Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Businesses Can Choose To Refuse Service

zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:43:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

So basically you support omnidirectional Jim Crow? Congratulations, you're a monster. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate, and they don't have that right for very good reasons. They don't have to serve everyone, but the right to deny service is not inaliable nor unlimited.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:25:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Really? So surprising. See, I have actually read the text of the constitution, the 14th amendment, the civil right acts, and know what? According the the SCOTUS, that is completely wrong.

But now that a guy with a scooby doo icon tells me differently, I am convinced!
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:35:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:25:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Really? So surprising. See, I have actually read the text of the constitution, the 14th amendment, the civil right acts, and know what? According the the SCOTUS, that is completely wrong.

But now that a guy with a scooby doo icon tells me differently, I am convinced!

I'm pretty sure that's an ad hominem.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:38:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:35:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/9/2015 9:25:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Really? So surprising. See, I have actually read the text of the constitution, the 14th amendment, the civil right acts, and know what? According the the SCOTUS, that is completely wrong.

But now that a guy with a scooby doo icon tells me differently, I am convinced!

I'm pretty sure that's an ad hominem.

It is... I an feeling that way tonight. I will apology to scooby.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It was really THIS post that got me

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

It is SUCH a wrong understanding of ALL laws surrounding this issue.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 9:38:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/9/2015 9:35:41 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/9/2015 9:25:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Really? So surprising. See, I have actually read the text of the constitution, the 14th amendment, the civil right acts, and know what? According the the SCOTUS, that is completely wrong.

But now that a guy with a scooby doo icon tells me differently, I am convinced!

I'm pretty sure that's an ad hominem.

It is... I an feeling that way tonight. I will apology to scooby.

It's actually Shaggy, lol.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:42:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's actually Shaggy, lol.

TWICE! TWICE I have to mea culpa! Yes, that is Shaggy. Apologies to Scooby, Shaggy and the gang.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 6:46:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I had a business where I sold a service - not a product, except to say the product was a service.

On a few occasions there were people who I felt would be better served by a different business owner. I did not want to serve them, so I did not.

If you provide a service this is easy to do, and the person may not even know that you are refusing them, you just say you are not available when they want your service.

If I am selling widgets from a storefront, have a dozen on the shelf, and a rude, obnoxious person wanted to buy one, I'm not sure I could refuse them.
If I were determined, I would say I could figure out a way.
But a group of people, like race, religion, sex, ethnic, creed, a lot more difficult.

The "I don't want your kind in here." can work, if there is community support. With social media 'community' can be global, so I'm thinking that approach will not last long.

Now this: "No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace. " has some real problems.

The marketplace is not 'free".
Society paid for the roads, utilities, etc, for your products, or customers to get to you.
Society is responsible for the monetary system, you need to conduct business.
Society provides military protection to keep the invaders from your doors.
Fire and police protection - society.
You have an obligation to society, and they have the right to remind you of that.

"I pay my taxes." may satisfy you, but that decision is not yours to make.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:02:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have an obligation to society

While true, replace "you" with "the business". The state allows the existence of the corporate entity, with that comes responsibilities. Legal responsibilities.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:27:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 6:46:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I had a business where I sold a service - not a product, except to say the product was a service.

On a few occasions there were people who I felt would be better served by a different business owner. I did not want to serve them, so I did not.
You bigotted bastard. ;)
Do you think you should have to defend this position in a court of law?

If you provide a service this is easy to do, and the person may not even know that you are refusing them, you just say you are not available when they want your service.
Above.

If I am selling widgets from a storefront, have a dozen on the shelf, and a rude, obnoxious person wanted to buy one, I'm not sure I could refuse them.
And you don't see a problem with that?
I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer to see if I can refuse service to a man, because some states might recognize alcoholism as a mental disorder (read: handicap), which is protected.
If I were determined, I would say I could figure out a way.
But a group of people, like race, religion, sex, ethnic, creed, a lot more difficult.
True, but with disparate impact, it happens all the time, or at least an attempt to curtail their patronage.

