People in restaurant stand up for gay couple

[Truronian]

Mugging your customers is doing something active that harms your customer. Not letting "X group" into the business is refusing to provide services to certain people. As ugly as that is, I can't see any moral reason to tell them they are not allowed to do this on their property.

Discrimination is harmful. It harms society and it psychologically affects the individuals that are discriminated against. It robs people of their dignity and its decline over the past century is one of the main reasons the present day is so awesome.

It is pretty clear that there is a distinction in America between businesses and private residences, for example you are not allowed to shoot people that come into the former. As such you are going to need to present a more specific argument than 'private property rights' to justify allowing businesses to discriminate... what is it about discrimination that makes it permissible for a business open to the public to engage in it?

While I do have a somewhat low opinion of humanity, most people aren't bad enough to see "No black people allowed" and just walk in, not caring. I think the market NATURALLY punishes people who are bigoted like that, and far better than big brother could do it.

It was less than a hundred years ago that this was the norm.

 

[Aegis]

It was less than fifty years ago that this was the norm.

Fixed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I also think the police should be abolished. The responsibility to apprehend and trial criminals rests in the hands of the population.

 

[civver_764]

Because people in a free society expect to have to provide a good reason to just come into your house, but expect to be given a good reason why they can't be served in a shop or restaurant.

But why do they have to be given a good reason? Why, if I open a shop in my house, do I have to let anyone who wants to come in to come in? Can I not make a shop for only my friends or only certain people that I like? If its my property and we all agree to that, how can you possibly justify that I am not the final authority on how to operate it?

It's also attitudes - why do you think Martin Luther King cared so much about buses? Because he knew that the only way he could stop people from thinking it was acceptable to lynch black people was to make it so that they understood that they were no different from white people; which is completely contrary to any reason behind banning them from somewhere.

Buses are government run services, that's the difference. I wouldn't expect private busing companies(I would hope they wouldn't exist in the first place but that's besides the point) to be forced to accept every customer.

So why have a government at all if it doesn't govern? Actually looking at your avatar it might not be a good idea to answer that.

Yeah. But even if I wasn't an anarchist this would still be a pretty obvious abuse of government authority on the freedom of the individual. Just because people do despicable things with their freedom doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[civver_764]

I also think the police should be abolished. The responsibility to apprehend and trial criminals rests in the hands of the population.

*sigh*

These kinds of services can operate just fine without some mandate of a state forcing itself on the population. The first fire fighters, for instance, were simply volunteer groups of citizens working to help out their community.

 

[Arakhor]

Because while you live in a country, you are only the final authority as long as the government agrees.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Discrimination is harmful. It harms society and it psychologically affects the individuals that are discriminated against. It robs people of their dignity and its decline over the past century is one of the main reasons the present day is so awesome.

It is pretty clear that there is a distinction in America between businesses and private residences, for example you are not allowed to shoot people that come into the former. As such you are going to need to present a more specific argument than 'private property rights' to justify allowing businesses to discriminate... what is it about discrimination that makes it permissible for a business open to the public to engage in it?

Well, you can't shoot just anyone who comes into your home either. They may have been invited. They could be girl scouts looking to sell you cookies.

While I am a VERY strong supporter of Castle Doctrine, more so than the law currently allows for, the basic difference under US Law is that in a business, the person isn't threatening YOU by shoplifting or such, but by robbing your personal home they could be. If someone tries an armed robbery and the manager blasts him, it should be good for that manager.

@Arakhor- Typical authoritarian response. I think we're done here. Statist absolutism is simply a crazy theory anyway, and its not one I can accept. Good day.

 

[Aegis]

*sigh*

These kinds of services can operate just fine without some mandate of a state forcing itself on the population. The first fire fighters, for instance, were simply volunteer groups of citizens working to help out their community.

That worked out so well for the citizens, especially when the fire-fighters could be bribed to not respond to certain fires.

 

[civver_764]

Because while you live in a country, you are only the final authority as long as the government agrees.

Appealing to law. Great. I win.

Protip: I'm arguing what the law should be, not what it is.

Moderator Action: Please do not use the word protip, no one here is a pro at posting and there is no reason to be overly arrogant or obnoxious when addressing another poster. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[civver_764]

That worked out so well for the citizens, especially when the fire-fighters could be bribed to not respond to certain fires.

Uh, how does having them backed by a state change the possibility of that happening at all?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Appealing to law. Great. I win.

Protip: I'm arguing what the law should be, not what it is.

Exactly. Thank you for saying what I was attempting to say

 

[Arakhor]

Appealing to law. Great. I win.

Protip: I'm arguing what the law should be, not what it is.

That's a rather childish response, Civver. It's a basic fact that if you live in a country, you have to follow the laws. There's nothing remotely authoritarian about that statement of absolute fact.

 

[Truronian]

Well, you can't shoot just anyone who comes into your home either. They may have been invited. They could be girl scouts looking to sell you cookies.

While I am a VERY strong supporter of Castle Doctrine, more so than the law currently allows for, the basic difference under US Law is that in a business, the person isn't threatening YOU by shoplifting or such, but by robbing your personal home they could be. If someone tries an armed robbery and the manager blasts him, it should be good for that manager.

That is a debate for another thread.

