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.
Feel free to compare buying and selling. It just makes you look silly. The good news for me is I have the law on my side. You have pie in the sky arguments that hold no water.
Hopefully this includes businesses which use public roads, allows payment with US currency, or expect fire and police protection, since those are taxpayer-subsidized government provided services that all businesses use.
Good points and something one must take into consideration when opening a business.
A ridiculously silly thing to say after I posted evidence of your ignorance on this matter.
That was your erroneous assumption. That you put up a link explaining something I understood...but disputed...does not evidence what I did or didn't already know and understand to be what the law is.
Disagreeing with a law doesn't evidence ignorance of it.
This is a debate forum...bringing up things to debate is what is done.
Quote:
Actually you were, since you were replying to the message I posted where the context was clearly specified.
You specified context. So? I was debating the issue beyond just that context.
I even pointed out the example of how the rules are different for public and private schools...to illustrate the hypocrisy of a law that paints public and private entities with the same broad brush.
Again, this is a debate forum.
Quote:
Equality isn't fairness. So assuming that seller and buyer are regarded in the same way is not fairness.
Equality isn't necessarily fairness. So?
I said "Equity AND Fairness"...and "hypocrisy".
Quote:
In this case they are. Your argument is that your personal preferences are superior to society's determination. We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
Yes...we disagree.
I didn't say "personal preference" was superior...I was putting up the argument that "society's determination" based on the law, should not be seen as intrinsically superior just because that is the "definition and standard" the lawmakers capriciously created as the basis for the regulations they drafted.
Feel free to compare buying and selling. It just makes you look silly. The good news for me is I have the law on my side. You have pie in the sky arguments that hold no water.
Yes...this being a debate forum...I will compare the two.
Strange you think it "silly" to bring up points to debate in such a setting.
I'm sure slave owners back in the day used that same, "The good news for me is I have the law on my side", line . And told the dissenters they had "pie in the sky arguments that hold no water".
And by your logic...they were correct.
Though I submit: Merely "correct", but not necessarily "right". This is the point of my argument.
You look silly because they are not comparable. But keep going. It is entertaining. I never once said I was right because of the law. I am saying I am happy I have the law on my side because I feel it is correct. So for me it is a win/win.
Of course they are comparable...Matter of fact, anything and everything is comparable.
Comparisons are typical on debate forums...especially the specific entities being discussed, as they relate to matter being debated.
Quote:
But keep going. It is entertaining.
You're entertained? That's great!...since that is why we are all here.
Except, most seem to be entertained by an actual participation in debating the points being brought up...not by telling others they look silly for bringing up sundry debate points relative to the subject being debated.
Though, it is true that many are sometimes entertained by that...including me.
Quote:
I never once said I was right because of the law.
And I never said you did say that...I said that is the logic behind a, "good news for me is I have the law on my side" premise.
Quote:
I am saying I am happy I have the law on my side because I feel it is correct. So for me it is a win/win.
And like I said...The slave owners back in the day probably felt the same happy way...a win/win for them because they had the law on their side and felt it was correct. Not that that necessarily made it a cool law.
That is the main debate points I put forth: That the law unfairly supports and props up one party in the equation over the other (the Buyer over the Seller)...in a way that it doesn't in other circumstances of private entities of the same genre as public entities. Like schools.
And it is debatable whether it should or not...so much so it is being hashed out in court and the subject of jillions of discussions.
Amazing that bars can still post a sign.............." we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "
As soon as a bar owner tries to exclude a minority, or a specific gender, or a specific religion, they will find that the sign isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
No, it was evidence of your ignorance on this matter. I posted a clear definition of public accommodations. It clearly outlines how public accommodations include both government operations and private companies. You simply were wrong. I'm sorry if that embarrassed you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
That you put up a link explaining something I understood...but disputed...
That's like disputing the dictionary. Good luck pounding sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
This is a debate forum...bringing up things to debate is what is done.
If you're going to make up random meanings for word, that's not debate. It's games playing.
