Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

[Stripe]

Stripe, I'm here to rebut and to give my side of it. That's it. I don't recall giving approval of your misuse of the term and I've certainly made my disagreement clear enough at this juncture. Quote to the place where you believe you established usage between us. Given I don't accept it, it would be an odd thing to let slide and I'm betting you won't find agreement on the point.Here's what you're speaking to:You appear to be asserting an implied colon after "private" instead of the punctuation you actually used. My response didn't address the definition, which isn't actually established as you wrote that. So that's on you.I see you've changed the punctuation after the fact, but both my and Pure's capture in answer establishes the problem you must have recognized yourself, since you've corrected it. It also makes your protest here less than genuine.

Or you could go to any of the numerous other places where we put it clearly that we were not talking about privacy.

It's wrong where it matters, in this examination and regarding the law and its enforcement.

Nope. All businesses should be "private"; none should be run by the government.

Look, if you want to look stupid answering a clear illustration of error by entrenching with declaration, if you want to find Nazi bravery good and anarchy virtuous, then more power to you.

I'm not wrong. Bravery is good. Liberty is good. That's not a stupid thing to say.

There's nothing irrational about exposing the fallacy of finding bravery inherently virtuous and my doing so by illustrating an application of it that is anything but.

So you should not fear putting a "therefore, something..." on the back end of it. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

Or you could go to any of the numerous other places where we put it clearly that we were not talking about privacy.

I went to our discussion and noted that it wasn't clear, that you had to believe that yourself because you went back and altered it to make it clear, after I'd answered and moved on.

Nope. All businesses should be "private"; none should be run by the government.

That's the revised bit. Our businesses aren't being run by the government unless you so loosely apply that word that you find regulation of any sort rises to that level.

And I don't have a problem with that being your position. It's just not controlling anything actual and doesn't relate to the law and my discussion on the point.

I'm not wrong. Bravery is good. Liberty is good. That's not a stupid thing to say.

Sorry, but you're behaving like a child who confronted with an argument and being unable to counter it simply repeats himself. I've set out the logical problem of conflating either of those with virtue in and of themselves and you've literally had nothing to respond on the point.

Okay, moving on then.

 

[Ktoyou]

I think you're confusing how you see a word with some tacit agreement. Because that's not how I would define private.


I think you're misstating. You should probably use quotes to establish your case, especially given the first bit and your assumption relating to it.


I differ with but understand your philosophical position on the point. That's not how it is, thankfully (from my perspective).


I recognize your philosophical position, but not its certitude or control over any part of the actual.


I haven't equivocated, so there's nothing to retract. But by all means, declare away if it makes you happier.


I would never use private to mean not run by the state because I would never use public to mean run by the state, since neither would be accurate descriptions.


As noted prior, liberty is simply a thing, without inherent virtue and the virtue or want or worse is found in the exercise.


Many a Nazi was brave. It's also not inherently a virtue.

It is a matter of business contract, and as such, follows contractual law. The sole issue, legally speaking, is does a personal circumstance prevail on the law? Does it in all cases? If so, then it follows president, and if not, then is stands alone, and in cases where what is personal is made political, then the conflict becomes an issue of privacy.

 

[Stripe]

I went to our discussion and noted that it wasn't clear, that you had to believe that yourself because you went back and altered it to make it clear, after I'd answered and moved on.

Nope.

We were talking about government involvement, you were talking as if the issue was privacy. That's called equivocation.

You need to respond rationally.

That's the revised bit. Our businesses aren't being run by the government unless you so loosely apply that word that you find regulation of any sort rises to that level.

The point was that OP placed an unnecessary qualification on its question. No person should have to adhere to any rules about how he conducts his business, because all businesses should be private. Now, if you thought that assertion meant all businesses should be generally closed off to the public, there is something distinctly wrong.

What I said was perfectly clear.

And I don't have a problem with that being your position. It's just not controlling anything actual and doesn't relate to the law and my discussion on the point.

This ain't about you. And what is happening in society doesn't dictate what should happen.

Sorry, but you're behaving like a child who confronted with an argument and being unable to counter it simply repeats himself. I've set out the logical problem of conflating either of those with virtue in and of themselves and you've literally had nothing to respond on the point.

You think freedom and bravery are not good. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope...

