Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

[jzeidler]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

You still don't seem to grasp that the ownership of a business has nothing to do with anything. The designation; "private business" has nothing to do with who owns it. It refers to it's intent to serve. A private business is a business intended to serve a distinct clientele. A public business is a business intended to serve the general public. Each is issued it's own kind of license with their own specific requirements. Situations that might breach that license for one type of business may not breach the license of the other. And that's particularly true regarding discrimination.

To me I don't think it should matter. The person who owns it and has put their time and money into it is the person who should call the shots on how it's run. Wether if people think it's racist, discriminatory towards homosexuals, Christians, men, women, whoever. The one who owns it and who built it should call the shots and society will decide if they stay in business or not.

 

[Stripe]

1. All businesses should be "private"; none should be government run.
2. No business should be forced to serve anyone. It's called liberty. Liberals hate it.
3. Service needs to be done without compulsion, otherwise it is called something else.

 

[Bright Raven]

No!

 

[Rusha]

To me I don't think it should matter. The person who owns it and has put their time and money into it is the person who should call the shots on how it's run. Wether if people think it's racist, discriminatory towards homosexuals, Christians, men, women, whoever. The one who owns it and who built it should call the shots and society will decide if they stay in business or not.

Exactly.

 

[PureX]

1. All businesses should be "private." None should be government run.
2. No business should be forced to serve anyone. It's called liberty. Liberals hate it.

No business is being forced to serve anyone. And none of the businesses being discussed are "government run". If you won't at least try being honest, of what possible value could your comments be?

 

[Town Heretic]

1. All businesses should be "private." None should be government run.

Nope. All business profits by tax investment in roads and other things that make their business possible. I think there's a better argument against private business at all than there is to suggest all should be private.

2. No business should be forced to serve anyone. It's called liberty. Liberals hate it.

Prostitution can be an exercise in personal liberty. Homosexuals having intercourse whenever and wherever it suits them would be too. So spare me the liberty as virtue nonsense given we both know you don't begin to believe it.

3. Service needs to be done without compulsion, otherwise it is called something else.

It is done without compulsion as no one compels anyone into a particular business. But if you are going to do and if you decide to enter into public commerce, voluntarily, then you'll have to do all sorts of things you might not like, like paying taxes and giving employees lunch breaks.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nope. All business profits by tax investment in roads and other things that make their business possible.

And they pay their taxes. Your argument is faulty, this is like saying i have to let everyone into my home, because roads make it possible to get to it and taxes pay for roads.

 

[Stripe]

All business profits by tax investment in roads and other things that make their business possible.

Therefore someone else other than the man who built it should own it? :AMR:

I think there's a better argument against private business at all than there is to suggest all should be private.

So you're a Communist?

Conservatives don't love liberty. They love it when liberty serves their ends and that's it.

Lucky for me I'm not a conservative, huh? :up:

Prostitution... Homosexuals...

Thieves, murderers, drunkards...

So spare me the liberty as virtue nonsense given we both know you don't begin to believe it.

You don't think freedom is good? :AMR:

It is done without compulsion as no one compels anyone into a particular business.

Which is silly. People should not have to rescind their liberty just because they open a bakery.

But if you are going to do and if you decide to enter into public commerce, voluntarily, then you'll have to do all sorts of things you might not like, like paying taxes and giving employees lunch breaks.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Businesses should never be "public." They should be owned by people and the state should stay out of them.

 

[Stripe]

And they pay their taxes. Your argument is faulty, this is like saying i have to let everyone into my home, because roads make it possible to get to it and taxes pay for roads.

Exactly. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

And they pay their taxes.

On the profits they make as a business, sure. And you pay taxes that make that business possible. You won't see profit from it outside of the opportunity to utilize the service.

Your argument is faulty, this is like saying i have to let everyone into my home, because roads make it possible to get to it and taxes pay for roads.

No, your home isn't a business. It's nature is private.

A business is an instrument of commerce entered into to make money. Otherwise, it's a charity.

 

[Mocking You]

If he's running a public commercial bakery, he could be held liable for discrimination. Unless he has and can show a suitable reason for the discrimination.

No reason needs to be given. The state cannot compel a person to sell something. You're going to have to show me precedent where the reason for refusing service was "I didn't want to" led to a conviction.

