Do you support someone being able to give a speech glorifying Communism? Or are you against the freedom of speech? I support someones right to not do business with someone even if I find their reason deplorable. That's what freedom is. You should learn it cause you live in the land of the free.
If there's one thing we can learn from the teachings of Jesus it's that we should in no way interact with anybody that we view as morally inferior to us. Personally I don't think businesses should serve anybody that has ever committed a sin. If your willing to sell your goods to somebody that has told a lie then you're obviously supporting them in that lie.
In other words, you support institutionalized racism. The fact that you cannot put these two things together is crazy.
Of course I support someone's right to give speeches glorifying communism. How is that relevant or related to this discussion in any way?
you conflate condoning and supporting. the government is condoning and not supporting/encouraging. Just as the government condones pro-Communism speech but does not support. So you permit speech you find immoral?
Of course. How is this related? You have a game going on with the words 'moral' and 'freedom' that is making less and less sense as you post.
you permit speech you find immoral? even if it was racist? Then by your words you support 'institutionalized racism'. Words like 'freedom' and 'morals' make no sense to you cause you don't understand them.
Let me ask you a question. Should a newspaper be able to print anything they want about someone? That's freedom, right? Are you against libel laws?
Yes person is held accountable for the consequences of their speech. Like yelling 'fire' in a crowded building or asking someone to kill somebody. No this is not violating freedom of speech.
I find it comforting to see the right wing passionately defending a discriminatory position that is neither legal nor moral.
Just out of curiosity, at what point do you personally think it is morally acceptable to use government coercion to limit economic freedom? Clearly, you don't think that discrimination against minority groups is enough. For instance, what about discrimination against more arbitrary categories, such as infants, the disabled, or maybe veterans? Or what if the a monopoly business of life-saving products and services refused to deal with certain groups? What about singular instances such as an inventor of a new WMD refusing to deal with anybody but terrorist organizations? Or do you think that limiting economic freedom is never acceptable regardless of circumstance?
One should only force someone to do something for the purpose of protecting individual rights (i.e. pollution. This violates others right to life). That certainly doesn't apply here. There are a few exceptions I would consider. Are you okay with discriminating speech against the disabled and veterans? (Presumably) You and I both would find it immoral and you and I would both claim it should be legal. In the same vein I would condone a business discriminating everything you mentioned above though obviously I would find it deplorable. I don't think there really is a monopoly in current America, but if there was it should be dissolved. So arguing that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because monopolies could exist is not necessary.
WTF does this have to do with anything? Free speech doesn't equate to freedom of action. You support someone's right to legally discriminate and we've done that, it's called the past. We've all learned from it maybe you should top living in it.
I hate having to hold people's hand and walk them through this but I will. You are okay with the government permitting people to give immoral speeches. This is because it is irrelevant if an action is moral (giving a speech is an action). Just because some action is deemed immoral by 99% of Americans doesn't mean it should be banned. You recognize this and thus you permit discriminating speech even though you find it disgusting (just like myself). An action is banned in a free country because it violates another's rights not because the majority finds it immoral. This is relevant because of all the posts that go something like this 'How can you permit such disgusting and immoral acts? you must be a bigot.' In order for it to be virtuous to ban this act, it must be proven that it violates someone's rights. Not that it is immoral (everyone in the thread agrees its immoral).
1. So who decides which individual rights are worth protecting? Why is a "right to life free of pollution" more important than say a "right to access a hospital" or the "right to not be discriminated against?" It seems to me that the majority of the American public do think that some kind of individual right is being protected when businesses are prohibited from discriminating or presumably, such legislation would never have been passed. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are not the final arbiter of which rights are sufficiently weighty to justify economic intervention. 2. Actually, no I would not necessarily find it to be immoral, but that's another matter entirely. The difference is that the "freedom of speech" is guaranteed in the Constitution, economic freedom is not (or at least not under current Constitutional interpretations). If even freedom of speech isn't absolute, what makes you think that economic freedoms are untouchable? Thus, your parallel to freedom of speech is mostly irrelevant. As difficult as it seems for you to accept, Americans do business under the auspices of government, meaning that government giveth and it can also taketh away. Luckily, unlike in some other countries, we the people (ostensibly) have some say in what the government gives and takes, or would you prefer to live in a failed state with no government and total economic freedom? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is how the system operates. 3. There are lots of monopolies in America. For example, every patent holder has a brief monopoly. Pretty much every electric and water company around the nation has monopoly power (out of necessity) and are only reigned in by state resource commissions (i.e. government coercion). There's Microsoft and many other examples. In any event, this is irrelevant. I wasn't arguing that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate because of monopolies. It was simply a hypothetical; as in, a situation could arise in your hypothetical world where a company with monopoly power, such as a power company, could refuse essential services to various groups of people for no reason whatsoever. Would you be ok with government intervention in this situation, yes or no? I was not making a judgment in either direction.
no such thing as a "right to access a hospital". Rights don't come at the expense of others. Entitlements do. pollution violates everyone's basic "right to life". That's legality and not morality. Micorsoft is not even close to a monopoly. Electric and water companies aren't as well. You have tons of choices if you are in Houston.
1. When you prevent other from polluting, you are restricting their freedoms and quite literally forcing an expense on them (i.e. pollution reducing technologies). There was a very long period in American history when courts and legislatures were reluctant to curb pollution precisely because of this and the damper it would put on economic growth. Every "right" can come at the expense of others. 2. Haven't you been arguing the entire time that personal moral decisions mean nothing? When you start comparing economic freedoms to "freedom of speech," you're moving into a land of legalism and legal precedent. I suppose you're under the assumption that there is an inherent freedom of speech or something to that effect. Well, in response, I can only say that if the Constitution (a legal document) didn't exist, do you think anybody would give a hoot about your freedom of speech? 3. You clearly don't understand the concept of monopoly power (putting aside other relevant issues like duopoly or collusion) or the uselessness of anecdotal evidence. First, a company doesn't have to be like Standard Oil to have monopoly power. If you don't think Microsoft has significant monopoly power in certain markets, you should probably do some more research. There is a reason the DOJ has gone after them more times than almost any other company in American history. Second, you seem to think that Houston is representative of the whole nation. Look at NC: two (related) power companies control upward of 80-90% of the households in the state. Most states operate like NC; look at any journal article on the topic. In any event, this was simply a hypothetical and I'm not going to argue it any further. If you want to believe that America has no monopolies, go ahead. So, you still haven't answered my question; all I've gotten is that you think pollution controls are ok. Perhaps I should have been more specific: is there any situation in which you think that it is acceptable for government to restrict the ability of a business to choose who to deal with?.
I disagree. If a gay couple walks in to have dinner, under the statute they can be refused service because it is related to their domestic partnership. This is where the phrase "related to, or related to the celebration of" becomes very important. Having a date night out can easily be construed to be related to their domestic partnership. As such, this statute says it is ok to refuse service.
