Should business owners have the right to discriminate?

[shnarkle]

Of course they should, but only in a free society.

In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

In a free society, “public accommodations” are still private businesses and therefore don’t have to accommodate all members of the public.

In a free society, no potential customer has a claim on the property or the time of any business owner.

In a free society, no one has any legal recourse if a business refuses to engage in commerce with him.

In a free society, businesses are able to discriminate against customers just as customers can now legally discriminate against businesses.

In a free society, any business or customer could discriminate against any potential employee or customer for any reason and on any basis.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Of course they should, but only in a free society.

In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

In a free society, “public accommodations” are still private businesses and therefore don’t have to accommodate all members of the public.

In a free society, no potential customer has a claim on the property or the time of any business owner.

In a free society, no one has any legal recourse if a business refuses to engage in commerce with him.

In a free society, businesses are able to discriminate against customers just as customers can now legally discriminate against businesses.

In a free society, any business or customer could discriminate against any potential employee or customer for any reason and on any basis.

Well, yes. But the question is, should they be allowed to discriminate on moral grounds, i.e. should or should not the government seek to curb discrimination by legal means?

 

[shnarkle]

Well, yes. But the question is, should they be allowed to discriminate on moral grounds, i.e. should or should not the government seek to curb discrimination by legal means?

Of course they should be able to discriminate on moral grounds. if we truly lived in a free society, we would be able to discriminate on ANY grounds. No, the government should not seek to curb discrimination by any means on any basis. Let the homophobe throw the homosexual out. Let the white supremacist toss out the black patrons. There are so few of them around anymore, it's practically a moot point. Anyone who wants to go into business, usually does it to make money, and throwing out paying customers is idiotic, but they should be free to make bad decisions.

What we have now are privileged and protected class of people. A minority can walk into a business and throw a fit, and the owner can't toss them out for fear of being sued for discrimination.

Rights should be individual, and only based upon being an individual.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Let the white supremacist toss out the black patrons. There are so few of them around anymore, it's practically a moot point.

LoL. Something tells me we may get into an argument on this one, so I'll just make my involvement short. But it is because of government involvement in prohibiting states from withholding the right to women and blacks to vote that we now have less friction in society from these factions, IMO. If we had let the white supremacists simply persist in doing all they wished to do in the Southern states, we might still have people swinging from nooses, yes? I know this is not a business thing I am speaking of now, but milder discrimination on one level, when tolerated, leaves the door open to more severe and abusive forms of discrimination.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice it leads to problems.

 

[Enoch111]

I agree with you in principle, but in practice it leads to problems.

You are confusing two separate issues. Business owners do have the right to withhold service, but it must be on reasonable grounds. For example restaurants in the past would post a notice saying -- NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE. That was reasonable. Also if a Christian businessperson is asked to fulfil the desires of homosexual (such as the case of the baker) he has a right to refuse. If a business will accept only cash, it has the right to do so.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You are confusing two separate issues. Business owners do have the right to withhold service, but it must be on reasonable grounds.

"In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

In a free society, any business or customer could discriminate against any potential employee or customer for any reason and on any basis."

He's advocating for discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, and intellectual grounds, as well as on things like social and political status, to name just a few.

 

[shnarkle]

LoL. Something tells me we may get into an argument on this one, so I'll just make my involvement short. But it is because of government involvement in prohibiting states from withholding the right to women and blacks to vote that we now have less friction in society from these factions, IMO. If we had let the white supremacists simply persist in doing all they wished to do in the Southern states, we might still have people swinging from nooses, yes?

No. This is a common misconception.

If anything, we have more friction today than we did after abolition. Black on black crime is epidemic today. This wasn't the case even 50 years ago. 90% of interracial crime is black on white, yet you would never know that by looking at the narrative you hear on the media.

There were laws preventing people from mixed marriages. Laws preventing people from living wherever they wanted to live based on race. The laws were the problem then, and they're still the problem now. It's no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. The law cannot change a person's heart.

