What's wrong with protecting a private businesses rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobBarkersSoup
  • Start date Start date
I support the rights of people to associate with whoever they want based on whatever criteria they want. I don't have to agree with their individual decisions, just with their right to associate with and do business with whoever they choose.
 
What has to be retained is the concept of property, even as that property goes from being something kept in private to something availed on the open market.

My car is my car, whether I am on private property or public roads. The law requiring me to wear a seatbelt applies only when I'm on the public roads, and though I may not like it, I am compelled to comply by the nature of the property in question: the street is owned by the city, so they make the rules there.

But a restaurant isn't the same. One need not - our ought need not - necessarily parlay his entrepreneurship into the truly public sector in order to exchange goods and services among others. There (rightly) is no law stating that I must entertain black guests in my home. Why, then, should I be forced to entertain them should I open a restaurant? It's still a private building on a private lot, no different than a home.

It's a deadly thing to assume (or for that matter to conclude) that one's ability to operate on the open market be predicated on the willingness to sacrifice one's values - backward as they may be - for those of the masses. That constitutes a fundamental undermining of the "free" in "free market."

In other words, the answer to your question is "yes," particularly insofar as any such burden is undue, so to speak.
 
If that were the case, then a law banning discrimination would be superfluous, and that would be great. I think you may have misread my (admittedly extreme) example. My concern is that in reality, people will not always act as rationally as you say they will.
 
There are all kinds of issues here. Without getting into it all here, which would be pointless because of the trolling, I do believe that part of the law is superfluous. I believe that in most cases people will act in their own enlightened self interest. If someone is willing to hurt himself in order to hurt someone else for superficial reasons, then a law really won't solve it.
 
I haven't been able to reach a conclusion about this yet, because I'm not sure what the role of government ought to be.

Any person should be free to follow their particular ideals to whatever end they lead, like the racist shop owner who goes out of business rather than compromise his/her beliefs, but since governments represent people with different ideals, I think government has to fall back on utilitarianism. If they do too much, they'll be infringing on everyone's rights. If they do nothing but ensure that everyone's rights are protected, people will screw each other over in the most obscene ways. So I think they just have to try to maintain a light touch and say "Goddammit, we did our best."
 
slippery slope fallacy

This is not a matter of someone's feelings. It's a matter of overtly discriminating against someone based on something they have 0 control over. This is not religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or choice of attire. This is skin color.
 
strawman.

Your arguement can just as easily be extended to include the need to have a pharmacy on every corner in case someone loses his medicine.
 
of all the things in the world to complain about, theres a 14 page thread with people defending a persons right to not sell shit to black people.

what the fuck is wrong with you people
 
Actually, it's a simple use-of-force issue.

If you find that the initiation of the use of force should be barred from human interaction, then you have to conclude that compelling business owners to serve folks that they don't want to serve is wrong.
 
Essentially there are 2 types of people in this thread. One type that believes government has a very limited role in society, and another type that believes government exists to solve problems.

I agree that bigotry is a problem, but I don't believe it's the government's job to solve that problem.
 
All activities are conditionally legal. No legal activity is a blank check to do whatever the hell you want. Tobacco, in particular is a controlled substance, with more limitations than your average product.
 
A young black man works hard in high school and earns a 3.6 GPA and made all average grades on his act/sat/ect.

A young white man works hard in high school and earns a 3.8 GPA and made all average grades on his act/sat/ect.

Both apply for the same college/job, yet the black man gets the job due to a race quota. This is just one example of government intervention on private business that does very little good and a lot of harm towards the everyone love everyone movement.
 
The same supreme court the rules segregation acceptable...
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmsupremecourt.html



But then....
 
A young black man earns a 3.8 GPA. A young white man earns a 3.6 GPA. The young black man gets the job based on his merits, yet the young white man degrades the young black man's accomplishment by claiming "he only got the job because of affirmative action."


A charismatic man with a 2.9 GPA applies for a job. A douchebag with a 3.4 GPA applies for the same job. The man with the higher GPA doesn't get the job because he is not a personable kind of fellow.

There are any number of reasons why people do and don't get hired. It's not alway "affirmative action."
 
Heck, why does the doctor need a degree in the first place? Everybody should be at liberty to call themselves doctors, no restrictions at all.
 
Back
Top