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.
What would be considered an essential business? Hospitals of course, maybe grocery stores, possible gas stations. What about restaurants?
They would mostly be anything healthcare related, grocery stores and gas stations, but there are probably others that I can't think of right now. Restaurants would not be, IMHO.
Sure there is a reason, the government should not have the power to decide with who you choose to associate.
What purpose does it server to force non-essential businesses to associate with everyone?
It serves a very important purpose. Every individual knows that he can enter any business in state or the country, for that matter, and be served. He doesn't have to plan his day around the idea that some businesses won't choose to serve him. He doesn't have to guess which ones will refuse. He doesn't have to call ahead to avoid the embarrassment of taking his family out to dinner only to be told that "We don't serve _____ here."
Its more efficient and its more orderly. Allowing businesses to discriminate would work considerable inconvenience on many people who belong to minority groups. I'm leaving out of this the shame and indignity they would feel being refused service.
On the other hand, how does the business owner suffer by being made to serve all? Answer: He doesn't really. He simply makes more money serving all people. That is why I claim that any alleged infringement on "freedom" here is phony.
Other than not being allowed to project his hatred onto others can you explain to me what liberty or freedom the business owner is losing in this situation? If you can quantify it beyond that point than do so. I'm all ears.
Last edited by markg91359; 02-27-2015 at 03:39 PM..
I'm sure any black senior citizen could spend a couple of days telling you about all the times they were called names, not invited to social events and not allowed to play with white children. Does that mean we should require every white person to have black friends?
White people are not businesses.
A businesses is a business. It's an abstract concept that only exists in any legal, recognized sense if it is brought into being and operated in accordance to the law.
A person is a person.
You keep refusing to recognize them as separate concepts in spite of a bunch of people on this thread continuously pointing out that the law has long been able to make that differentiation.
A business is not a person. A person can believe anything they want, associate with whoever they want. A business must obey the law or it has no legitimate right to exist, as a business is not recognized to exist in any legal, legitimate sense outside of the law.
A businesses is a business. It's an abstract concept that only exists in any legal, recognized sense if it is brought into being and operated in accordance to the law.
A person is a person.
You keep refusing to recognize them as separate concepts in spite of a bunch of people on this thread continuously pointing out that the law has long been able to make that differentiation.
A business is not a person. A person can believe anything they want, associate with whoever they want. A business must obey the law or it has no legitimate right to exist, as a business is not recognized to exist in any legal, legitimate sense outside of the law.
That is exactly the reason why we keep on talking about this
They would mostly be anything healthcare related, grocery stores and gas stations, but there are probably others that I can't think of right now. Restaurants would not be, IMHO.
What about while traveling? Eating is kind of essential and cars don't have kitchens.
Then there are hotels, should they be allowed to refuse rooms to people?
I might actually be ok with getting rid of anti-discrimination laws as long as all businesses were required to post on their doors who they would not serve. But if they refused someone that they did not list they should be fined.
That way I would know before ordering who they would serve and others would know who discriminates too.
It serves a very important purpose. Every individual knows that he can enter any business in state or the country, for that matter, and be served. He doesn't have to plan his day around the idea that some businesses won't choose to serve him. He doesn't have to guess which ones will refuse. He doesn't have to call ahead to avoid the embarrassment of taking his family out to dinner only to be told that "We don't serve _____ here."
In that case, shouldn't we require businesses to be open on specified days and times? Do you feel it should be illegal for a business to close because they owner is celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary and wants all of his employees to be able to attend?
Sorry, but the slight possibility of someone being inconvenienced isn't sufficient for the government to force association, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Its more efficient and its more orderly. Allowing businesses to discriminate would work considerable inconvenience on many people who belong to minority groups. I'm leaving out of this the shame and indignity they would feel being refused service.
Since people can experience shame and indignity because they were called a racial slur in front of their children, should we make laws against racial slurs as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
On the other hand, how does the business owner suffer by being made to serve all? Answer: He doesn't really. He simply makes more money serving all people.
How would you suffer by the government telling you that you must be friends with certain types of people? Wouldn't you just end up with more friends?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Other than not being allowed to project his hatred onto others can you explain to me what liberty or freedom the business owner is losing in this situation?
Freedom of association. It doesn't matter if you think the end result makes you feel good; the fact is that it's a power the government shouldn't have.
What about while traveling? Eating is kind of essential and cars don't have kitchens.
Then there are hotels, should they be allowed to refuse rooms to people?
I might actually be ok with getting rid of anti-discrimination laws as long as all businesses were required to post on their doors who they would not serve. But if they refused someone that they did not list they should be fined.
That way I would know before ordering who they would serve and others would know who discriminates too.
In that case, shouldn't we require businesses to be open on specified days and times? Do you feel it should be illegal for a business to close because they owner is celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary and wants all of his employees to be able to attend?
Sorry, but the slight possibility of someone being inconvenienced isn't sufficient for the government to force association, IMHO.
Since people can experience shame and indignity because they were called a racial slur in front of their children, should we make laws against racial slurs as well?
How would you suffer by the government telling you that you must be friends with certain types of people? Wouldn't you just end up with more friends?
Freedom of association. It doesn't matter if you think the end result makes you feel good; the fact is that it's a power the government shouldn't have.
Pedro, the problem is that you confuse the idea of forcing someone to associate with someone else with the purchase and sale of goods by a business. The two are not the same thing. Congress's power to regulate commerce is right in the Constitution in Article I; Section 8; Clause 3.
"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states..."
A businesses is a business. It's an abstract concept that only exists in any legal, recognized sense if it is brought into being and operated in accordance to the law.
A person is a person.
You keep refusing to recognize them as separate concepts in spite of a bunch of people on this thread continuously pointing out that the law has long been able to make that differentiation.
A business is not a person. A person can believe anything they want, associate with whoever they want. A business must obey the law or it has no legitimate right to exist, as a business is not recognized to exist in any legal, legitimate sense outside of the law.
Sorry, but businesses are ran by people. So you are still forcing people to associate with those they do not want to associate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
What about while traveling? Eating is kind of essential and cars don't have kitchens.
Then there are hotels, should they be allowed to refuse rooms to people?
So, should restaurants be required to be open 24/7 so that no traveler will be without food?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I might actually be ok with getting rid of anti-discrimination laws as long as all businesses were required to post on their doors who they would not serve. But if they refused someone that they did not list they should be fined.
That way I would know before ordering who they would serve and others would know who discriminates too.
With today's technology, there might as well be a sign.
I know that I want to know which businesses don't want to server black people, gay people, etc. so that I can make sure that I do not support them financially.
Pedro, the problem is that you confuse the idea of forcing someone to associate with someone else with the purchase and sale of goods by a business. The two are not the same thing. Congress's power to regulate commerce is right in the Constitution in Article I; Section 8; Clause 3.
"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states..."
What you are referring to is the interstate commerce clause.
Interstate commerce has nothing whatsoever to do with me going down the road to the flower shop and ordering flowers.
The only way the interstate commerce clause would have any bearing on this specific case is if the flower shop were shipping flowers to another state, and the government would only have jurisdiction, under the interstate commerce clause, over those specific orders going across state lines.
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.