Be clear: You oppose Civil Rights. Then I can say, "That's nice. Most people don't and find opposition to civil rights to be morally offensive. And that's that."
There is a fine line between law and business practices.
What rights does a business owner have in the operation of his business? When does a business owner's personal choice slip from poor business practices to illegal?
If a person wanted to open a personally owned taxi service that caters only to Czechoslovakian speaking customers in Hog Eye, Arkansas, what is wrong with that? They might not make much money but they should have the right to operate a privately owned business that caters to only a specific customer base.
Let the laws of profit and loss be the determining factor when it comes to private business. As long as the product or service is legal and the business is wholly, privately owned with no government assistence, let them swim or sink on their own.
Before you complain about the above, read the next paragraph.
However, in terms of a public business that operates on any type of government subsidy or government benefits (ie: Loans, tax breaks, grants, etc) of any type, that is a different game and should come under full jurisdiction of the State and be open to all people.
(Disclaimer--Taxi's usually have to be franchised,licensed and approved by the city, which does place them under city control in those cities.)
On a personal basis, in addition to morality issues, I believe any business that discriminates is acting foolishly and deserves to loose money.
Perfectly and succinctly worded. Couldn't give a rep, but you definitely deserve it, from this post. If only everyone recognized Property Rights as you, this would be a much better world.
No, it was evidence of your ignorance on this matter. I posted a clear definition of public accommodations. It clearly outlines how public accommodations include both government operations and private companies. You simply were wrong. I'm sorry if that embarrassed you.
First...NOTHING embarrasses me.
I was not wrong. I was fully knowledgeable of the information you linked.
I knew all about it...from first-hand experience.
I've been in private business for near 30 yrs...porn industry. One of the components of my enterprise is a stripclub I bought in 1989. Years ago, one of the patrons wanted to go with a performer to a VIP area...to access the area it requires ascending 2 steps. The man had leg braces and walked straight-legged with a cane, and could not negotiate the steps. When the performer came up and presented the problem, a security man offered to carry the man up. He refused, saying he would be embarrassed. The girl said she was sorry, and gave him his money back. He sat there for hours more, appeared to have a great time...even closed the place. Next thing I know...a few weeks later, I'm slapped with a suit!! It claims that since my club is a "public accommodation", I must make provisions for full handicap access to all parts of the facility under The ADA, and I violated that law. Long story shortened: I won the suit, but it cost me thousands to defend...every effort was used to try to make me look like some evil, mean person. I had to change the set-up after hearing talk that there was plans to have others come in...stage the scenario...and sue me as well!!
I also had a transgender man apply to be a performer. I might have considered, because the applicant was very attractive and talented...but my club is full-nude and the person hadn't had any sex-change surgery...so, after that became evident during the audition, I had to decline the request. They sued too!...for discrimination! I paid to have my lawyer respond (many thousands). They dropped the suit, and nothing more came of it...but I was still out the thousands to respond. Later learned the guy did it as a laugh for him and his friends!
Your link taught me NOTHING I didn't already know aaaaaaall about...I just don't agree with every bit of it.
Quote:
That's like disputing the dictionary. Good luck pounding sand.
If you're going to make up random meanings for word, that's not debate. It's games playing.
Nope...not "pounding sand", or "playing games"
Many "civil rights" laws are messed up from the get-go and get challenged, and sometimes changed.
Like busing kids to out of town schools, etc. You see challenges to things like Affirmative Action all the time.
The people have the right to protest and challenge the laws if they feel they are messed up. It is done all the time.
Quote:
Be clear: You oppose Civil Rights. Then I can say, "That's nice. Most people don't and find opposition to civil rights to be morally offensive. And that's that."
Nope. I don't "oppose Civil Rights"
I oppose Civil Rights Laws that look to subvert the Civil Rights of the majority and overly embellish the rights of the few and cause a "Tyranny of the Minority" condition.
Give people any grounds what-so-ever to file a lawsuit, and watch them flock to the lawyers' offices like a bunch of vultures.
As in the case noted in the OP.
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.