The "I don't want your kind in here." can work, if there is community support. With social media 'community' can be global, so I'm thinking that approach will not last long.
Ah, but this is hypocritical and evidence of thought police.
It is wrong because there is a right....unless enough people agree with you.

Now this: "No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace. " has some real problems.
Should not the anti-discrimination flow both ways? Should not a business be able to sue a would-be patron because they refuse to shop at their store on account of some factor? You know, society and all that.

The marketplace is not 'free".
Society paid for the roads, utilities, etc, for your products, or customers to get to you.
Maybe so, but society didn't mortgage my house to open a business. Society isn't going to file bankruptcy if my business fails, just me. Does this extend to a babysitter who won't take clients of "those kinds of people"?
Society is responsible for the monetary system, you need to conduct business.
You can barter, you know. It takes place even today.
Society provides military protection to keep the invaders from your doors.
And people who do nothing for society, or even break society's rules (criminals), or those who pay no taxes are also protected.
Fire and police protection - society.
See above, and it's not like I have a choice in this, although many places have their own security.
You have an obligation to society, and they have the right to remind you of that.
This is dangerous thinking, and if taxation is not said obligation, then what is? Because I certainly am allowed by society and the government to create unrest in racial relations by shouting how awful race X is, aren't I?

"I pay my taxes." may satisfy you, but that decision is not yours to make.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:37:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 6:43:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

So basically you support omnidirectional Jim Crow? Congratulations, you're a monster. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate, and they don't have that right for very good reasons. They don't have to serve everyone, but the right to deny service is not inaliable nor unlimited.

Isn't Jim Crow a reference to government actively sanctioned discrimination, including their own? Further, weren't blacks of the south still offered services? As I recall, they had sit-ins, where they were served food, and refused to move from buses, which they were allowed to ride. It seems businesses were trying to accommodate as best they could, and why wouldn't they? Why turn away 1-50% of the populace?
My work here is, finally, done.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:51:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 10:37:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:43:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

So basically you support omnidirectional Jim Crow? Congratulations, you're a monster. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate, and they don't have that right for very good reasons. They don't have to serve everyone, but the right to deny service is not inaliable nor unlimited.

Isn't Jim Crow a reference to government actively sanctioned discrimination, including their own? Further, weren't blacks of the south still offered services? As I recall, they had sit-ins, where they were served food, and refused to move from buses, which they were allowed to ride. It seems businesses were trying to accommodate as best they could, and why wouldn't they? Why turn away 1-50% of the populace?

Are you attempting to justify the Jim Crow laws of the south?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:58:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 10:51:00 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/10/2015 10:37:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:43:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

So basically you support omnidirectional Jim Crow? Congratulations, you're a monster. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate, and they don't have that right for very good reasons. They don't have to serve everyone, but the right to deny service is not inaliable nor unlimited.

Isn't Jim Crow a reference to government actively sanctioned discrimination, including their own? Further, weren't blacks of the south still offered services? As I recall, they had sit-ins, where they were served food, and refused to move from buses, which they were allowed to ride. It seems businesses were trying to accommodate as best they could, and why wouldn't they? Why turn away 1-50% of the populace?

Are you attempting to justify the Jim Crow laws of the south?

I don't see how it sounds like that. I am illustrating business practices under Jim Crow to highlight how this is likely a non-issue.
I am stating that the Jim Crow laws cannot be used to define what businesses would do if allowed to, since the laws (and society) forced businesses to do things. Government should not discriminate, but that doesn't mean I cannot.

I am showing that businesses still catered to a class of people they easily could have not served. Why? Because they want to make money.

Would you prefer a modern day example? Take Chic-fil-A.
They have no problem serving gays and taking their money.
They do have a problem giving franchises to them.

That racist football player owner had no problem hiring blacks to make money for him, but didn't want his girlfriend around them (or something like that). Why? Money.

