Total Posts:258|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Private Businesses Have the Right...

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:50:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

People don't have the right to buy things from whoever they want. Please cite where people have this right.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:50:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

People don't have the right to buy things from whoever they want. Please cite where people have this right.

So Business should have the right to boycott Homosexuals " Because its against their Religion " ?

The whole thing is just starting a path towards segregation.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:55:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:53:55 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:50:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

People don't have the right to buy things from whoever they want. Please cite where people have this right.


So Business should have the right to boycott Homosexuals " Because its against their Religion " ?

The whole thing is just starting a path towards segregation.

I never said that.
And if the business is private then yes. If a country club can boycott people who don't live in a certain neighborhood or the girl scouts can boycott men, why not?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
NO! It's nothing but racism and hate and can't be disguised as anything else. I think that is so clear and evident that it brings doubt on anyone who would stoop to such a level as to even ask the question.

But just watch to see who is going to defend the idea and you'll find yourself in the US deep south pretty quickly and you'll likely be seeing some confederate flags flying from pickup trucks.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:56:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:55:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:53:55 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:50:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

People don't have the right to buy things from whoever they want. Please cite where people have this right.


So Business should have the right to boycott Homosexuals " Because its against their Religion " ?

The whole thing is just starting a path towards segregation.

I never said that.
And if the business is private then yes. If a country club can boycott people who don't live in a certain neighborhood or the girl scouts can boycott men, why not?

Because its discrimination based on Race, Sex, Religion, etc.
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:56:25 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:55:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:53:55 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:50:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

People don't have the right to buy things from whoever they want. Please cite where people have this right.


So Business should have the right to boycott Homosexuals " Because its against their Religion " ?

The whole thing is just starting a path towards segregation.

I never said that.
And if the business is private then yes. If a country club can boycott people who don't live in a certain neighborhood or the girl scouts can boycott men, why not?


Because its discrimination based on Race, Sex, Religion, etc.

Not necessarily. Technically, I could turn someone away at the door because I don't like their shoes. You would never know why service was denied.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:55:52 PM, monty1 wrote:
NO! It's nothing but racism and hate and can't be disguised as anything else. I think that is so clear and evident that it brings doubt on anyone who would stoop to such a level as to even ask the question.

But just watch to see who is going to defend the idea and you'll find yourself in the US deep south pretty quickly and you'll likely be seeing some confederate flags flying from pickup trucks.

-sigh-

Bigoted, ignorant and overgeneralized comment. Thanks for your contribution.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

What if your business is being run out of your house?
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:05:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

What if your business is being run out of your house?

Then don't offer showers.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:06:48 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:05:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

What if your business is being run out of your house?


Then don't offer showers.

What I mean, is that business is business.
Housing is private for a reason.

So stores shouldn't sell Black Kids skittles because " They are suspicious "?
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

But the right to privacy and choice as to who can enter still exists with anything private. It's not much different from "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:09:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:08:34 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

But the right to privacy and choice as to who can enter still exists with anything private. It's not much different from "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

That is much different.
This is a law that can allow people to turn away people because they are Jewish, or Black, or homosexual.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:08:11 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:06:48 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:05:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

What if your business is being run out of your house?


Then don't offer showers.

What I mean, is that business is business.
Housing is private for a reason.

So stores shouldn't sell Black Kids skittles because " They are suspicious "?

If it's a privately owned institution then perhaps it could be warranted.

The keys here are:

1. It has to be privately owned.
2. It has to be denial on a individual basis, you can't put a sign outside that says "No Blacks" but you could conceivably deny service to a black person, or a white one, or a blue one if you wanted to.
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:12:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:09:29 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:08:34 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:04:49 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:03:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I say yes as well.

Private means private. If I can refuse a person's access to my private home, a private business should have the same option. It is a pretty obvious answer.

A house is not a business.

But the right to privacy and choice as to who can enter still exists with anything private. It's not much different from "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

That is much different.
This is a law that can allow people to turn away people because they are Jewish, or Black, or homosexual.

Can I refuse entry of blacks or homosexuals into my private home?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:16:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question that I feel needs to be answered thoroughly by Otter is why a private business is different from a home.

