What's wrong with protecting a private businesses rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobBarkersSoup
  • Start date Start date
You made up a ridiculous story about someone refusing to sell an inhaler. The reality is the storeowner would have found a way to quietly sell it to him, since he is in business to make money.
 
Spoken like a true, bigoted faggot, who has no perception of his own inane bullshit.

Preach on EC, your trolling is really a laughing stock of this forum.
 
Physically hurtful, no.

There are no laws protecting people from emotional harm. (Nor should there be.)
 
handing out free food =! a business

if you have business licenses stating that is your business, then yes that is against the law and for good reason.

You do not get to choose your customers based on race, much like you do not get to choose whether or not you get to rob them. It's unamerican and wrong.
 
there are many restaurants here that have been around for a long as time that still dont welcome blacks
 
I don't believe it's right to tell someone else what criteria they need to use when deciding who to do business with

I don't think it's morally right to deny someone based on their race, but if it's the business owners property, goods, and/or services, no one should have any right to tell him who he must be doing business with.
 
You know nothing about arguments then.

Appeal to pathos: Not serving people just because you don't like the way they look is unfair, cruel, inhuman. Appeal to ethos: It is unethical and immoral (conservatives should appreciate that one) to refuse service based on ethnicity alone. Logos: It is not logical from a business stand point to refuse service unless a customer is being disruptive. It is logical to admit everyone, because it leads to maximum profits.
 
That's a fair point.

I'm really not trying to make an appeal to emotion here. As far as I can tell, businesses naturally have the right to discriminate against their customers.

But damn, guys. Am I a tyrant for saying that I'm willing to infringe on a person's freedom to act on their irrational intolerance?
 
Well, first and foremost, I'd stand by the idea that the Lutheran family has no right to impose on the store owner if the store owner doesn't want to sell to them. We made it thousands and thousands of years without having grocery stores, I see no way to determine conclusively that the lives of the Lutherans hang in the balance here.

If everyone in town hates the Lutherans, I suppose the first question would be: how did they get there in the first place? And the second would be: why do they stay?

In any case, there are opportunities created here. If the Lutherans felt that they absolutely must get food from this one specific grocer, some enterprising individual might turn a few dollars by buying the food then selling it to the Lutheran. In an all-Catholic town plus one Lutheran family, the guy who opens up a new, Lutheran-friendly grocery store has a built-in market that's one family larger than his competitor (the anti-Lutheran). Then it's up to the townsfolk to decide: do we prefer tolerance over intolerance? It's a consideration. Strictly from a business standpoint, intolerance is simply untenable. Do you disagree?

Incidentally (and I do mean incidentally), I am of the position that forcing institutional (therefore superficial) tolerance fosters a much more deeply embedded intolerance bred not only from whatever superstition fueled the intolerance, but also the antagonism reactive to the compulsion that government regulation represents. People in general really don't like being told what to do, and they certainly don't like being told how to think. Do you believe that's a legitimate position?
 
Are you really that dense? Here, let me help you answer your own question. WHY should a private business allow smoking in its establishment despite its proven cancerous effects?
 
None of this has anything to do with my belief that it isn't my right to use someone's business, it is my privilege that they allow me to do so. If they choose not to serve me, for ANY reason, I don't have any logical right to say otherwise. It's not my business, my tax money doesn't go to it, nothing. It's their property, their goods, their services, not my right.
 
Super logical? Now you are making up terms.

Property and services are two different concepts. Anyone with a rational mind could tell you that.
 
Back
Top