Businesses want to make money, and dealing with bad PR is a nightmare and hurts business.
My work here is, finally, done.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:14:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

I don't see how it sounds like that. I am illustrating business practices under Jim Crow to highlight how this is likely a non-issue.
I am stating that the Jim Crow laws cannot be used to define what businesses would do if allowed to, since the laws (and society) forced businesses to do things. Government should not discriminate, but that doesn't mean I cannot.

I am showing that businesses still catered to a class of people they easily could have not served. Why? Because they want to make money.

Would you prefer a modern day example? Take Chic-fil-A.
They have no problem serving gays and taking their money.
They do have a problem giving franchises to them.

That racist football player owner had no problem hiring blacks to make money for him, but didn't want his girlfriend around them (or something like that). Why? Money.

Businesses want to make money, and dealing with bad PR is a nightmare and hurts business.

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?

Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:25:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:14:42 AM, TBR wrote:

I don't see how it sounds like that. I am illustrating business practices under Jim Crow to highlight how this is likely a non-issue.
I am stating that the Jim Crow laws cannot be used to define what businesses would do if allowed to, since the laws (and society) forced businesses to do things. Government should not discriminate, but that doesn't mean I cannot.

I am showing that businesses still catered to a class of people they easily could have not served. Why? Because they want to make money.

Would you prefer a modern day example? Take Chic-fil-A.
They have no problem serving gays and taking their money.
They do have a problem giving franchises to them.

That racist football player owner had no problem hiring blacks to make money for him, but didn't want his girlfriend around them (or something like that). Why? Money.

Businesses want to make money, and dealing with bad PR is a nightmare and hurts business.

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?
Did they en masse? If they didn't, then there goes every concern you have, doesn't it? Further, if they did, were they required to by law? If so, then allowing businesses to act freely is not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, because they were forced to do it.

My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as matters of law should be objective.
But, yes, if a business is going to be unethical, that is their decision. Why is this example any worse than others?

Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"

Tell me what permission I need from the state to babysit my neighbor?
Run a daycare for only one family?
File tax returns out of my home? (the only permission is for a e-file number from the IRS)
Do landscaping?
Tell me why there are "private" businesses, that are exempt from laws, like golf clubs or boy scouts, who can very much discriminate based on sex?
We required no license to open up a dog grooming shop, so, what permission was given?
My work here is, finally, done.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:34:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?
Did they en masse? If they didn't, then there goes every concern you have, doesn't it? Further, if they did, were they required to by law? If so, then allowing businesses to act freely is not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, because they were forced to do it.

Sure they did. Did by policy. Do you know the "bus boycott"?


My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as matters of law should be objective.
But, yes, if a business is going to be unethical, that is their decision. Why is this example any worse than others?

You can not be unethical with protection from the state. Get the difference?


Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"

Tell me what permission I need from the state to babysit my neighbor?
Run a daycare for only one family?
File tax returns out of my home? (the only permission is for a e-file number from the IRS)
Do landscaping?

This is either purposefully obtuse or just silly.

Tell me why there are "private" businesses, that are exempt from laws, like golf clubs or boy scouts, who can very much discriminate based on sex?

Clubs enjoy a very different set of laws, and I would be happy to discuss these, however, check how the Civil Right Acts effected clubs and get back to me.

We required no license to open up a dog grooming shop, so, what permission was given?

Again, simply obtuse.

Here is the reality. You DO NOT have a right as a "business" to refuse services to ANYONE provided they are not breaking any laws. You must further, to the best of your abilities, offer the SAME services to each customer. These as a matter of of law have been set. These as a matter of ethics are worthy of discussion.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:45:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:34:47 AM, TBR wrote:

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?
Did they en masse? If they didn't, then there goes every concern you have, doesn't it? Further, if they did, were they required to by law? If so, then allowing businesses to act freely is not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, because they were forced to do it.

Sure they did. Did by policy. Do you know the "bus boycott"?
Yeah, and blacks were riding buses, so they were still served. That is my point.