Isn't a private business merely a home (i.e. private property) that is offering some kind of exchange of goods and services?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 3:27:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

I guess it depends on the case. A high scale business like private schooling and medical care shouldn't, but a small time business might be exempted.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

This seems rather ridiculous, to be honest.
It's private property for a reason, the person who owns it should possess full autonomy of it unless what they are doing on their property violates the law. Basically it is the converse, saying you should be able to served on my property if I don't want you to is saying you have the right to violate the autonomy of my property.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:39:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course they shouldn't. Allowing them to results in segregation, widespread discrimination, and a host of social ills. Therefore we have reason to ban it.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

-_-
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:42:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maybe they should, in the abstract sense, but I would advise against making the argument because the Civil Rights Act which prohibits them to discriminate based off of race is a sacred cow and saying a word against it will tank anyones political career. Should people be allowed to refuse service because they're bigots because private property is inherently exclusive and therefore discriminatory (I own x, you don't)? Maybe, but there are much bigger issues to tackle than this.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 4:27:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

This seems rather ridiculous, to be honest.
It's private property for a reason, the person who owns it should possess full autonomy of it unless what they are doing on their property violates the law. Basically it is the converse, saying you should be able to served on my property if I don't want you to is saying you have the right to violate the autonomy of my property.

Disgusting racist teabaggery at it's finest isn't it. No mention of valid reasons to refuse to serve a person such as the person not wearing any shoes or any clothes. That would be legitimate and beside the point. The intent is clear and that's being brought up for the purpose of being able to discriminate against blacks or Hispanics. Only in America would anybody really care. As I suggested earlier, the people of the US south care a lot but have to keep the real reason hidden. Or at least pretend it's hidden. It's not!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 5:51:19 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:27:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

Businesses should have to sell to everyone.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

This seems rather ridiculous, to be honest.
It's private property for a reason, the person who owns it should possess full autonomy of it unless what they are doing on their property violates the law. Basically it is the converse, saying you should be able to served on my property if I don't want you to is saying you have the right to violate the autonomy of my property.

Disgusting racist teabaggery at it's finest isn't it. No mention of valid reasons to refuse to serve a person such as the person not wearing any shoes or any clothes. That would be legitimate and beside the point. The intent is clear and that's being brought up for the purpose of being able to discriminate against blacks or Hispanics. Only in America would anybody really care. As I suggested earlier, the people of the US south care a lot but have to keep the real reason hidden. Or at least pretend it's hidden. It's not!

It's not really racist to say people should have the right to be racist. I mean-- if I owned a business I would take anyone's money, but if others don't want to, they shouldn't have to. It is their product and property and they should have full autonomy over it. I don't see why the motive matters for why they want to deny service, they should have the right to do it for any reason, really.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 5:51:19 PM, monty1 wrote:

NO! It's nothing but racism and hate and can't be disguised as anything else. I think that is so clear and evident that it brings doubt on anyone who would stoop to such a level as to even ask the question.

But just watch to see who is going to defend the idea and you'll find yourself in the US deep south pretty quickly and you'll likely be seeing some confederate flags flying from pickup trucks.

Disgusting racist teabaggery at it's finest isn't it. No mention of valid reasons to refuse to serve a person such as the person not wearing any shoes or any clothes. That would be legitimate and beside the point. The intent is clear and that's being brought up for the purpose of being able to discriminate against blacks or Hispanics. Only in America would anybody really care. As I suggested earlier, the people of the US south care a lot but have to keep the real reason hidden. Or at least pretend it's hidden. It's not!

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

Your thoughts are welcome here, but could you try to fit into the definition provided a little less?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:45:26 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
... to deny service to anyone as they see fit?

The question has come up in the polls section and I want to generate some discussion on the point.

I say yes, they should have the right. People have a right to their property and a freedom of association.

People do not however, have the right to buy stuff from whoever they want. People must be willing to sell to you first.

Discuss.

Is a business that's open to the public really private? When would freedom of association matter in terms of selling goods and services?
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:49:12 PM, Comrade_Silly_Otter wrote:
Its literately the freedom to deny others freedom.

I have the right to discriminate someone on my own property as I have the right to tell someone to stop physically abusing my body. It is my property and my right to it overrides another's freedom to tread on it.

Not only profit wise, but no one should be judged on the Political Direction, Race, Sex, Sexual Preference, Religion, etc. It should not effect where they can buy at.

I'm not saying people should discriminate. I'm just saying that private business owners have the right.