What's new
By:

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

JimLes said:
You call people what they want to be called. It's just basic courtesy. No need to pontificate about how accurate the term is or whatever else. Just call them what they want to be called. Why is that so hard?
Click to expand...

Call me Your Majesty or I'll be offended.
 
Here is a question I have wondered about before. If we just simply removed all laws that involve race from the books completely, and no one could sue anyone else for discrimination or anything like that on one side or the other, what would be the direction society would go unhindered? Would it revert entirely back to the slavery days? Would we actually progress in equality maybe?
 
Hantlers said:
I see from your response that you lack both reading comprehension and grammar skills.

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? Essentially nobody would eat there, they go out of business, story finished. Again, these problems fix themselves.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the business is in an area of 95% whites and there is a very small portion of black people. They get refused service and the rest of the population doesn't care. You are allowing discrimination and segregation.
 
The Thriller said:
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.
Click to expand...

**** off. MS and AL are just like anywhere else. There are places that majority white,places that majority black, mixed populations, country areas, and more modern areas. Places like Utah, Arizona, California, etc (anywhere) are just as racist.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Here is a question I have wondered about before. If we just simply removed all laws that involve race from the books completely, and no one could sue anyone else for discrimination or anything like that on one side or the other, what would be the direction society would go unhindered? Would it revert entirely back to the slavery days? Would we actually progress in equality maybe?
Click to expand...

The people with the money would control how the world works even more. White people would be able to make more pro-white decisions.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
**** off. MS and AL are just like anywhere else. There are places that majority white,places that majority black, mixed populations, country areas, and more modern areas. Places like Utah, Arizona, California, etc (anywhere) are just as racist.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that if there's anti-black discrimination in Utah, it affects 1% of the population. In Mississippi, that's 37%.
 
JimLes said:
You call people what they want to be called. It's just basic courtesy. No need to pontificate about how accurate the term is or whatever else. Just call them what they want to be called. Why is that so hard?
Click to expand...

So I should just go up to a black guy and ask him what he wants me to call him?

I'm sure that would go over well.

You missed the whole point of what I was saying though, which isn't a shock.
 
Hantlers said:
If somebody doesn't want to serve somebody something, then that's fine. They will either get less business, or more business because of it.

It's called a business decision, and the way people react to it will determine the profits the business makes because of that decision.

You see, if they don't want to serve gay and lesbian people, the government doesn't need to do anything...people just need to quit going there, and eventually the business sees that they are losing money and they either go out of business or change their business plan. It always ends up fixing itself in situations like this.
Click to expand...

I'm a capitalist. Through and through. I don't think it's a perfect system but I think it's as close to perfect as one can get. I believe in the market. I believe that both profit and loss are equally important in order for capitalism to work. But I also believe in equal protection under the law. I believe in the general welfare of our population.

I think those signs used in retail stores that allow the proprietor to refuse service are centered around people that come into a retail environment to cause trouble.

Furthermore, this proposed AZ law seems like it wasn't really thought out, though I haven't read the text of the law itself. I mean, other than one of those wedding cake scenarios, how would a proprietor know someone's orientation? I mean, with men, many of the millenial generation, there are a lot that talk very effiminate but are not of the homosexual variety. I just don't think the law was well thought out.
 
Hantlers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then I think this comes down to a philosophical argument.
 
Hantlers said:
But if it did happen, it would make national news. They wouldn't need the government to fix it for them, negative press, less business and angry people would fix that problem. It's really simple.
Click to expand...

It really isn't though and your explanation goes against the history of this country.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
How about John? Or Tyrone? Or Stacey?
Click to expand...

You're obviously taking the piss here, so it's not really relevant. If you were serious(something you could show by legally changing your name, for example), then of course I'd call you whatever you want to be called.
 
Hantlers said:
So I should just go up to a black guy and ask him what he wants me to call him?

I'm sure that would go over well.

You missed the whole point of what I was saying though, which isn't a shock.
Click to expand...

There are spokespeople and mouthpieces for every group. Err on the side of caution. And I'm pretty sure I didn't miss your point, as poorly articulated as it was. You seem to believe that the appellation "African-American" should be related to whether someone is from Africa or not. I'm trying to ask why you think that.
 
JimLes said:
You're obviously taking the piss here, so it's not really relevant. If you were serious(something you could show by legally changing your name, for example), then of course I'd call you whatever you want to be called.
Click to expand...

Do you prefer to be called "nincompoop"? Cause if so, that'd be awfully convenient for a lot of us. Just wondering.
 
JimLes said:
There are spokespeople and mouthpieces for every group. Err on the side of caution. And I'm pretty sure I didn't miss your point, as poorly articulated as it was. You seem to believe that the appellation "African-American" should be related to whether someone is from Africa or not. I'm trying to ask why you think that.
Click to expand...

Well ya see Jim, if you're not from Africa, you may not want to be called an African-American. Why the hell would I call somebody from Jamaica an African-American? Doesn't make any sense. It seems ignorant to assume that all black people are from Africa.
 
Hantlers said:
Well ya see Jim, if you're not from Africa, you may not want to be called an African-American. Why the hell would I call somebody from Jamaica an African-American? Doesn't make any sense. It seems ignorant to assume that all black people are from Africa.
Click to expand...

Where, pray tell, did the ancestors of Jamaican blacks come from?
 
Anyhow, smart move by Gov Brewer to veto the bill. It would have been disastrous to the Arizona economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top