Total Posts:192|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate?

imabench
Posts: 21,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:42:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

Yes.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
imabench
Posts: 21,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:45:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

For that particular example, nope
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,192
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:11:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:42:21 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

Yes.

Why?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:12:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

So if a bakery says from the beginning they do not serve blacks, would that be legal or no?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:12:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

Correct. This is why kosher bakeries are fine, because they don't have a certain product at all, but you can't sell one specific product to one group but not others.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,192
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:13:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:12:19 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

So if a bakery says from the beginning they do not serve blacks, would that be legal or no?

No, because it's just a single group.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:13:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:11:38 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:42:21 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

Yes.

Why?

If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:13:06 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:11:38 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:42:21 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

Yes.

Why?

If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:14:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:13:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:12:19 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

So if a bakery says from the beginning they do not serve blacks, would that be legal or no?

No, because it's just a single group.

I'm confused, what do you mean by consistent?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:18:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:20:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:18:59 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked.

About what?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,192
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:20:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:14:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:12:19 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

So if a bakery says from the beginning they do not serve blacks, would that be legal or no?

No, because it's just a single group.

I'm confused, what do you mean by consistent?

It applies to everyone.

To take Endark's example, a Kosher or Halal store does not have to sell pork. They just don't - not to anyone. That is consistency.

If a bakery doesn't make wedding cakes - at all - no one can sue them for discrimination when they refuse. That is consistency.

But if a florist refuses to serve a gay couple for their wedding, when the florist serves straight couples' weddings, that would not be consistent.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:21:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:20:25 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:14:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:12:19 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:04:12 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:16:12 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:15:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Against hate speech, yes. Everything else, probably not, assuming im forgetting about something

Like should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to gays?

This was for some bakery in Colorado:

"Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

Public accomodation can be broken down into government-owned and privately operated facilities, services, and buildings.

So can businesses discriminate? In most states, no - not according to the law. If you do deny service, it must be a consistent matter and not arbitrary or applied to only a certain group.

For example:

In Colorado, another baker was sued for not making a cake with anti-gay Bible verses. The courts ruled that it was application of a consistent policy of not making cakes with hateful messages.

The other baker, sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, was ruled as liable. This was because they make wedding cakes - but refuse a certain group. If they refused to make wedding cakes at all, it'd be different.

So under law, no.

So if a bakery says from the beginning they do not serve blacks, would that be legal or no?

No, because it's just a single group.

I'm confused, what do you mean by consistent?

It applies to everyone.

To take Endark's example, a Kosher or Halal store does not have to sell pork. They just don't - not to anyone. That is consistency.

If a bakery doesn't make wedding cakes - at all - no one can sue them for discrimination when they refuse. That is consistency.

But if a florist refuses to serve a gay couple for their wedding, when the florist serves straight couples' weddings, that would not be consistent.

Oh I see.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,192
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:21:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Where do you live?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:21:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:20:12 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:18:59 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked.

About what?
That it wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone you know.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:21:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

If they operate a public storefront, no.
"Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization."
- G. K. Chesterton -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:24:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

No. There are extremes you could cite as examples, but that is not the point. If you open your doors for business, are given license to sell in our society, you MUST comply with law. One of these is non-discrimination. What is so damn hard about this!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:45:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Nobody should be forced to violate their conscience.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:49:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:45:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Nobody should be forced to violate their conscience.

they are not being forced. they can closemtheir doors, and live as the good lord decrees.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:59:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:49:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:45:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Nobody should be forced to violate their conscience.

they are not being forced. they can closemtheir doors, and live as the good lord decrees.

http://www.theguardian.com...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:38:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:59:26 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:49:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:45:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:10:18 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Should they?

Nobody should be forced to violate their conscience.

they are not being forced. they can closemtheir doors, and live as the good lord decrees.

http://www.theguardian.com...

+1
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:39:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:21:17 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Where do you live?

I'm sure you can reasonably guess. :P
Mid-west-ish area
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:40:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:21:37 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:20:12 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:18:59 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked.

About what?
That it wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone you know.

Lol.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:42:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:40:02 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:21:37 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:20:12 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:18:59 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:16:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:13:53 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
If it's a privately owned business, they should be able to "discriminate" their free-will services to things that contradict their moral standings.

So they could be allowed to ban certain races from entering their premise right?

That wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone I know.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked.

About what?
That it wouldn't be a moral infraction to anyone you know.

Lol.

Wait, were you actually being serious? Nobody you know would think it's morally wrong to discriminate somebody because of their race?