My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as matters of law should be objective.
But, yes, if a business is going to be unethical, that is their decision. Why is this example any worse than others?

You can not be unethical with protection from the state. Get the difference?
First, you CAN be unethical. It happens all the time. Or, are countless lawsuits about wage theft and various issues something different?
Second, I don't get the difference, because only some people are protected.
You keep referring to the Civil Rights Act. You are aware that Title VII actually said you can't discriminate....unless you are a socialist. Then it's okay. So, sure, keep referencing a law that allows discrimination.


Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"

Tell me what permission I need from the state to babysit my neighbor?
Run a daycare for only one family?
File tax returns out of my home? (the only permission is for a e-file number from the IRS)
Do landscaping?

This is either purposefully obtuse or just silly.
Why are they silly? None of these require any permission from the state, ergo, it directly attacks your point that "businesses need permission from the state".

Tell me why there are "private" businesses, that are exempt from laws, like golf clubs or boy scouts, who can very much discriminate based on sex?

Clubs enjoy a very different set of laws, and I would be happy to discuss these, however, check how the Civil Right Acts effected clubs and get back to me.
Again, an appeal to authority as opposed to discussing the actual issue.

We required no license to open up a dog grooming shop, so, what permission was given?

Again, simply obtuse.
Why? If I didn't need any permission, then what is your point about needing permission? It sounds like you are the one being obtuse, citing non-sequitors.


Here is the reality. You DO NOT have a right as a "business" to refuse services to ANYONE provided they are not breaking any laws. You must further, to the best of your abilities, offer the SAME services to each customer. These as a matter of of law have been set. These as a matter of ethics are worthy of discussion.

You are correct that, as a matter of law, I do not have this right (unless I can prove a good enough reason, then I can discriminate all I wish). The issue clearly is: if I should be allowed to have said right. So, stop hiding behind the law and actually address the reasons for it.

Regarding the law, if I have a right to service, then EVERYONE has a right to service, and you are infringing on my rights to deny me service. Don't forget, the Civil Rights Act also created the issues of "desparate impacts", so a company that has a policy, like not breaking big bills, is actually discriminating against those who have them, which is a disparate impact on minorities, ergo, it is illegal.
My work here is, finally, done.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:58:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/10/2015 11:34:47 AM, TBR wrote:

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?
Did they en masse? If they didn't, then there goes every concern you have, doesn't it? Further, if they did, were they required to by law? If so, then allowing businesses to act freely is not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, because they were forced to do it.

Sure they did. Did by policy. Do you know the "bus boycott"?
Yeah, and blacks were riding buses, so they were still served. That is my point.

So, again. I ask. Business can operate and offer sub-par services or products with the protection from the state. Do you see this issue? It is the EXACT right question.



My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as matters of law should be objective.
But, yes, if a business is going to be unethical, that is their decision. Why is this example any worse than others?

You can not be unethical with protection from the state. Get the difference?
First, you CAN be unethical. It happens all the time. Or, are countless lawsuits about wage theft and various issues something different?

You don't get protection from the state to be unethical. Do you get this?

Second, I don't get the difference, because only some people are protected.

Simple not true.

You keep referring to the Civil Rights Act. You are aware that Title VII actually said you can't discriminate....unless you are a socialist. Then it's okay. So, sure, keep referencing a law that allows discrimination.

What?



Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"

Tell me what permission I need from the state to babysit my neighbor?
Run a daycare for only one family?
File tax returns out of my home? (the only permission is for a e-file number from the IRS)
Do landscaping?

This is either purposefully obtuse or just silly.
Why are they silly? None of these require any permission from the state, ergo, it directly attacks your point that "businesses need permission from the state".

Any business operated without a license may be shutdown by the government. There are places where some formality has been applied to cretin service only, low volume activities. Even in these cases, individuals can bring suit based on the same protections provided by the law. YOU CAN BE SUED PERSONAL. The reason for the Corp, LLC is to create the entity. The person operating wiht out it is running the personal risk - the SAME risk.


