What's wrong with protecting a private businesses rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobBarkersSoup
  • Start date Start date
My answer would most certainly be that only individuals can be considered ethical actors, basically because ethical propositions require the context of consciousness, a trait possessed only by individuals.

Generally speaking, I'd say that the appropriate deterrents to a bigoted business practice are awareness of policy and adherence to principle, these being deterrents that only the individual consumer could provide. Customers need to be aware of the policies of the firms they frequent, and treat their dollar like a vote on those policies every time they shop. This is not an uncommon practice in any case - for example, lots of people refuse to patronize Wal Mart because they abhor their business practices.

Obviously, discrimination based on race or religion is pretty silly. But it's a silliness that does not really hurt anyone in and of itself. It's my position that using the government bludgeon to beat it out of non-violent people is counterproductive and counterintuitive in a system which alleges to promote individual rights.
 
IMO theres a big difference in racism and name calling. Comparing whats happening in the real world to the internet isn't an accurate comparison. The issue with the jena six for example was the difference and disparity in which the black teens were treated by the school and law enforcement compared to the white teens when they both committed the same acts. Whereas on a website everyone regardless of race has full access to anything (depending upon if you by a sub that is). On the OT main board for example, yes theres a lot of prejudiced talk and namecalling but everyone still has access to the site and board and while people can call that racism it really isn't IMO. It falls under the rule of fellowship more than denying someone the access or opportunity to do whatever here.
 
Yeah, I really fucking weep for the followers of Osama Bin Laden who experience race and religious negativity even though they themselves have yet to kill anyone else.
 
I for one am loving watching the conservatives scurry like roaches in response to this Rand Paul racism scandal. They are at stage 2 - anger.
 
What if said black man was blind in one eye and only had 3 fingers on each hand with no thumbs? If you refused to sell it to him then he could go to the government and complain that you were in violation of the law.

Also, I think using the word "misery" is a bit of hyperbole when talking about a guy who can't buy a car from a particular individual.
 
when Mass was working on banning smoking, some bars said they'd switch over to a "members only club" and have people pay some stupid "membership fee" (maybe $5) to get their member card, and then because it's private, they'd be able to allow smoking.

so the state changed the proposed law and included private clubs in the smoking ban
 
My original understanding of the smoking ban in bars for CA was that the waitresses were the ones complaining.

If you don't like smoking WHY ARE YOU WORKING IN A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT.
 
my understanding was not that it was the waitresses.

my understanding was that the lawmakers were using employees as the scapegoat for creating the law.
 
i support equality. race shouldnt even be on college or job applications. im undecided if i support rand pauls views..
 
You're a nit-picky douchebag, aren't you?

It's not like you're running a supermarket, and someone's livelihood may depend on buying the goods on offer.
 
Because he believes business is property of the public, and if you run a business, any member of the public has a right to use your business.
 
Don't try to confuse the issue. We're talking about a real doctor that went through college and earned a doctorate. Why should his liberties be restricted by the state just because he runs a whites only practice? How is that any different from the lunch counter at Woolworth's?

Hint: The question is rhetorical. It's no different.
 
Bad example. The loud music you have infringes on someone elses right to peace and quiet.

You could however have a party that's quiet with hookers and blow in your own house and it should be your right to do so.
 
You not letting me into your house and giving me money hurts me. I mean, it's your own private residence, but my quality of life is lower if I am now allowed in to your house and allowed access to your money, so I think the government should mandate that you let me in and give me stuff.
 
That's the same sort of thing that happened years ago in some western states and towns that did not allow the service of booze after 10pm (or some time) in bars. Hundreds of places now became "members only" places, which weren't restricted by the ordinance. So many people got around it that they eventually changed the law accordingly.
 
Back
Top