Happy 21st B-DAY to JakeN7

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="221609" data-time="1392396471">
<div>


Should a private business owner have the right to not serve blacks if he doesn't want to?  Women?  </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


On the surface, no.  We're all human.</p>


 </p>


I reality, if they did, the backlash would be incredible--enough to kill their business and the free market economy works like it should.</p>


 </p>


In the same vein, if an employee of a private company refuses to render services to a black person or a woman, they are either replaced with someone with no qualms or told to do so or look for another job.  Ditto in a government position--except those employees seem hard to fire.</p>


 </p>


Gays should be in the same position; tyhey shouldn't be refused service, but if they did the backlash should be incredible enough to completely destroy the business' reputation, and employees who can't deal with gays are replaced by those that can--and/or rold to look for another job.</p>


 </p>


The law should be irrelevant and stupid and really, if it's not struck down as unconstitutional in a generation it will be rendered completely irrelevant.</p>


 </p>


I just have a major problem overall witht he wording I aforementioned.  It could be applied in parallel situations where a lowly clerk has the power to dictate policy and publically refuse someone on the basis of them "having religious issues" with someone. </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="221609" data-time="1392396471">
<div>


Should a private business owner have the right to not serve blacks if he doesn't want to?  Women?  </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Should a private business owner serve blacks, women, gays... of course... should the have the RIGHT not to. I feel yes. They should have the rights to do whatever the hell they want. There are women only gyms, men's only clubs, farmers only dating sites... I don't like it, and it shouldn't have to be a bill, but to me it goes back to so many problems we have with the government in that things like this can open up the crack in legislation to much bigger things. I've consistently said that I do not want to suppress freedoms of the individual to compel what turn out to be small populations to comply to government regulations. I just have more faith in humanity than some and don't see any of the extreme conditions presented by TSD as a viable situation. That's like something straight out of fox news scenario. I just think that people who discriminate will get their own form of punishment through the free market without needing the government to step in and compel them to comply.</p>

 

[Tater]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221618" data-time="1392398986">
<div>


Should a private business owner serve blacks, women, gays... of course... should the have the RIGHT not to. I feel yes. They should have the rights to do whatever the hell they want. There are women only gyms, men's only clubs, farmers only dating sites... I don't like it, and it shouldn't have to be a bill, but to me it goes back to so many problems we have with the government in that things like this can open up the crack in legislation to much bigger things. I've consistently said that I do not want to suppress freedoms of the individual to compel what turn out to be small populations to comply to government regulations. I just have more faith in humanity than some and don't see any of the extreme conditions presented by TSD as a viable situation. That's like something straight out of fox news scenario. I just think that people who discriminate will get their own form of punishment through the free market without needing the government to step in and compel them to comply.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I think you change my opinion on this. Your explanation does make sense.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tater" data-cid="221619" data-time="1392399285">
<div>


I think you change my opinion on this. Your explanation does make sense.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Holy shit warm up the parade, a IHN first! Someone changes their opinion... haha I'd like to thank all the people who couldn't be here today....</p>

 

[Tater]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221623" data-time="1392399469">
<div>


Holy shit warm up the parade, a IHN first! Someone changes their opinion... haha I'd like to thank all the people who couldn't be here today....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Lol. You're right, it probably is the first time.</p>

 

[phranchk]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221618" data-time="1392398986">
<div>


Should a private business owner serve blacks, women, gays... of course... should the have the RIGHT not to. I feel yes. They should have the rights to do whatever the hell they want. There are women only gyms, men's only clubs, farmers only dating sites... I don't like it, and it shouldn't have to be a bill, but to me it goes back to so many problems we have with the government in that things like this can open up the crack in legislation to much bigger things. I've consistently said that I do not want to suppress freedoms of the individual to compel what turn out to be small populations to comply to government regulations. I just have more faith in humanity than some and don't see any of the extreme conditions presented by TSD as a viable situation. That's like something straight out of fox news scenario. I just think that people who discriminate will get their own form of punishment through the free market without needing the government to step in and compel them to comply.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Sounds all good and well, but that's not the reality. Especially in more rural, less educated areas of the country. They absolutely will use this as justification for discrimination and get away with it because aside from large cities most of the country is still pretty homophobic. The only people who will get their just punishment will be those doing business in liberal areas, which are few in Kansas.</p>

 

[phranchk]

A good explanation of why men's only and women's only clubs are allowed to exist.</p>


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/08/20/good-question-why-can-some-clubs-discriminate/</p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="phranchk" data-cid="221625" data-time="1392400372">
<div>


Sounds all good and well, but that's not the reality. Especially in more rural, less educated areas of the country. They absolutely will use this as justification for discrimination and get away with it because aside from large cities most of the country is still pretty homophobic. The only people who will get their just punishment will be those doing business in liberal areas, which are few in Kansas.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