Tell me why there are "private" businesses, that are exempt from laws, like golf clubs or boy scouts, who can very much discriminate based on sex?

Clubs enjoy a very different set of laws, and I would be happy to discuss these, however, check how the Civil Right Acts effected clubs and get back to me.
Again, an appeal to authority as opposed to discussing the actual issue.

We required no license to open up a dog grooming shop, so, what permission was given?

Again, simply obtuse.
Why? If I didn't need any permission, then what is your point about needing permission? It sounds like you are the one being obtuse, citing non-sequitors.


And I can sue you for discriminating. Do you have any idea how the law works?


Here is the reality. You DO NOT have a right as a "business" to refuse services to ANYONE provided they are not breaking any laws. You must further, to the best of your abilities, offer the SAME services to each customer. These as a matter of of law have been set. These as a matter of ethics are worthy of discussion.

You are correct that, as a matter of law, I do not have this right (unless I can prove a good enough reason, then I can discriminate all I wish). The issue clearly is: if I should be allowed to have said right. So, stop hiding behind the law and actually address the reasons for it.

Regarding the law, if I have a right to service, then EVERYONE has a right to service, and you are infringing on my rights to deny me service. Don't forget, the Civil Rights Act also created the issues of "desparate impacts", so a company that has a policy, like not breaking big bills, is actually discriminating against those who have them, which is a disparate impact on minorities, ergo, it is illegal.

Look. You are drowning. Move to the ethical. You have, as has everyone else, lost in the legal and constitutional realm.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 10:27:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/10/2015 6:46:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I had a business where I sold a service - not a product, except to say the product was a service.

On a few occasions there were people who I felt would be better served by a different business owner. I did not want to serve them, so I did not.
You bigotted bastard. ;)
Do you think you should have to defend this position in a court of law?

A rhetorical question, I assume.
As a matter of practice, I cannot be in two places at once. You want my services? - sorry I am already hired out.
In one case I essentially said I was not capable of providing the service they were requesting. I recommended a competitor.


If you provide a service this is easy to do, and the person may not even know that you are refusing them, you just say you are not available when they want your service.
Above.
Above.

If I am selling widgets from a storefront, have a dozen on the shelf, and a rude, obnoxious person wanted to buy one, I'm not sure I could refuse them.
And you don't see a problem with that?
I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer to see if I can refuse service to a man, because some states might recognize alcoholism as a mental disorder (read: handicap), which is protected.

Well, as I said, I am able, as a matter of practice, to circumvent the law, on a limited basis.
For the record, addiction is not a disability, although some disabled people have addictions.
ADHD and bi-polar are disabilities (quite popular), can display unruly behavior, and it may be necessary to call the police to have them evicted.
Protection does run both directions.

If I were determined, I would say I could figure out a way.
But a group of people, like race, religion, sex, ethnic, creed, a lot more difficult.
True, but with disparate impact, it happens all the time, or at least an attempt to curtail their patronage.

The "I don't want your kind in here." can work, if there is community support. With social media 'community' can be global, so I'm thinking that approach will not last long.
Ah, but this is hypocritical and evidence of thought police.
It is wrong because there is a right....unless enough people agree with you.

This is just recognizing human nature.
Welcome your own, shun those who are different.
Jury nullification is not hypocrisy.
in effect, that is what we have when a community says the law is wrong - and we will discriminate against 'those kinds'.

Now this: "No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace. " has some real problems.
Should not the anti-discrimination flow both ways? Should not a business be able to sue a would-be patron because they refuse to shop at their store on account of some factor? You know, society and all that.

I see what you suggest as a form of monopoly, 'You must buy here, no choice.", and of course monopolies are illegal, on paper at least.
So, no, consumers are protected against this.

The marketplace is not 'free".
Society paid for the roads, utilities, etc, for your products, or customers to get to you.
Maybe so, but society didn't mortgage my house to open a business. Society isn't :going to file bankruptcy if my business fails, just me.