I'll repeat the question relevent to this topic:

It is pretty clear that there is a distinction in America between businesses and private residences, for example you are not allowed to shoot people that come into the former. As such you are going to need to present a more specific argument than 'private property rights' to justify allowing businesses to discriminate... what is it about discrimination that makes it permissible for a business open to the public to engage in it?

If you want a more mundane example of a difference, look at fire safety. Businesses are treated differently to private residences when it comes to fire safety requirements.

 

[civver_764]

That's a rather childish response, Civver. It's a basic fact that if you live in a country, you have to follow the laws.

Did you even read my post?

I know what the laws are. I'm saying those laws should be different. Ok? Something is not morally correct because it is a law, that's a fallacy.

 

[Flying Pig]

But why do they have to be given a good reason? Why, if I open a shop in my house, do I have to let anyone who wants to come in to come in? Can I not make a shop for only my friends or only certain people that I like?

Not if you want to run it as a business you can't. Your house can either be a living space, or a business. That's why shops in towns have flats above them; the flat is a home and the shop is a workplace, and the relevant laws apply in each.

Buses are government run services, that's the difference. I wouldn't expect private busing companies(I would hope they wouldn't exist in the first place but that's besides the point) to be forced to accept every customer.

...I would, unless they had a clear reason like 'he's banned from our buses for persistant anti-social behaviour', which is fine. See what I said about discrimination.

Yeah. But even if I wasn't an anarchist this would still be a pretty obvious abuse of government authority on the freedom of the individual. Just because people do despicable things with their freedom doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Yes it does. We call those despiciable things 'crimes', you see.

These kinds of services can operate just fine without some mandate of a state forcing itself on the population. The first fire fighters, for instance, were simply volunteer groups of citizens working to help out their community.

Yes, and I wonder how they would have gotten hold of high-pressure hoses, CBRN suits, and specialist training. Or how they would have co-ordinated anything like 999, which has the co-operation of telephone manufacturers and phone companies, not to mention the government for putting out all the education about it.

Uh, how does having them backed by a state change the possibility of that happening at all?

PAY! Please tell me that was wilful stupidity!

Appealing to law. Great. I win.

Thinking you can end an argument by claiming 'victory'. Great... hang on a second.

 

[warpus]

But why do they have to be given a good reason? Why, if I open a shop in my house, do I have to let anyone who wants to come in to come in? Can I not make a shop for only my friends or only certain people that I like? If its my property and we all agree to that, how can you possibly justify that I am not the final authority on how to operate it?

Society has deemed that discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, religion, and a bunch of other things, is unacceptable.

 

[civver_764]

Not if you want to run it as a business you can't. Your house can either be a living space, or a business. That's why shops in towns have flats above them; the flat is a home and the shop is a workplace, and the relevant laws apply in each.

Jesus H. Christ you guys. I'm having a legal argument with you guys, I'm arguing what the effing laws ought to be in the first place. Is that really so hard to digest?

It's like some in the 1950's asking why black children have to go to separate schools and someone responding "because that's what the law says." You're missing the whole point of the question.

...I would, unless they had a clear reason like 'he's banned from our buses for persistant anti-social behaviour', which is fine. See what I said about discrimination.

Then you'd be wrong.

Yes it does. We call those despiciable things 'crimes', you see.

Oh for the love of..

Yes, and I wonder how they would have gotten hold of high-pressure hoses, CBRN suits, and specialist training. Or how they would have co-ordinated anything like 999, which has the co-operation of telephone manufacturers and phone companies, not to mention the government for putting out all the education about it.

I'm assuming a much more communist-type of society when I endorse this sort of thing, and we're drifting way off topic. If you want to discuss communism and anarchism with I will gladly do so in a new thread or via VM/PM.

PAY! Please tell me that was wilful stupidity!

See above, in the absence of a state the community would take responsibility of compensating the firefighters for their service.

Society has deemed that discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, religion, and a bunch of other things, is unacceptable.

Argumentum ad populum eh? Fallacy number two from you guys.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's like some in the 1950's asking why black children have to go to separate schools and someone responding "because that's what the law says."

Should I find it ironic that you just used our innate understanding that discrimination is wrong to argue in favour of the right to dicriminate? How would you feel about private schools banning black people?

I'm assuming a much more communist-type of society when I endorse this sort of thing, and we're drifting way off topic. If you want to discuss communism and anarchism with I will gladly do so in a new thread or via VM/PM.

See above, in the absence of a state the community would take responsibility of compensating the firefighters for their service.

Frankly that's a very big assumption just to have completely un-mentioned, but you're right that it's off-topic.

 

[Zack]

@Arakhor- Typical authoritarian response. I think we're done here. Statist absolutism is simply a crazy theory anyway, and its not one I can accept. Good day.

following the law is "statist absolutism"

 

[lutzj]

Society has deemed that discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, religion, and a bunch of other things, is unacceptable.

There's still nothing legally wrong with it. I control who enters my house, even if that allows immoral actions like allowing single mothers and their children to sit on the street in the rain on Christmas, and I can control who enters my privately-owned business.

Special laws are in place for government-run facilities (schools, courts) and certain businesses deemed especially necessary (hospitals), but the vast majority of private business owners have the right to refuse any customer for any reason.