last day (15 days later) » 

Feeds
Feeds
20:24
20
A: Why is there a need to prevent a racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted vendor from discriminating who they sell to?

PoloHoleSetThe government has a responsibility to all of its citizens to ensure their rights and liberties are not infringed upon. It doesn't matter if a business would, theoretically, flourish, fail, or be unaffected by discrimination, the act of discrimination, itself, is something that a government has ...

PoloHoleSet
PoloHoleSet
@JeffLambert - That is exactly what I meant by the last paragraph. There is a formal process one goes through and permissions that are granted in order to run a business as a business, even moreso to incorporate. There are limitations and boundaries to how, when and where a business may operate at the local, state and federal levels.
@Barmar - the last paragraph is there because the OP specifically talks about the concept of a business in the USA being a public accommodation as if it was a questionable premise. It's pretty well established. Again, I'm talking about how it is, not how it might be in one person or another's Utopia. In that context, and with my edit to make sure I'm referring to that context, is it still a problem that I clarify that this is the legal status, currently, in the USA?
@BrianR - No, actually I'm arguing that a business, which is allowed to exist and operate by society for the benefit of society, does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason they choose. They might have legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for refusing service, but they don't get to discriminate. Is that the right to shop where I please, or the right to not be discriminated against for the color of my skin, religion, or whatever? Kind of like what happened with political firings in the DOJ in the 2000s, okay for no reason at all, but not okay for the wrong reason.
Acccumulation
Acccumulation
Your last paragraph, which implies that no justification for laws need be provided, is fascism, and it contradicts the first paragraph. Freedom to run a business how one wishes is itself a right. If you want to argue that it is outweighed by other rights, that's one thing. But to claim to claim that it is of no consequence is disturbing.
PoloHoleSet
PoloHoleSet
@Acccumulation - It's only fascism if you either don't know, or choose to alter, what the definition of fascism is. Fascism is, by definition, very business and corporation friendly. There is no "right" to run a business, at all. That's something you pretty much made up. The idea that the right to run a business in a way that supersedes rights of actual human beings is an even more ridiculous concept.
@Acccumulation - Please see Jeff Lambert's comment, above, which speaks very directly to what I'm talking about, so we don't have to rehash that.
Acccumulation
Acccumulation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism No mention of being "business and corporation friendly" as part of the definition, so you're the one altering the definition. And even if it were part of the definition, that wouldn't address my point. Theocracy is friendly towards religion, that doesn't mean that the idea that there is no right to worship without permission from the government is inconsistent with theocracy.
"There is no "right" to run a business, at all. " Yes, there is, and saying there isn't is fascism. I did not "make this up". This right is widely recognized, with the Declaration of Independence being just one example.
"The idea that the right to run a business in a way that supersedes rights of actual human beings is an even more ridiculous concept." The idea that businesses are not being run by actual human beings, and thus restrictions on businesses impact rights of "actual human beings", and should be BALANCED AGAINST other rights of other human beings is ridiculous and dishonest. I very clearly said that one can argue that the right to run a business can be outweighed by other rights, and your ignoring that is yet another example of your refusing to act with basic civility.
Jeff Lambert's comment does not address my points.
PoloHoleSet
PoloHoleSet
@Acccumulation - The Declaration of Independence doesn't say a single word about any right to establish and run a business. You must have it confused with some other Declaration of Independence. It also doesn't "widely recognize" that not allowing unfettered operation of business is fascism, because the concept of fascism did not exist then. And, while you keep using the word "fascism," it's pretty clear that you don't actually understand what it means, specifically. "Being run by" is not the same as "being."
@Acccumulation - Of course Jeff's comments pertain. You are challenging my assertion that there is a fundamental right for any particular business to exist, and I pointed out, and Jeff detailed, how businesses can NOT exist or operate without meeting a number of obligations before being ALLOWED to operate as a business. Businesses can only operate if allowed to by government entities. That is the opposite of having an inherent right to exist.
@Acccumulation - Mussolini, the first practitioner of fascism disagrees with you and Wikipedia - “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini Furthermore, there's nothing in my final paragraph that says businesses should not be allowed to exist, so your leap to "fascism!" is pure hyperbole. You throw that term around based on an implication that you, yourself, invent. You seem to love dropping rhetorical bombs then complaining that I'm not being civil when I push back.
@Acccumulation - That last paragraph is directly responding to the questions "seems to be premised on the fact that businesses are public accomodations" phrasing, which, regardless of your hyperbole, you have not refuted, at all.
Acccumulation
Acccumulation
20:36
"The Declaration of Independence doesn't say a single word about any right to establish and run a business." It absolutely does. It says all men are endowed with their creator with the right to liberty, and that government is justified only when it's used to protect rights, which contradicts your suggestion that the government needs no justification for placing restrictions on businesses.
"It also doesn't "widely recognize" that not allowing unfettered operation of business is fascism," I never said that it does, liar. It's clear that you have no interest in having a civil discussion.
“"Being run by" is not the same as "being."” I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
“You are challenging my assertion that there is a fundamental right for any particular business to exist” Huh? You never made any such claim, let alone me challenging that claim.
“Businesses can only operate if allowed to by government entities. That is the opposite of having an inherent right to exist.” If a right is not recognized, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You clearly have no idea what the word “right” means, and should stop wasting people's time talking about things you don't understand.
“Furthermore, there's nothing in my final paragraph that says businesses should not be allowed to exist” I never said there is.
“ You seem to love dropping rhetorical bombs then complaining that I'm not being civil when I push back.” No, liar, I call you uncivil when you lie.
“That last paragraph is directly responding to the questions "seems to be premised on the fact that businesses are public accomodations" phrasing, which, regardless of your hyperbole, you have not refuted, at all.” That is not a coherent sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

last day (15 days later) »