Society did not request or require you to mortgage your house.

Does this extend to a babysitter who won't take clients of "those kinds of people"?
Yes, of course, drug dealers and contract killers as well.

Society is responsible for the monetary system, you need to conduct business.
You can barter, you know. It takes place even today.
And when it comes time to pay the taxes and other bills, do you really believe Uncle Sam will accept chickens for your taxes?
When you go to make a bank deposit, to pay bills, will they accept chickens?
If you are in business, you will have to use the monetary system.
Barter is taxable.

Society provides military protection to keep the invaders from your doors.
And people who do nothing for society, or even break society's rules (criminals), or :those who pay no taxes are also protected.
Yes, again I remind you, no one required you to go into business. The welfare lines have room for you if you choose.

Fire and police protection - society.
See above, and it's not like I have a choice in this, although many places have their own security.
You have an obligation to society, and they have the right to remind you of that.
This is dangerous thinking, and if taxation is not said obligation, then what is? Because I certainly am allowed by society and the government to create unrest in :racial relations by shouting how awful race X is, aren't I?

Society decide the obligation.
This is a truism. society makes the laws, if you want to participate as a vendor, you will be required to take the whole package, benefits and cost.
As a citizen you have freedom of speech. You are still in a social contract, but your obligations are not the same as a business entity.


"I pay my taxes." may satisfy you, but that decision is not yours to make.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:12:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Society decide the obligation.
This is a truism. society makes the laws, if you want to participate as a vendor, you will be required to take the whole package, benefits and cost.
As a citizen you have freedom of speech. You are still in a social contract, but your obligations are not the same as a business entity.

This, and a couple points around this basic fact, seem to be misunderstood by... many.

Asserting some personal interpretation of a "right" means nothing.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:22:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:12:50 PM, TBR wrote:

Society decide the obligation.
This is a truism. society makes the laws, if you want to participate as a vendor, you will be required to take the whole package, benefits and cost.
As a citizen you have freedom of speech. You are still in a social contract, but your obligations are not the same as a business entity.

This, and a couple points around this basic fact, seem to be misunderstood by... many.

Asserting some personal interpretation of a "right" means nothing.

I am here, ready for instruction.
If you are ready to introduce formalized meanings, please have at it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:58:16 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/10/2015 11:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/10/2015 11:34:47 AM, TBR wrote:

So the businesses that operated under Jim Crow laws could serve sub-par products, or services at the same price, bases on race, and that cool, right?
Did they en masse? If they didn't, then there goes every concern you have, doesn't it? Further, if they did, were they required to by law? If so, then allowing businesses to act freely is not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws, because they were forced to do it.

Sure they did. Did by policy. Do you know the "bus boycott"?
Yeah, and blacks were riding buses, so they were still served. That is my point.

So, again. I ask. Business can operate and offer sub-par services or products with the protection from the state. Do you see this issue? It is the EXACT right question.
Businesses were forced to do this by law, and that is an issue.
You Jim Crow comparison falls flat.



My feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as matters of law should be objective.
But, yes, if a business is going to be unethical, that is their decision. Why is this example any worse than others?

You can not be unethical with protection from the state. Get the difference?
First, you CAN be unethical. It happens all the time. Or, are countless lawsuits about wage theft and various issues something different?

You don't get protection from the state to be unethical. Do you get this?
Unethical is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Second, I don't get the difference, because only some people are protected.

Simple not true.
Currently, gays are not protected (in places) while women are. That is 100% true.

You keep referring to the Civil Rights Act. You are aware that Title VII actually said you can't discriminate....unless you are a socialist. Then it's okay. So, sure, keep referencing a law that allows discrimination.

What?
Read the law.
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[44]

I can't not hire you because you are DFL, but I can if you are socialist (at least at the time it was passed).
That is proof that the law is allowing discrimination, so the issue is what discrimination is allowed, which means blanket statements like "it is wrong" or "it is illegal" are just not true.



Businesses exist with the permission of the state. With that permission comes responsibilities and regulation. "Not liking" these restrictions is just as "un-American" as any TEA party member saying "FREEDOM!"

Tell me what permission I need from the state to babysit my neighbor?
Run a daycare for only one family?
File tax returns out of my home? (the only permission is for a e-file number from the IRS)
Do landscaping?

This is either purposefully obtuse or just silly.
Why are they silly? None of these require any permission from the state, ergo, it directly attacks your point that "businesses need permission from the state".

Any business operated without a license may be shutdown by the government. There are places where some formality has been applied to cretin service only, low volume activities. Even in these cases, individuals can bring suit based on the same protections provided by the law. YOU CAN BE SUED PERSONAL. The reason for the Corp, LLC is to create the entity. The person operating wiht out it is running the personal risk - the SAME risk.
There is no license required, therefore they cannot be shut down.
So, I ask again, what permission do I need from the government?
According to you, since I need permission from the government, the government can dictate. However, these businesses do not require permission, ergo, they can discriminate?


Tell me why there are "private" businesses, that are exempt from laws, like golf clubs or boy scouts, who can very much discriminate based on sex?

Clubs enjoy a very different set of laws, and I would be happy to discuss these, however, check how the Civil Right Acts effected clubs and get back to me.
Again, an appeal to authority as opposed to discussing the actual issue.

We required no license to open up a dog grooming shop, so, what permission was given?

Again, simply obtuse.
Why? If I didn't need any permission, then what is your point about needing permission? It sounds like you are the one being obtuse, citing non-sequitors.


And I can sue you for discriminating. Do you have any idea how the law works?
Are you sure? Based on what law? Not the Civil Rights Act, as these businesses would not be subject to these regulations.
Your argument on this section was based on needed permission from the government, which I don't. So, I don't know what your point was with that comment.


Here is the reality. You DO NOT have a right as a "business" to refuse services to ANYONE provided they are not breaking any laws. You must further, to the best of your abilities, offer the SAME services to each customer. These as a matter of of law have been set. These as a matter of ethics are worthy of discussion.

You are correct that, as a matter of law, I do not have this right (unless I can prove a good enough reason, then I can discriminate all I wish). The issue clearly is: if I should be allowed to have said right. So, stop hiding behind the law and actually address the reasons for it.

Regarding the law, if I have a right to service, then EVERYONE has a right to service, and you are infringing on my rights to deny me service. Don't forget, the Civil Rights Act also created the issues of "desparate impacts", so a company that has a policy, like not breaking big bills, is actually discriminating against those who have them, which is a disparate impact on minorities, ergo, it is illegal.

Look. You are drowning. Move to the ethical. You have, as has everyone else, lost in the legal and constitutional realm.
There is no legal reasons for these laws, except that people want them. So, repealing them is something you have not defended adequately.
I mean, was your whole presence here to just say "the OP is wrong because it is illegal" and stick to that narrow literal issue? If so, then, as I said, you are right. But, I thought you were actually defending the law. Since you are not defending the law, I'll just move on, since I have already stated the law does restrict discrimination.
My work here is, finally, done.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:22:11 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:12:50 PM, TBR wrote:

Society decide the obligation.
This is a truism. society makes the laws, if you want to participate as a vendor, you will be required to take the whole package, benefits and cost.
As a citizen you have freedom of speech. You are still in a social contract, but your obligations are not the same as a business entity.

This, and a couple points around this basic fact, seem to be misunderstood by... many.

Asserting some personal interpretation of a "right" means nothing.

I am here, ready for instruction.
If you are ready to introduce formalized meanings, please have at it.

One of us has misunderstood the other. I am not sure which one.

What I have seen in many debates surrounding Religious Freedom laws, is an insistence that some inherit right exists to "do as I please", and discussed as "freedom". As in "freedom to NOT serve anyone I choose". I am saying that this is asserting a phantom right.

