yes it can. A deal between two parties is a deal between two parties. Country Club serves the public just as much as a gas station. Absolutely. Just as I should be allowed to refuse to do business with any gas station that won't serve black people. Just as a person can refuse to do business with any gas station who employs or is run by black people. That's the definition of freedom.
yes it is. Forcing someone to enter into business with someone they don't want to is not freedom (even if their reasons are despicable). Nobody should be entitled to business from another private party.
No one is forced to deal with another person - they can choose not to have a business. But if they do run a business, they will be regulated - or are you opposed to all regulation as well? Yes, that is true. We, as a society and individuals, have also determined that we don't believe in trying to determine what goes on in people's heads and demand they spend money at certain businesses. We do believe people can individually choose to be hateful or bigoted. But when transacting commerce, we have chosen to disallow it. It's pretty simple to most people that believe in basic human decency and believe that discrimination is bad for its citizens.
It's the quaint conservative argument passed down through generations. It's a violation of their freedums to force them to serve the (insert your minority group here).
I am for regulation that protects individual rights (i.e. pollution). This is not the case as nobody has the right to business from another private party. Unless they run a business. Then we try to determine what goes on in their head. Quick follow up question. If 2 businesses do business with one another is it morally acceptable to you for one to be legally allowed to discriminate? You are not doing yourself any favors by mocking the concept of individual freedom.
I'm fine with allowing private entities to discriminate, or not discriminate, however they want. But the fact that they're pushing this into the public sector is pretty stone-age and par for the course in Kansas.
You are so hung up your ideology that you fail to understand what it means to do business in the public realm. If I am selling my couch and I am not in the business of selling furniture but just want to get rid of my couch and make some money as an individual I can decide who I want to sell it to and who I don't. If I don't want to sell it to someone because he is a vegetarian or any other non-economic reason I can. Now if I start a business to sell furniture and set up a storefront with a door to the public that says "Open for Business" I am operating in the public realm. At that point I am subject to the laws and standards of the public realm and cannot pick and choose for non-economic reason who I am going to sell to. Yes, if we take a concept of absolute freedom then yes I should be able to discriminate even if I am open to the public about who I sell to but the problem with that is that the concept of absolute freedom doesn't exist and can't function. Once I choose to operate in the public realm I am doing so because I believe that it is in my benefit to run a business that is open to the public. The tradeoff is that I am bound by the laws and standards of the public. I am still free though to not operate in the public and if I only want to sell furniture to non-vegetarians I can do so but I cannot do so in the public realm. I can't open a store and I can't advertize. I can still sell furniture by my growth is going to be limited.
the law is protecting minorities from people like you who believe it is their right to discriminate against people based race or sexual preference. i understand you want businesses to have the freedom to discriminate against anyone they'd like, but the civil rights movement has already begun and you're losing that battle. if you want reasons that show why this law is beneficial to society, then go read my earlier response that you conveniently selected to ignore
Yes you are just maybe not in some warped legal sense. You and major keep spitting out that 'it the law' and 'we as a society have determined' . I am not arguing what is and isn't the law. I am arguing what is morally excellent. And your morals seem to differentiate someone who is selling lots of furniture for a living and someone who is selling one couch. Mine doesn't. Both should be able to not do business for whatever reason they want and the buyer should be able to not do business for whatever reason they want.
The laws are there because it was the MORAL thing to do. You know, to stop the SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION that was going on. You cannot be in favor of overt racism while at the same time taking the moral high ground. It is simply not allowed.
Then the moral thing to do should also be to stop customers from discriminating from businesses no? We should punish these bigots no? I allow people to exercise their own beliefs no matter how wrong they are (unless they are violating someones rights) which gives me the moral high ground in this discussion.
No, it doesn't. You might have somewhat of a logical high ground, but most certainly not the moral one. Imagine if every business said, "We will not serve tallanvor under any circumstances!!!" I assume you are fine with having no access to any food, water, or any service of any kind? After all it is their choice, bc freedom.
I don't know what your background is or line of work but what you are failing to grasp is that terms like "business" have a very important and specific meaning. Once again you fail to grasp the argument because you are ignoring the concept of public realm. There is an inherent tradeoff that is made whether you are running an actual business versus if you are just selling as a hobby or just to make some cash. Do you think it is moral that specific safeguards are in place for businesses operating in the public realm? As Major noted your argument wouldn't just address who businesses can sell to but the idea that public businesses can be operated at all. One other thing that you are ignoring is that discrimination in public businesses distorts the market and prior to segregation it actually did distort the market. One of the reasons why the South lacked behind the economic development of the North was that segregation greatly limited the free movement of customers and capital. Your argument is both a very simplistic view of morals it is frankly a dangerous argument that if widely accepted and allowed into law would have negative repercussions. Let me restate it again as simply as I can make it. Individuals freedom to sell who they want to sell isn't being restricted. As you know freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whenever but are limited in regard to the rights of other. If you choose to run a business in the public realm your rights are balanced with the rights of other and as such cannot discriminate for non-economic reasons in order that every customer has the right to patronize the business of their choice. Customers are free to not patronize and businesses are free to not do business with the understanding that customers may not be able to buy what they want and businesses understanding that they will not be able to market to a wide group of people.
water? that's a public commodity in most places and as stated in the first statement I made it should be illegal for government to discriminate. As for the rest of your scenario, I would be forced to feed and provide for myself. I am not entitled to the services of anyone other than the government since I am a citizen. I heard you and responded. Morally, there is no difference between selling one thing for cash and selling many of the same thing for a living. I answered his question too And let me explain it to you again (third time). The fact that your moral code differentiates between someone selling one couch and someone selling many couches is awful.