One of the biggest disasters of all time was the so-called "Civil War". No one was fighting to end slavery. Slavery was well on its way out of fashion prior to the Civil War. There was no civil war necessary to end slavery in the British isles. It was a losing proposition. It was economically unfeasible. The south was losing money with slavery, and they knew it. The only reason for the northern states invading the south was to prevent them from their Constitutional right to secede from the Union. If they had been attempting a coup or to take over power, then it would have been an actual Civil war.

Again, note that it was a law prohibiting women from voting that was the problem in the first place. It was laws preventing blacks from working as free men, or living in your neighborhood, or engaging in mixed marriages, etc. The laws simply needed to be repealed, or at the very least decriminalized. We don't need to make more laws to fix anything, especially when they force people to work, or associate against their will.

Where does it end? What happens when the government decides that you need to live in the projects within a black community? There are a number of studies showing that racial integration was a dismal failure in that those black students who were bussed into white schools did worse than those in black schools.

Black students who are admitted into ivy league schools in the name of affirmative action end up dropping out. These aren't stupid people either. They're quite sharp, but they're being put into a school where they simply can't compete. It's a catastrophic disaster for the black community, and they can thank affirmative action for it.

We don't have any problem seeing that this would never work with a white student, so why pretend it would with a black one? The only reason is because it makes us feel like we're doing something to help when we're doing no such thing. LBJ's "Great Society" was an unqualified disaster for not just black people, but impoverished white people as well. it incentivized fornication, and having babies out of wedlock.

There was a time when black colleges provided an outstanding education for black students, but laws were passed, and they went out of business. The law kills.

If you look at where the most financial resources are being poured into black communities and especially schools, you find they are failing miserably. Look at the conservative school districts where no more money is spent on blacks than whites, and the blacks are excelling. This isn't just by comparing blacks to blacks, but blacks to whites across the country as well.

 

[shnarkle]

"In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

In a free society, any business or customer could discriminate against any potential employee or customer for any reason and on any basis."

He's advocating for discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, and intellectual grounds, as well as on things like social and political status, to name just a few.

Who is "he"? Who are you referring to?

 

[ScottA]

Should business owners have the right to discriminate?

To be fair, one should also ask:

• Should customers have the right to discriminate against businesses?

• Should employees have the right to discriminate against businesses?

What's fair is fair?

 

[Hidden In Him]

It's no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. The law cannot change a person's heart.

Well this part I certainly agree with. Laws cannot change men's hearts. But the lack of fair business practice laws can actually harden men's hearts, and lead to tensions becoming increasingly worse until violence eventually breaks out between groups that have grown to discriminate against one another and hate one another. Here is where governments have learned to intervene and mediate through law, so as not to lose control of the various factions in society.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Who is "he"? Who are you referring to?

I thought you were, although maybe you were positing this as simply an argument for discussion.

 

[shnarkle]

Well this part I certainly agree with. Laws cannot change men's hearts. But the lack of fair business practice laws can actually harden men's hearts,

You just agreed that the law can't change men's hearts, but then then claim that man's heart can be changed by a lack of laws? You then conclude that laws must be implemented for what reason? We don't even follow God's laws. What possible reason could we have for passing man's laws if we don't keep God's? I forget who said it, it was someone like Samuel Adams or George Washington who said that laws are for a moral people. When you have immoral people, no law is going to change them or get them to change their ways.

and lead to tensions becoming increasingly worse until violence eventually breaks out between groups that have grown to discriminate against one another and hate one another. Here is where governments have learned to intervene and mediate through law, so as not to lose control of the various factions in society.

I'm intrigued by this position of yours. Do you see the government curtailing violence in the world today? Where do you see this manifesting, and more importantly, where do you see this as effective?

The reason I ask is because I know of no government anywhere that is defending the rights of the poor or downtrodden. Everywhere the rights of the establishment class are being defended. Macron almost had a revolution on his hands a while back with the "yellow vests" movement until he assured law enforcement that they would be getting the back pay they were owed.

I see families being split up over political issues. People hate each other more than I can remember. I see one law being implemented after another, and none of them are helping anyone but the 1%.

 

[shnarkle]

I thought you were, although maybe you were positing this as simply an argument for discussion.

Well, then my next question would have to be why are you referring to me in the third person?

