Pass a law please.....

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,434
Reaction score
13,851
Location
Norman
But how many stores refused to sell Dixie Chicks albums due to their views? That is the point I keep making.
The stores didn't have to refuse to sell (though, as I recall, some did) because people stopped buying--the market made the decision. And it happened without any gov't intervention at all...
 

WessonOil

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Norman
I've read them, and I still can't figure out how you got from "an entity should be able to do something stupid" to "'negroes' aren't citizens" and "you won't be allowing Colion Noir in your place of business."

This discussion is not about whether or not a business should be discriminating against any particular group, it's about who should be making the decision--should it be made by the business and its customers or by the gov't? I think SMS, TedKennedy, and I have all been clear that hanging a sign saying "No <insert group here> allowed" is a stupid decision (for the reasons you keep bringing up), but we think the decision should be made by the business owner, not by the gov't. Quite frankly, market pressure would be much more efficient at resolving the issue than the gov't could ever be--and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime, to boot.

Let's look at this another way. A business is a private entity operating on private property, and the gov't tells them "you can't prohibit <insert group here> from entering your property." When you're at home, you are a private entity on private property--should the gov't be able to tell you that you can't prohibit <insert group here> from coming onto your property or entering your home?

Really?
In post 56 I ask SMS if it's okay if signs are posted that negroes aren't allowed, and he said it was okay, if they have the balls to do it.
Ted agreed.

Go back and read it.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that in the year 2013, being born black does not make you equal, and people still support a business posting "No Negroes Allowed," ballsy or not.

I'm sure that a number of women will find the fact that they can no longer vote disturbing, since it wasn't among the first ten amendments.


Opening a business places you under a different set of laws than your private residency, if you don't agree with that, let me schedule an appointment for the Health Department to inspect your kitchen before you serve your next meal and see how you feel about that.

My guess is, you like the OKHD inspecting butcher shops and restaurants.

Drawing a parallel between the Dixie Chicks and segregation is really a stretch.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,434
Reaction score
13,851
Location
Norman
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that in the year 2013, being born black does not make you equal, and people still support a business posting "No Negroes Allowed," ballsy or not.
That is just absurd. You've COMPLETELY missed the point of the discussion if you really think that's what's being said.

Again, to reiterate, the issue is not THE DECISION, it's WHO MAKES the decision.
Drawing a parallel between the Dixie Chicks and segregation is really a stretch.
You're the one drawing the parallel, not me. That was about the consequences of making a political statement; it was not, in any way, shape, or form, about segregation.
 

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,362
Location
Tulsa
Really?
In post 56 I ask SMS if it's okay if signs are posted that negroes aren't allowed, and he said it was okay, if they have the balls to do it.
Ted agreed.

Go back and read it.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that in the year 2013, being born black does not make you equal, and people still support a business posting "No Negroes Allowed," ballsy or not.

I'm sure that a number of women will find the fact that they can no longer vote disturbing, since it wasn't among the first ten amendments.


Opening a business places you under a different set of laws than your private residency, if you don't agree with that, let me schedule an appointment for the Health Department to inspect your kitchen before you serve your next meal and see how you feel about that.

My guess is, you like the OKHD inspecting butcher shops and restaurants.

Drawing a parallel between the Dixie Chicks and segregation is really a stretch.

I may have confused you. I do that sometimes.

I said I support a business' right to refuse service to whoever they so please. I'm not advocating for serving/not serving anyone, simply stating that the owner's business, is just that - his business, not the State's to dictate whom he should serve.

Women can vote now? Who's bright idea was that?
 

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
Ok, hypothetical question. Is it legal/ok to deny service or employment due to political affiliation? Seems that there would be a huge uproar and leave one open to file a lawsuit if a business were to put up a sign denying service or employment to persons of a political persuasion.
Is it legal? Yes. Is it OK? What do you mean by "OK?" That is a rather vague term. It seems to me this whole spat stems from your unfamiliarity with the concept of believing something is wrong or stupid, while at the same time believing that people should not be forcibly prevented from doing it, and should be allowed to suffer/enjoy the consequences of their actions.

Is there or is there not constitutional protection for political views?
Yes -- from the government, not from individuals.

A residence is totally different than a place of business that is open to the public.
In a free society, a place of business is open to whoever the owner pleases.

Opening a business places you under a different set of laws than your private residency, if you don't agree with that, let me schedule an appointment for the Health Department to inspect your kitchen before you serve your next meal and see how you feel about that.

My guess is, you like the OKHD inspecting butcher shops and restaurants.

And you would be wrong.

I like the idea of having the places I eat inspected and approved by somebody, but not the idea of it being mandatory, and certainly not the idea of it being run by the government.

Also, our disagreement isn't over what the laws are -- it is over what the laws should (or rather should not) be.
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
Is it legal? Yes. Is it OK? What do you mean by "OK?" That is a rather vague term. It seems to me this whole spat stems from your unfamiliarity with the concept of believing something is wrong or stupid, while at the same time believing that people should not be forcibly prevented from doing it, and should be allowed to suffer/enjoy the consequences of their actions.

Actually, I am quite familiar with libertarian ideals and agree with many of them. I just don't think that it is ok to discriminate against people whom are not breaking the law nor acting in any malicious manner.

But like I said earlier, it really does not matter much with the recent changes to the law. There is no longer any reason to disarm unless it is a place specifically prohibited by state law.




Yes -- from the government, not from individuals.


In a free society, a place of business is open to whoever the owner pleases.


Not really. Discrimination is against the law, even for private businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/muslim-fired-abercrombie-head-scarf-policy-unfair/story?id=20208124
 

Singularis

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Location
THIS IS SPARTA
A law is nothing more than a threat of force, and has no better moral status than any other threat of force. It all depends on whether it was justified, i.e. whether it is in defense against an earlier initiation of force or not.
 

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
Actually, I am quite familiar with libertarian ideals and agree with many of them. I just don't think that it is ok to discriminate against people whom are not breaking the law nor acting in any malicious manner.
There you go with the "OK" business again... what do you mean? It's not OK as in you personally condemn such behavior, or not OK as in it is justifiable for force to be initiated against people to keep them from doing it? Depending on what you mean I either agree wholeheartedly, or disagree completely.

But like I said earlier, it really does not matter much with the recent changes to the law. There is no longer any reason to disarm unless it is a place specifically prohibited by state law.
Sure it matters -- this whole thread is a hypothetical discussion about whether a particular law should be enacted... not just a discussion of what current law is. That would make for a pretty boring discussion. FWIW, I have the same policy as you... I carry any place that doesn't have a metal detector and guards, and leave it up to the property owner to kick me out if he wants.

Not really. Discrimination is against the law, even for private businesses.

Earlier you asked if the CONSTITUTION prohibits discrimination. My answer was correct -- only as to governmental discrimination (according to the Supreme Court anyhow). There are of course federal and state laws against private discrimination... but they violate our right to freedom of association and should be repealed.

My comment about how things would work in a free society was not meant to deny the existence of these laws -- just to highlight the fact that we do not live in such a society.
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
My comment about how things would work in a free society was not meant to deny the existence of these laws -- just to highlight the fact that we do not live in such a society.



I really do agree with you in the normative sense but the reality is that anti discrimination laws exist and are enforced. So that being the case why shouldn't we apply these anti discrimination laws to our favor?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom