Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not immoral and against God's law to be black. Your comparison is absurd.
The United States is not a Christian theocracy yet, so the laws of this god of yours are not relevant. Business owners in the United States follow US law, not some religious decree. Amazingly enough, some business owners might not even pretend your god is real at all.
You're not providing a very rational argument. Private associations and public accommodating businesses are two very different things. If you refused to sell your lawn mower to someone who was gay via a private sale I doubt there is much the government can or would do about it. Once you establish yourself as a business that is open to the public then the rules change. I don't think you're going to undo 60 years of civil rights laws just because you don't like.
I'm not planning to undo it, I'm just stating that the government should not have gotten involved in the first place.
Specifically, why should the government say who you as a small business owner should have to associate with in regards to whom you conduct business?
Specifically, why should the government say who you as a small business owner should have to associate with in regards to whom you conduct business?
Another poster already gave you a perfectly valid answer, as did I. As a small business you are more than likely taking advantage of services provided to you by the community. Your business enjoys police and fire protection, roads and road maintenance, water and sewer, etc. Those services are paid for by all tax payers. You see then why it is not OK to then discriminate against those same individuals? If you had a business in the middle of nowhere and relied on no public services what so ever then I would be much more likely to agree with you.
Of course the business can be ostracized if they take decide to do business in a way that the community feels is wrong. If a business decides not to serve Muslims, then Muslims should be able to picket that business, write letters and call for boycotts.
As far as murder goes, apples and oranges. Do you not see the difference in a business refusing to take photographs of a gay wedding (passive) and person murdering another person because they are gay (active)? That would be like trying to equate you not wanting to invite a Catholic to your home to you going out and murdering a Catholic.
Do you feel that the government should compel you to associate with specific people and groups?
I believe the government can compel you to buy car insurance if you operate a vehicle. I believe the "passive" act of not doing so is something the government can penalize as much as the "passive" act of refusing service to a protected class is if you operate a business. We probably have a fundamental difference of opinion there. Rights are rights and I believe the government has an obligation to ennumerate these rights and ensure they are protected.
Private citizens can associate with whoever for whatever reason. When a private citizen commits a crime against someone, depriving them of life or property that is where the authorities have a role. If you want to only allow white people in your private home that is your business.
A business, once established, does business with the public. If you have a business license and have a restaurant and only allow white people in then you are being discriminatory. There is a line there. There is a distinction between private activities and public businesses in the eyes of the law, rightfully so.
In a multicultural, multi-religious, pluralistic society, you can't have a patchwork of laws like that.
As a divorced woman, I'd have to hunt down a store that will serve me. As a divorced atheist, my choices get narrower. As a divorced white, atheist woman, narrower still. As a divorced, atheist, white, gay-friendly woman there's a good chance I wouldn't be able to shop anywhere at all.
It's ridiculous.
Laws? Where are you getting laws about in any of that?
Businesses should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they choose for whatever reason.
The government should only be concerned about the government or agents of the government discriminating.
If a whole bunch of bakeries suddenly refuse to serve divorced women, guess what? I'm opening a bakery that serves divorced women so that I can benefit from their business.
Considering the Bible is full of stories of people who died or suffered for their faith, losing business is the least they could do (the Book of Job comes to mind). I'm sure they will be rewarded by God in the afterlife.
Laws? Where are you getting laws about in any of that?
Businesses should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they choose for whatever reason.
The government should only be concerned about the government or agents of the government discriminating.
If a whole bunch of bakeries suddenly refuse to serve divorced women, guess what? I'm opening a bakery that serves divorced women so that I can benefit from their business.
Fine. Replace the word laws with preferences. It's still ridiculous.
Because the citizens of the state have decided that is something they want their government to regulate?
Sounds like a pretty valid reason.
So, if the citizens of a state have decided that they want slavery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones
Another poster already gave you a perfectly valid answer, as did I. As a small business you are more than likely taking advantage of services provided to you by the community. Your business enjoys police and fire protection, roads and road maintenance, water and sewer, etc. Those services are paid for by all tax payers. You see then why it is not OK to then discriminate against those same individuals? If you had a business in the middle of nowhere and relied on no public services what so ever then I would be much more likely to agree with you.
As a business you are more than likely paying more in taxes for those services as well.
And since your refusal to do business with someone has no negative impact on those services, what difference does it make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntropyGuardian
I believe the government can compel you to buy car insurance if you operate a vehicle. I believe the "passive" act of not doing so is something the government can penalize as much as the "passive" act of refusing service to a protected class is if you operate a business. We probably have a fundamental difference of opinion there. Rights are rights and I believe the government has an obligation to ennumerate these rights and ensure they are protected.
The government can NOT make me buy car insurance if I am passive and do not drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntropyGuardian
Private citizens can associate with whoever for whatever reason. When a private citizen commits a crime against someone, depriving them of life or property that is where the authorities have a role. If you want to only allow white people in your private home that is your business.
A business, once established, does business with the public. If you have a business license and have a restaurant and only allow white people in then you are being discriminatory. There is a line there. There is a distinction between private activities and public businesses in the eyes of the law, rightfully so.
You interact with the public in your own life. Other members of society and the public at large can be affected by whom you interact. If you are a lawyer, you are in some fashion going to lend your expertise as a lawyer to your friends either by directly advising them (as a friend) or through casual conversation that you are having with them. If you choose to only have friendships with white people aren't you denying black members of your community the perks of your knowledge by excluding them from your circle of friends? Couldn't this potentially deprive them of opportunities?
The problem is that your are looking at this in a moral/emotional way and not in a purely objective manner.
The government should have no say as to whom you choose to associate with in your personal or business life.
Fine. Replace the word laws with preferences. It's still ridiculous.
It's ridiculous that you feel the government should have such control over it's citizens that it can decide who you should interact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