I will respond to this claim though which is that I am: "advocating for discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, and intellectual grounds, as well as on things like social and political status, to name just a few"

This isn't accurate. My position is that it doesn't matter what the grounds are. One doesn't need grounds to refuse to serve or work for anyone against their will. This is a fundamental right of any free society. Being forced to work or associate against one's will is a fundamental feature of slavery.

The problem is that people are now claiming that being black, gay, transgendered, etc. are sacred cows that one cannot object to regardless of the reasons.

These always start out as a call for equal rights, but they always end up making some more equal than others.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You just agreed that the law can't change men's hearts, but then then claim that man's heart can be changed by a lack of laws?

Yes. Changed in the sense of made more resentful, hateful, and vengeful.

You then conclude that laws must be implemented for what reason? We don't even follow God's laws. What possible reason could we have for passing man's laws if we don't keep God's?

To throw people's butts in jail if need be, LoL. Like I said, discrimination leads to resentment, resentment to vengeful desires, vengeful desires to violence, and violence to people potentially getting injured or even killed.

I forget who said it, it was someone like Samuel Adams or George Washington who said that laws are for a moral people. When you have immoral people, no law is going to change them or get them to change their ways.

Absolutely, for the good, that is. But if society is spiraling downward morally, you need to have laws in place to try and circumvent that downward trend, or it will all come to pieces.

Do you see the government curtailing violence in the world today?

Every time some hate-filled individual gets arrested before they kill somebody. Prison is a deterrent. Does it turn violent men into peace-loving, fuzz-muffins who just wanna give strangers a great big hug? No. But it at least slows the downward momentum some.

The reason I ask is because I know of no government anywhere that is defending the rights of the poor or downtrodden. Everywhere the rights of the establishment class are being defended. Macron almost had a revolution on his hands a while back with the "yellow vests" movement until he assured law enforcement that they would be getting the back pay they were owed.

Yes. Because money makes things happen, and the poor don't have any. But wait till the masses finally get a snootful. Once they amass by the thousands and threaten to riot, suddenly they are taken very seriously. Suddenly governments start working frantically to see if the masses can be appeased somehow, before all Hell breaks loose. Again, these are stopgap measures, in attempts to keep the downward spiral from getting completely out of hand. I agree with you that they do not effect men's hearts for good, but they keep them from completely going to Hell.

Out of curiosity, where were you directing this thread to? The whole "I'm not cooking a wedding cake for a gay couple" thing, or was there another motivation behind it? What was your motivation for creating this thread?

The problem is that people are now claiming that being black, gay, transgendered, etc. are sacred cows that one cannot object to regardless of the reasons.

Ah... ok. Well, if you agree that only the Spirit of God can change men's hearts, why are you not advocating for overcoming evil with good? I mean, the Jews were slaves to the Romans, yet Jesus said "walk with them the extra mile" in carrying a Roman soldier's gear so as to turn his heart from hating Jews to being considerate of them and kind to them instead.

Not being preachy here. Just saying, you seem sort of Hellbent on resisting evil, when Christ's teaching was not to resist it but to overcome it with good.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes. Changed in the sense of made more resentful, hateful, and vengeful.

Laws can't change that. You keep skirting that fact.

To throw people's butts in jail if need be, LoL.

So false imprisonment is the answer? That's not going to change anyone's heart either. Again, this is simply to legalize slavery, and legitimize slave labor. That isn't a good thing.

Like I said, discrimination leads to resentment, resentment to vengeful desires, vengeful desires to violence, and violence to people potentially getting injured or even killed.

So when you discriminate against the racist, or bigot, this leads to resentment, violence, or murder? What laws do we need to implement to preclude this from happening? Are you now advocating for placing racists into the privileged class as well now?

Absolutely, for the good, that is. But if society is spiraling downward morally, you need to have laws in place to try and circumvent that downward trend, or it will all come to pieces.