Further, when you operate a business, you do so with the consent of the government (society). With that "permission" to exist (the corporate entity) comes the responsibility to operate under the laws. The "business as an entity" or "the business as a person" does NOT get protection from the state (protection in the form of law) without recognizing the authority of the law. Further still. The business (as a person or entity) has no inherit legal protections to discriminate or be unethical.

The counter to this has been this has been the undefined "freedom". This imaginary thing.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 1:11:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:37:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:22:11 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:12:50 PM, TBR wrote:

Society decide the obligation.
This is a truism. society makes the laws, if you want to participate as a vendor, you will be required to take the whole package, benefits and cost.
As a citizen you have freedom of speech. You are still in a social contract, but your obligations are not the same as a business entity.

This, and a couple points around this basic fact, seem to be misunderstood by... many.

Asserting some personal interpretation of a "right" means nothing.

I am here, ready for instruction.
If you are ready to introduce formalized meanings, please have at it.

One of us has misunderstood the other. I am not sure which one.

What I have seen in many debates surrounding Religious Freedom laws, is an insistence that some inherit right exists to "do as I please", and discussed as "freedom". As in "freedom to NOT serve anyone I choose". I am saying that this is asserting a phantom right.

Further, when you operate a business, you do so with the consent of the government (society). With that "permission" to exist (the corporate entity) comes the responsibility to operate under the laws. The "business as an entity" or "the business as a person" does NOT get protection from the state (protection in the form of law) without recognizing the authority of the law. Further still. The business (as a person or entity) has no inherit legal protections to discriminate or be unethical.

The counter to this has been this has been the undefined "freedom". This imaginary thing.

We agree here.
I was making some points that as a mater of practice, I did, on occasion, decide that some consumers were too cantankerous and I was able to refuse service.
'Temperament' is not a protected class in my book. In my mind I was not in violation of the letter of any laws.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 1:16:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Yup, let's go back to the good old days, when it wasn't illegal for businesses to refuse to serve or hire black people.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 1:19:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 10:37:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:43:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:53 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:18:30 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:59:43 PM, zoinks wrote:
The freedom to choose is one of the backbones of America.

When it comes to the marketplace, both customers and businesses have the right to choose who they work with.

A customer can select any business which provides a particular good or service for those purposes, and can also choose not to deal with any particular business.

A business can also select who they purchase from or sell to.

No law or rule should be established telling either customers or businesses they must deal with any particular person or entity, as such would eliminate the concept of the free marketplace.

Refusing service to certain individuals is alright, but it's a far cry from refusing service to entire groups of people. I assume you mean that businesses have the right to not sell their stuff to just anyone, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or even without stating a reason.

So basically you support omnidirectional Jim Crow? Congratulations, you're a monster. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate, and they don't have that right for very good reasons. They don't have to serve everyone, but the right to deny service is not inaliable nor unlimited.

Isn't Jim Crow a reference to government actively sanctioned discrimination, including their own? Further, weren't blacks of the south still offered services? As I recall, they had sit-ins, where they were served food, and refused to move from buses, which they were allowed to ride. It seems businesses were trying to accommodate as best they could, and why wouldn't they? Why turn away 1-50% of the populace?

Jim crow was a lot of things. It allowed private business to deny service to black and Mexican people while it was only the public services (like busses) that allowed them but segregated them.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 1:30:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 1:19:19 PM, SirCrona wrote:

Jim crow was a lot of things. It allowed private business to deny service to black and Mexican people while it was only the public services (like busses) that allowed them but segregated them.

I'm actually looking into this, but it appears that businesses weren't "allowed" to discriminate, it was required.

Restaurants: All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia

Lunch Counters: No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina

Restaurants: It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

http://www.ferris.edu...

This is why sit-ins were not illegal, because they were allowed to be there (if only during certain times). Same with buses. Rosa Parks was allowed to ride the bus, she just was required to move to the back and/or stand, which she refused.
The fact that blacks still had service, to me, is evidence that by and large, if a business can discriminate, it often won't, because: money.
My work here is, finally, done.