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.
So, if a business owner wants to exclude black folks, this should be permissible too? Should Wal Mart be able to post and enforce a "white's only" policy?
No, that is a issue that is protected. We can not discriminate based on race, religion, etc...
Aside from that though, they can refuse business to anyone they choose and as long as they do not give those protected issues as a reason, they have the right to do so. Nobody has a "right" to enter a business, it is privilege given to people by the owner of the business. They can ask you to leave at any time and there is nothing you can do about it.
Public institutions though, you have a right to because it is ran by the people and paid for by the people.
So, if a business owner wants to exclude black folks, this should be permissible too? Should Wal Mart be able to post and enforce a "white's only" policy?
Quote:
A business or an entrepreneur who express preferences in his business activities that are not related to productivity efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs in himself than other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market they will tend to drive him out.
This same phenomenon is of much wider scope. It is often taken for granted that the person who discriminates against others because of their race, religion, color, or whatever, incurs no costs by doing so but simply imposes costs on others. This view is on par with the very similar fallacy that a country does not hurt itself by imposing tariffs on products of other countries. Both are equally wrong. The man who objects to buying from or working alongside a Negroe, for example. thereby limits his range of choice. He will generally have to pay a higher price for what he buys or receive a lower return for his work. Or, put another way, those of us who regard color of skin or religion as irrelevant can buy some things more cheaply as a result.
...
I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine (racists) in this respect and I think less of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others.
So, if a business owner wants to exclude black folks, this should be permissible too? Should Wal Mart be able to post and enforce a "white's only" policy?
I would go so far as to allow them to do so.
But we all know it would fail. The public outrage would be amazing, tens of millions of families would boycott, other businesses would distance themselves from Wal Mart, and since blacks tend to be more working-class (which Wal Mart aims at), they would be be cutting out a very large portion of their customer base.
And if Wal Mart was able to do something so racist and stupid without suffering for it, segregation would probably still exist and/or anti-discrimination laws would be widely ignored and never enforced.
I am not a smoker, and I never have been. I enjoy going to a bar and not coming home smelling like smoke, but I've never really understood this law, as it's currently on the books in New York State too.
Since I was a child, I've learned the ill-effects of smoking or second hand smoke. Why can't bars or restaurants decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking and have a sign out front showing their designation? If it's the governments belief that more non-smokers are negatively effected by smokers than smokers effected by the ban, wouldn't the non-smokers naturally choose to frequent designated non-smoking establishments? If they don't, they're making an active, informed decision to remain in an environment that is hazerdous to their health. I imagine that capitalism would tell us that the smoking designated establishments would slowly dwindle away.
If the government believes so strongly that smoking is national concern, why don't they just outlaw the sale of tobacco products, rather than slowly trying to coerce smokers into quitting (increased taxes, warnings, smoking bans etc.) My guess is they fear a prohibition-esque result.
Now I've read that some politicians in NYC would like to advertise the caloric intake of fast food meals on chain restaruants' menus. Do people really need to know how many calories are in a Big-Mac, right next to the price, when ordering? If in five years this doesn't curb obesity, what's the next step? Will we decide that you must be 18 or older to buy fast food? Will burgers of over X calories be banned from menus in an effort to save the children? I know this is taking things to extremes, but it's not far from the smoking ban's logic.
You save me a lot of typing! I appreciate your logic in an emotion fueled topic.
There's a difference between public and private institutions. Why shouldn't a private establishment be allowed to decide for itself what it will allow? As a consumer you could decide not to allow your air to be tainted by avoiding the establishment. If you're not strong-willed enough to go against your peer pressure and say that you don't want to go to XYZ Bar because they allow smoking, that's your problem.
If the private swimming pool had a sign that clearly read "Urinating Welcome", and you chose to swim in that pool, you'd enter knowing that there's a risk that you may cross a warm current.
Aye, what happened to the consumer responsibility issue? A business exists to make money. If people do not like smoking, then the business will cater to that. The funny thing about it is that people don't seem to mind it when given a choice. My friend had two bars in his town which were right across the street from each other. One was non-smoking and the other was smoking. The non-smoking one was always empty while the smoking one was always booming with business. The town instituted a ban on smoking not too long after that and the non-smoking bar was a big supporter of it.
Apparently it is just too much to let people make their own decisions. We have to force our personal expectations on everything. The majority of the people out there are hypocrites. Rights? They only care about "their" rights, the rest can bow to their wants. It really is a scam.
I choose NOT to smoke.. to live as healthy as possible..
Now.. I am FORCED to inhale some nicotine junkies smoke because they want the right to "smoke".
Great..you want to smoke.. do it in your own car with the windows rolled up.. that way you get all the nicotine for yourself and the rest of us don't have to inhale it.
Go outside and smoke.. don't pollute the inside where there may be several people who actually CARE about their health and do not want to someday come down with lung cancer..
YOU have a right to smoke.. go right ahead.. just don't do it when you're smoke is forced upon me taking my right away to NOT smoke!!
NY.. you can't smoke in restaurants or any public place.. and since then the quality of air in stores, restaurants, bars etc. has been soooo much better and I can actually enjoy myself without gagging from the disgusting stench of cigarettes!
Oh.. that and I don't have to worry about my son inhaling that junk too!
Well I can tell you I'm loosing sleep over peoples right to smoke AND infect my air at the same time---NOT.
Your air? So you own the air in the business that you go to? Do you own the business? What RIGHT do you have to tell them how to run their business? Do you have to be there? Can you not make a decision to go somewhere else or are you so tied up with yourself that you think everything in the world revolves around catering to you personally? Your air? Thats a good one. I suppose we are using your internet as well?
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.