Again, I think you're ignoring the fact which you already agreed with previously which is that the law can't stop that. We don't see it all that much in the press anymore, but when a convicted felon kills someone, you rarely hear much of anything about it because convicted felons are precluded from possessing firearms to begin with. The press doesn't report those things because it spotlights that laws against convicted felons having firearms don't keep convicted felons from possessing firearms. Convicted felons are not going to turn in their firearms when they are made illegal for everyone to have. Laws do not circumvent that downward spiral at all. They simply give the government more power to control the masses, and that means everyone; not just immoral people who have a tendency to slip through the cracks.

Every time some hate-filled individual gets arrested before they kill somebody.

Again, you seem to be seeing things that aren't there. The prison system in the US alone is larger than all prisons in the rest of the world combined. They are a for profit system that is guaranteed an 80% occupancy by the government. I know of one person in particular who is doing life for being unlucky enough to have been in business as a mechanic. He was working on a fleet of trucks, doing routine maintenance when he was arrested because the trucks had been used in the commission of a felony. He's been in prison for almost 18 years now. Murderers get out in less than 7.

Prison is a deterrent. Does it turn violent men into peace-loving, fuzz-muffins who just wanna give strangers a great big hug? No. But it at least slows the downward momentum some.

This is pure fiction. It trains and educates people to be better at their chosen profession; crime. Prison is a racket that is making investors rich while imprisoning people for doing something as innocuous as changing the oil on a truck, or smoking grass.

Glorifying murder, and savage beatings is what turns people into thugs. Laws against this do not curtail anyone. Look at all the white supremist groups out protesting. You can't legislate morality.

Yes. Because money makes things happen, and the poor don't have any. But wait till the masses finally get a snootful. Once they amass by the thousands and threaten to riot, suddenly they are taken very seriously.

You're making my points for me now. Rioting is against the law as well, and is the natural consequence of useless laws being thrown at immoral people.

Suddenly governments start working frantically to see if the masses can be appeased somehow, before all Hell breaks loose.

And what do they do except legalize their own use of force against them? They say it is now legal for us to kill anyone on sight. That's what your laws accomplish. That is the natural effect of law. The law kills.

Again, these are stopgap measures, in attempts to keep the downward spiral from getting completely out of hand. I agree with you that they do not effect men's hearts for good, but they keep them from completely going to Hell.

Not even close. They don't stop anyone from going to hell. If that was the case then the law could save us. You're just contradicting yourself. I really don't see how you don't see that. Nowhere does Paul ever suggest that the law can keep anyone from completely going to hell.

Out of curiosity, where were you directing this thread to? The whole "I'm not cooking a wedding cake for a gay couple" thing, or was there another motivation behind it? What was your motivation for creating this thread?

That's a relevant example, but this one was due to the recent case of the T shirt, bumper sticker, cap logo company that suggested that the gay pride group get their materials from one of their competitors.

The gay pride group already had their stuff done. They just wanted to sue this business who didn't agree that they could support sodomy, gay marriage, etc. Now it is the LGBTQRST that are using the law to attack people. They even have a term for it: "lawfare". They bankrupt anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda.

Ah... ok. Well, if you agree that only the Spirit of God can change men's hearts, why are you not advocating for overcoming evil with good? I mean, the Jews were slaves to the Romans, yet Jesus said "walk with them the extra mile" in carrying a Roman soldier's gear so as to turn his heart from hating Jews to being considerate of them and kind to them instead.

Where is Jesus advocating that laws need to be enacted to do this? Where is Jesus advocating that carrying something for someone is wrong in the first place? Jesus isn't advocating that one engage in bestiality or sodomy anywhere. You're comparing apples to oranges. Jesus isn't suggesting that one help one sin. He's saying you should help those who ask you for help, not those who ask you to participate in their sin.

Not being preachy here. Just saying, you seem sort of Hellbent on resisting evil, when Christ's teaching was not to resist it but to overcome it with good.

And overcoming it with good doesn't have anything to do with enacting or implementing more laws. You haven't proven that to be the case, and Paul quite simply denies that possibility from the beginning.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I read through your post, and you seem to be answering things I'm not saying and maybe visa versa. Who knows. If I had more time, I'd invest it in this conversation a little more, but I'm swamped, so I guess I'm gonna have to let someone else take over from here.

Interesting discussion nonetheless, man.
Peace,
Hidden