There's just nothing in there worth responding to, so I'm going to call my part of the conversation and invite anyone who's interested in my attempt to get you to engage substantively, without much success, to my prior posts...before he started making claims he had to edit back posts to attempt to sustain.

Such is life. :e4e:

It is a matter of business contract, and as such, follows contractual law. The sole issue, legally speaking, is does a personal circumstance prevail on the law? Does it in all cases? If so, then it follows president, and if not, then is stands alone, and in cases where what is personal is made political, then the conflict becomes an issue of privacy.

Not sure I'm following you Ktoyou...to me the root of anti discrimination law is founded in our belief that the government is in the business of seeing to it that every man stands equal in right and the opportunity to pursue his happiness, balanced against the right of the next fellow. When we allow discrimination we invite an abuse of power and a monopolization of power by the majority at the expense of the rights of the minority.

That's what happened in the South (and other places) after blacks were freed. The white majority saw to it that the minority couldn't empower themselves or participate in the power structure in a way that would allow them to pursue the fruits of their own liberty. It was unjust and the reasoning in defense was similar to some who decry government "infringement" of their ability to discriminate.

 

[aikido7]

Alright I got an honest question and I would like everyone's input. Many people say that business cannot turn people away because they have different beliefs. Some go as far as to say that no matter what a business cannot 'discriminate' and has to serve everyone. But what about this...?

What if a female yoga teacher isn't comfortable teaching a private lesson to a lesbian because some of the assists would be uncomfortable for her, should she be forced to teach her anyway?

Or suppose the yoga teacher was raped by a man of any color or a white man, should she be forced to teach to that colored or white man in a private lesson even though because of her history she has fear towards those certain types of men?

Yup. Serve everyone within reason.

That's why we have a free market economy.

 

[Stripe]

Yup. Serve everyone within reason.

That's why we have a free market economy.

A free market where businesses owners are slaves.

 

[aikido7]

A free market where businesses owners are slaves.

...a good argument for getting rid of the plutocratic corporatists.

 

[Stripe]

...a good argument for getting rid of the plutocratic corporatists.

What? :AMR:

 

[aikido7]

What? :AMR:

We are slaves to the corporations. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

 

[Lighthouse]

There's just nothing in there worth responding to, so I'm going to call my part of the conversation and invite anyone who's interested in my attempt to get you to engage substantively, without much success, to my prior posts...before he started making claims he had to edit back posts to attempt to sustain.

Such is life. :e4e:

Coward

Yup. Serve everyone within reason.

That's why we have a free market economy.

Idiot

...a good argument for getting rid of the plutocratic corporatists.

Idiot

We are slaves to the corporations. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

Idiot

 

[Stripe]

We are slaves to the corporations.

Speak for yourself. :loser:

 

[Mocking You]

Oh, all right. Start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964..

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,[1] without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Yes, and "I didn't feel like selling something" is not based on race, color, religion, or national origin. I would add sexual orientation to that list as well. So you have nothing.

 

[jzeidler]

Coward


Idiot


Idiot


Idiot

Speak for yourself. :loser:

If you are not going to speak to people with respect I politely ask you to leave this thread. Thank you.

 

[Stripe]

If you are not going to speak to people with respect I politely ask you to leave this thread. Thank you.

Uh, can you include the moron who called us slaves in your list. :thumb:

 

[Quetzal]

If you are not going to speak to people with respect I politely ask you to leave this thread. Thank you.

Common courtesy and respect are often ignored here in favor of stroking the egos of their inner 5 year old.

 

[bybee]

Common courtesy and respect are often ignored here in favor of stroking the egos of their inner 5 year old.

...and in what way are you different?

 

[Stripe]

...and in what way are you different?

When he calls people names, the guy who started the thread ignores it.

 

[Quetzal]

...and in what way are you different?

I would like to think that while I do weave insults into my posts, I attempt to refrain from dedicating an entire post to it. Honestly, name one way Lighthouse contributed to the discussion at all outside of being intentionally disruptive. (Which, by the way, you mods seem to have no problem docking liberals for but celebrate it when your own do it. Not that I am entirely surprised.)

 

[jzeidler]

Uh, can you include the moron who called us slaves in your list. :thumb:

This goes for everyone so yes. If people aren't going to speak to each other with respect they have no business on this thread.