Yes; CLUBS. That's the difference. Those are PRIVATE CLUBS. They are PRIVATE BUSINESSES, which are allowed to discriminate. If the bakery or yoga school is not a private club or co-op, they can be held liable for discrimination.

Sorry, I am talking about public bars and restaurants as well, not PRIVATE clubs where people buy memberships. These sorts of businesses discriminate all the time on what kind of clothes potential customers are wearing.

 

[patrick jane]

if you have money - you get served. any acceptable form of payment commands service. no pay, no shoes, no shirt -

 

[Town Heretic]

Therefore someone else other than the man who built it should own it? :AMR:

Doesn't follow from anything I wrote, so I don't feel inclined to respond beyond this.

So you're a Communist?

So you're a serial killer?

As much reason to ask one as the other.

Lucky for me I'm not a conservative, huh? :up:

You might as well be, along the libertarian line if this is symptomatic of your approach, but I don't hold conservatism in contempt, only (as with the liberal approach) its extreme.

Thieves, murderers, drunkards...

All examples of liberty without restraint. So don't tell me liberals are against liberty or that conservatives are for it. Both want liberty tailored to their interests and both seek to restrain it where it isn't.

You don't think freedom is good? :AMR:

You think anarchy is good?

Which is silly.

You think people should be compelled to enter business? :AMR:

People should not have to rescind their liberty just because they open a bakery.

They don't. They don't start with the liberty you're suggesting is rescinded..so you're really a proponent of a further liberty, one that has no material relation to the promotion of a legitimate business purpose.

I'd oppose that for reasons given prior.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Lucky for me you didn't actually manage to illustrate my doing that.

Businesses should never be "public."

Public simply means they hold themselves out to the general population, aren't a private club.

They should be owned by people and the state should stay out of them.

That's not an argument, it's a declaration. There are numerous reasons why we don't allow bigots to put "No N*iggers Allowed" in their restaurant windows. You can look up the case law for more of them if it interests you.

 

[Mocking You]

if you have money - you get served. any acceptable form of payment commands service. no pay, no shoes, no shirt -

Certainly you've heard of "no tee shirts, no tennis shoes" rule for bars?

 

[Foxfire]

*Hypothetically; If some yahoo cult, like the Bagwanees in Antelope Oregon, were to buy the only gas station there, should they have the right to deny service to Christians?

 

[Town Heretic]

No reason needs to be given. The state cannot compel a person to sell something.

And they aren't. A bakery sells cakes. They're trying not to sell the thing that they're in business for...which is one way you know their reasoning doesn't serve a legitimate business purpose.

You're going to have to show me precedent where the reason for refusing service was "I didn't want to" led to a conviction.

Go back and look at the restaurants forced to integrate their patrons.

Sorry, I am talking about public bars and restaurants as well, not PRIVATE clubs where people buy memberships. These sorts of businesses discriminate all the time on what kind of clothes potential customers are wearing.

No shoes, no shirt, no service is aimed at a legitimate business concern and practice. No shoes invites liability for injuries that are forseeable within the context of a restaurant or any place where sharp objects are available. Shirtless people would by and large constitute an impairment of the model which means to sell meals to people who might not find it appetizing to watch Bob's nipple piercings and tattoo collection or count Sue's moles while they have breakfast.

 

[Foxfire]

No shoes, no shirt, no service is aimed at a legitimate business concern and practice. No shoes invites liability for injuries that are foreseeable within the context of a restaurant or any place where sharp objects are available. Shirtless people would by and large constitute an impairment of the model which means to sell meals to people who might not find it appetizing to watch Bob's nipple piercings and tattoo collection or count Sue's moles while they have breakfast.

Notwithstanding the other examples that you've cited, "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is more than just a legitimate business concern, it's mandated by law for public health reasons.

 

[Jose Fly]

So the take home message here is that fundamentalists would rather live in an anarchy, rather than a society where they might have to sell things to those icky gays.

Good thing they don't have as much political clout as they used to, otherwise we might be living under the Christian version of Sharia law.

 

[Jose Fly]

Notwithstanding the other examples that you've cited, "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is more than just a legitimate business concern, it's mandated by law for public health reasons.

It also applies equally to everyone.

 

[Foxfire]

It also applies equally to everyone.

Even to "private clubs" that serve any food or beverage in an enclosed common area of a building.