That was more or less the argument I was making earlier.  Is there are plenty of towns that exist that where gays simply will not be able to exist, because everyone there shares that sentiment.</p>

 

[Variable]

Oh they'll exist, but they won't be able to exist as they want to for as long as they live there.  It's such a backwards, bullshit argument comparing this to women only gyms, dating websites, men only clubs, etc, because those don't shape who a person is, those don't make a person or group of people feel isolated, make them feel like they are wrong for the way they are. Those are simply choices, this is the opposite of a choice.  They don't force a person to have to pick up their lives and move out of a state in order to have the same rights everyone else does. And it's being compared to  gym clubs lol? Now that's a Ken Ham argument.</p>


 </p>


There should be no gray area in this anymore. There should be no "I don't like it....buuuuut.." No. We know better. These are people's lives we're talking about, not fucking online dating sites.</p>

 

[supraman]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="221609" data-time="1392396471">
<div>


Should a private business owner have the right to not serve blacks if he doesn't want to?  Women?  </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Actually yeah it is not actually against the constitution. Again even if those things were to happen it'd filter itself pretty damn fast</p>

 

[phranchk]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="221629" data-time="1392402476">
<div>


Actually yeah it is not actually against the constitution. Again even if those things were to happen it'd filter itself pretty damn fast</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


It is against the law if they serve the public, which most private businesses do. Only truly private clubs are allowed to discriminate and those are disappearing.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221618" data-time="1392398986">
<div>


Should a private business owner serve blacks, women, gays... of course... should the have the RIGHT not to. I feel yes. They should have the rights to do whatever the hell they want. There are women only gyms, men's only clubs, farmers only dating sites... I don't like it, and it shouldn't have to be a bill, but to me it goes back to so many problems we have with the government in that things like this can open up the crack in legislation to much bigger things. I've consistently said that I do not want to suppress freedoms of the individual to compel what turn out to be small populations to comply to government regulations. I just have more faith in humanity than some and don't see any of the extreme conditions presented by TSD as a viable situation. That's like something straight out of fox news scenario. I just think that people who discriminate will get their own form of punishment through the free market without needing the government to step in and compel them to comply.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Like most have said this is basically my argument--let the free market try to filter it and then regulation step in where free market fails.</p>


 </p>


In places like Portland, things would get filtered out fast.  In places like Bumfuck, Inbrediana, not so much. </p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221618" data-time="1392398986">
<div>


Should a private business owner serve blacks, women, gays... of course... should the have the RIGHT not to. I feel yes. They should have the rights to do whatever the hell they want. There are women only gyms, men's only clubs, farmers only dating sites... I don't like it, and it shouldn't have to be a bill, but to me it goes back to so many problems we have with the government in that things like this can open up the crack in legislation to much bigger things. I've consistently said that I do not want to suppress freedoms of the individual to compel what turn out to be small populations to comply to government regulations. I just have more faith in humanity than some and don't see any of the extreme conditions presented by TSD as a viable situation. That's like something straight out of fox news scenario. I just think that people who discriminate will get their own form of punishment through the free market without needing the government to step in and compel them to comply.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I agree with most of this to an extent...and yes the free-market should provide the correction.  </p>


 </p>


I do see the side of the protection in a sense that an exercise of the right of refusal cannot bring about wasteful time and money from lawsuits and such.   Ex., most people would agree that an unruly or belligerent customer being denied service would not garner much scorn...but what if they are non-white, female, LGBT, Muslim, Buddhist, Green Party....</p>


 </p>


The problem I have is that there needs to be a bill to protect against harm that could be caused by exercising the right of refusal that all business already have.  Worse is that it is a direct stipulation against a grouping of potential customers.</p>

 

[BigPete]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="221608" data-time="1392396372">


How do you not have a problem with this? Lets imagine some *** couple gets stranded in some podunk ass town in illinois like Wataga or some shit where, they cant get their car fixed cuz their ***, cant get food cuz their ***. In the grand scheme of things in most "normal" cities it won't change a *** couples day to day life, but in some fringe cases could alter it drastically.


And I say again replace *** with black, and would you still not have a problem with it? We already struck down those laws.


This veil of "religious freedom" is stupid, there are religions that allow human sacrifice but we wont allow that and people have been charged and convicted when trying to pray children to health that die from preventable diseases. This is nothing more than a smoke screen to legalize their discrimination, it has nothing to do with religious freedom.



Furthermore are *** people going to have to identify themselves? I've rented hotel rooms with one other guy before, I guess on the face we could have been a *** couple, for all they knew.</p></blockquote>




Exactly...on every point you made.


If they get to act this way then I want every homophobic Christian to wear a big gold cross around their neck so I can tell them to go **** themselves and that they are horrible people for misinterpreting an ancient book of fairy tales.

 

[JOVE23]

<span style="color:#800080;">this doesnt matter</span></p>


 </p>


<span style="color:#800080;">after all we're just dust in the wind</span></p>