How could you get water? I don't know of many public fountains, malls and businesses wouldn't allow you to go in. Also, it wouldn't be provided to your home because you don't have one. Is this moral? To deny a person of all freedoms to protect the freedom of businesses?
rly? You don't know of any public fountains? Don't know what to say to that. Quick question. How do you think people got water before water fountains and malls? Not denying any freedom. What freedom are you referring to? the freedom to force someone to do business with you? The freedom to force someone to let you on their property maybe? These things don't exist.
You are mistaking your own moral code with business and really what freedom is. This is why your argument is both simplistic and flawed. The basic problem is that you are only considering things from the business side. IN your mind a business should both be able to sell to the public but then also be able to pick and choose who they sell to. That isn't actually selling to the public. If we are talking about moral if a business is operating in the public realm then the moral thing is to actually do so.
Ok, have your water LOL. You think you, in our scenario, is free? Unable to work, buy, ect? Why did the Kansas law maker specifically target homosexuals? In your opinion shouldn't the include black people, Indians, women, men...everyone? Or is this just another big government republican state legislating their morals on us?
We are talking about morals, which I have said a million times. I don;t disagree that the moral thing for a business to do is to sell to everyone. I disagree that it is moral to force businesses to behave in a manner you and I deem as moral (assuming they are not violating someone's rights).
And noone is forcing anyone to do business. You can always choose not do business. This is why the term business has a very important meaning. When you open a business for all practical purposes you are basically agreeing to a contract to provide services to function in the public realm and as such are agreeing to abide by the laws and standards established. The argument that if I sign a contract to sell someone to someone and I decide I don't want to because I don't like the guy then I am being forced to do business with them.
tallanvor, you seem to be completely unaware of the racist history of this country, and the systemic discrimination that went along with it. These laws weren't passed because liberals were just looking for something to do... The idea that gas station owners in and around Jasper could decide to not sell fuel to any black people is precisely the type of discrimination that was stopped by these laws. If entire counties collude to discriminate against a group of people (which is what happened), the government must step in. It is simply not acceptable to just say, 'hey, it's freedom. Black people better not need gas in Jasper or they'll be walking. And if they're walking, they better hope the sun is out.'
My freedom is not dependent on whether I am employed or can buy at a store. Agreed. He probably targeted homosexuals for some moronic belief in the metaphysical. I think every private business and customer should be able to not do business for whatever reason they want no matter how deplorable. again. You are debating legality. Im not. legally there is a difference between someone who sells in mass to the public and someone who sells one couch. Morally there isn't. You are splitting hairs by saying nobody is forced to do business because they don't have to have a business.
It sure does. IF you are unemployed you don't have the freedom to buy as much as well employed does. If you can't buy at a store then you aren't free to shop there.
YOu are violating someone else's rights if you claim to be a business in the public realm but aren't willing to do business with everyone. You are violating the rights of potential customers who may want to do business with you and the rights of customers by not actually fulfilling the agreement to operate in the public. You are trying to say that businesses should have it both ways. They should have all the advantages of being able to sell to the public without really doing so. I don't see how that is moral. As I said before this is not only a simplistic argument but one that is dangerous if it were to be enshrined in law and widely accepted.
Nope. Nobody has the right to force me to do business with them or whatever you are trying to claim. Rights almost never come at the expense of others (one exception is right to trial by jury which I would argue is a necessary entitlement and not a right). What advantages are you talking about?
Just to put my last word on the subject for now because I have to get back to my actual business. I am passionate about this because a big part of what I do does require understanding the terms business, public realm and accommodation. Much of what I do is interpreting, consulting and designing based on the American with Disability Act whose basis is providing public accommodation in businesses. I've heard the arguments all the time that businesses shouldn't be forced to make changes to address accessibility in fact I frequently have to make the case to regulators about what parts of the ADA should and shouldn't apply to my clients. It would be both professionally and personally unethical of me if I didn't understand the basis of ADA and to fall back on an argument based on a limited view of morality.
What ever happened with the wedding planner discrimination thing where the two dudes were refused service? Services like that and a banquet hall seem to have a legit right to refuse service to the gays. More so than a hotel or restaurant do for just a couple of poofters.
1 I see your point even though I don't agree. It doesn't make sense economically, morally ect but in principle I suppose both parties of a transaction a due equal "freedom" of doing business. About you being free, you most definitely are not in our scenario. Tolstoy touches on this subject at the end of war and peace. Necessity vs freedom. In our scenario your life had been ground down to persual of things necessary for life. You would have no choice, maybe temporarily, but your days would ultimately lead your in a pursuit of necessities. (Tolstoy goes on further to argue that truly no one is ever really free)
This has to be the most biggoted and twisted version of personal freedom I've ever heard of. Because freedumbs I can refuse public service to minorities? Wtf, so you're saying if I live in a small town and I'm black, and the only two privately owned banks there refused to serve minorities I can't have access to a bank, and the privately owned supermarket decides to not serve minorities I have to grow my own food? what if the privately owned internet company won't serve minorities, what about privately owned phone companies, and hydro companies.
You know those signs you sometimes see on business doors that read "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", or something like that? Not sure of all the exceptions, but I think most any business can refuse for any reason, so long it's not obvious that reason was based on race etc. (like if they outright state "we don't serve ___'s here"). So no need to make it legal for a businessman to state it's for a particular reason like that, just continue to politely decline & everyone moves on. Hotels do it all the time. Simply "we can't accomodate you at this time" with sincerest apologies, don't even have to fib about vacancy. No one can prove it was because they're gypsies or indians etc.
