 1950's, right? [/sarcasm]

 

[Hantlers]

That's why segregated restaurants were so rare in the heavily black counties of the South in the 1950's, right? [/sarcasm]

Comparing todays culture to the culture of 1950 is illogical. Even you should be able to see that.

We didn't have twitter, facebook, computers, cell phones, or message boards in 1950. We didn't have instant news in 1950. If you can't see the difference that would make, then you're just blinding yourself.

 

[The Thriller]

Comparing todays culture to the culture of 1950 is illogical. Even you should be able to see that.

We didn't have twitter, facebook, computers, cell phones, or message boards in 1950. We didn't have instant news in 1950. If you can't see the difference that would make, then you're just blinding yourself.

Serious question, have you ever visited any of the former confederate states?

Social media has changed some things... However, there are some states where things seriously haven't changed much in 200+ years. Visit Alabama or Mississippi and your opinion on the power and influence social media has had on today's culture might change.

 

[Hantlers]

Serious question, have you ever visited any of the former confederate states?

Social media has changed some things... However, there are some states where things seriously haven't changed much in 200+ years. Visit Alabama or Mississippi and your opinion on the power and influence social media has had on today's culture might change.

Ya know what rules Alabama? Football. Guess what color the best football players typically are? Sports changed a lot of things over there.

There are still quite a few racist people there, but they either live in segregated white communities or they already go to places where black people aren't. Not much would change.

And yes, I have been to the South.

 

[One Brow]

Comparing todays culture to the culture of 1950 is illogical. Even you should be able to see that.

We didn't have twitter, facebook, computers, cell phones, or message boards in 1950. We didn't have instant news in 1950. If you can't see the difference that would make, then you're just blinding yourself.

Do you want a list of all the countries today that have institutionalized discrimination alongside twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards? Is there no fact too obvious for you to discount?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Do you want a list of all the countries today that have institutionalized discrimination alongside twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards? Is there no fact too obvious for you to discount?

Other countries are irrelevant. Institutional discrimination is also irrelevant in this argument. Private enterprise is the crux of the issue, plus the added superfluousness of the Arizona bill.

 

[Stoked]

Here is an example of the difference between now and the 1950s One Brow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...peaks-out-against-controversial-arizona-bill/

This is over just the chance of passing that bill. A business that refuses service to someone will be damned in the court of public opinion. For a personal example. I myself think they should have the right but as a result I will no longer take my business/money to that business.

 

[One Brow]

Here is an example of the difference between now and the 1950s One Brow.

I don't see the point of including this article. Is this supposed to support the notion that market forces alongside twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards will always be sufficient to prevent discrimination? Are you saying that in any country that has alongside twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards, you will see similar, successful protests over discriminatory bills/laws/activities? Did you think I was confused about the calendar?

 

[One Brow]

Other countries are irrelevant. Institutional discrimination is also irrelevant in this argument. Private enterprise is the crux of the issue, plus the added superfluousness of the Arizona bill.

Here in the US, Chick-Fil-A experience record sales on Aug 1, 2012, as the result of a campaign to thank it for contributing to homophobic causes. This campaign was supported, in part, via twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards.

If the culture generally approves of belittling or marginalizing some group, the presence of twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards will only serve to reinforce that marginalization.

 

[Stoked]

Here in the US, Chick-Fil-A experience record sales on Aug 1, 2012, as the result of a campaign to thank it for contributing to homophobic causes. This campaign was supported, in part, via twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards.

If the culture generally approves of belittling or marginalizing some group, the presence of twitter, Facebook, computers, cell phones, and message boards will only serve to reinforce that marginalization.

Did Chik-fil-a at any time refuse service to a homo couple or individual? They should be able to take any stance they want. Societal forces will not end discrimination but having these laws doesnt do that either. However, the article clearly shows that there is a societal and economic impact for making those type of stands. That is my point. They should have the right to make those stances and prosper or suffer as a result. No matter how much you and I disagree with that stance (and I do).

 

[One Brow]

Did Chik-fil-a at any time refuse service to a homo couple or individual?

Nope.

They should be able to take any stance they want.

Agreed.

Societal forces will not end discrimination

This was my point.

However, the article clearly shows that there is a societal and economic impact for making those type of stands. That is my point.

Sometimes the impact is negative, and sometimes it is positive. If you point is only that there is often an impact, I have no reason to dispute that. If your point is that the only impacts are negative, you are wrong.

 

[PearlWatson]

So, what you really want is repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that would be the law that the business will be breaking by refusing service based skin color, gender, etc.

Homosexuals aren't a protected group under that law...they are in some states under other laws. Skin color and gender are physical attributes, while homosexual activity is a behavior...

This law is preemptive to protect freedom of conscience, conscientious objectors if you will, before centuries old laws are changed.