If I own a business and don't want to serve gays, then I shouldn't

[Chicago_Dawg]

have to serve gays. But on the other hand, if I have a problem with you not serving gays, I can take my money elsewhere to a place that does serve gays along with the money that gays could give you for your service.

Pretty simple imo.

 

[Dawg4sure]

That sounds too much like freedom...ain't nobody got time for dat **

Nm

 

[Chicago_Dawg]

Concur....sad and true*

nm

 

[doofusdawg]

Re: That sounds too much like freedom...ain't nobody got time for dat **

tea partiers keep worrying about gays and weed... meanwhile dear leader subverts western civilization...I'm sure he appreciates the distraction.

 

[UgaTom]

Should the same be true for blacks? nm

*

 

[Chicago_Dawg]

Should be the same way for everyone imo.

In your example, I'm sure there will be large amount of backlash and that place probably won't stay open for very long. Like I said, you can refuse to serve me, but I also can refuse to buy from you.

 

[JimDandyDawg]

Sexual deviance and skin color are equal! Because Science right?*


nfm

 

[SouthernCaliforniaDesertDawg&Trojan]

Black = DNA-based.....Homosexuality = behavior-based......

nevertheless, I believe in the respect of every individual. The issue isn't homosexuality in and of itself because neither you nor I are any better in and of ourselves before God's eyes than the practicing homosexual, adulterer, fornicator, murderer, liar, thief, etc.

The issue is whether the belief in and practice of homosexuality should be forced upon those who think, believe and practice otherwise.

Because someone has been born with certain inherited traits is no basis for discrimination. Practices of certain behaviors IS a basis for discrimination.




This post was edited on 4/1 10:12 AM by SouthernCaliforniaDesertDawg&Trojan

 

[UgaTom]

If an individual has no control over either, what is the difference?

How is a business having homosexuality forced upon it if it serves a gay couple a meal at a restaurant? As long as they don't start making out at the table (and that shouldn't be tolerated no matter who is doing it), it's just two guys or two women sitting at a table.

This post was edited on 4/1 12:17 PM by UgaTom

 

[UgaTom]

That's a pretty despicable position.

A person shouldn't be put in a position where he has to, for example, search for a restaurant that will feed him if he's traveling or keep driving to find a hotel that will lodge him. Fortunately, we're not a democracy and realize that mob rule is not a good way to make laws. That's especially fortunate since whites will no longer be a majority in the not-too-distant future.

 

[SouthernCaliforniaDesertDawg&Trojan]

You're right about that part......

if coming in to merely patronize and buy from a business in a manner that does not FORCE the business to capitulate to their lifestyle, no problem.

But, when they (or anyone) begins to try and do that.....no, no, no.

 

[Booneville Dawg]

A debate even within the gay community[link]..

(link)

Choice or Not

 

[McDonoughDawg]

Two things, dumb for not serving them, and why would a gay

person want to do business with someone who did not want their business? Dumb on both sides, IMHO.

 

[Booneville Dawg]

Makes for great political fodder with a National election less than 2 years

away.

 

[McDonoughDawg]

Correct, it is a non issue*

*

 

[Chicago_Dawg]

Those hotels and restaurants aren't going to be in business very long.

So there probably aren't going to many places like that open. Like I said, if I don't agree with your policies or a group of people don't agree with your policies, I don't have to buy your product or services. Meaning a place that doesn't serve black people aren't probably going to stay open for long.

 

[Chicago_Dawg]

If I'm a business, I'm doing everything I can to turn a profit.

I'm not refusing service/goods to anyone.

 

[JimDandyDawg]

Because we have a generation of people that don't believe you have


any rights until the Federal Government endorses those rights with a specific law. Dangerous thought process imo. And vastly different from the thought process the Country was founded on. Government doesn't give me any rights. I was given rights by God. All Govt does is place limits on my rights in exchange for certain services and security. Huge difference. And I doubt the majority of High School kids in a civics class could distinguish between the 2.

 

[UgaTom]

You have no idea how long such a business would be open.

In the meantime, you would still be consigning people to situations that could possibly be dangerous for them. There are plenty of areas that could support a business that would choose to deny service to non-whites. Just an unbelievable position to take.

 

[JohnnyBeeDawg]

If the government shuts down a racist hotel you're in the same situation

*

 

[UgaTom]

Owner might shut it down, gov't wouldn't have to. nm

*

 

[JohnnyBeeDawg]

No. Government will shut down a place that refuses service based on race

And then we are right back in the conundrum you described in your example. Travelers wood have nowhere to stay and nowhere to eat and might find themselves in a dangerous situation. Because in your example, there just wouldn't be anyone willing to run a place that accepts any race.

The safety issue you used in your example to show the need for government coercion doesn't get solved when the only owners around are those who will deny service to blacks.




This post was edited on 4/1 2:40 PM by JohnnyBeeDawg

 

[UgaTom]

LOL...hotels, etc. would still be around just like they are now.

People obviously aren't opposed to running businesses if they have to serve all races, but there would sure be some who wouldn't if they didn't have to.

 

[JohnnyBeeDawg]

That's my point. So we really don't need the government coercion

We'd have plenty of people who want to make money. There's nothing "despicable" at all about desiring freedom for everyone....even for the racist who doesn't share your values. Forcing people to do things we wish they wood do is not the most desirable way to build a harmonious and fair and just society. Letting freedom reign is.

Obviously, we are getting more government coercion than ever. Just look at the protests over Indiana's law which limits government power. People hate freedom when the other guy gets it. Live and let live is fading away.

 

[UgaTom]

You're wrong. No guarantee that no matter where a person went...

...that he could find a business that would serve him.

Freedom is a two-way street. You can't grant someone a freedom that takes away that of another person unless there is a good reason to do so. Not wanting to participate in a gay marriage is a good reason. Not wanting a black person to eat at a restaurant is not. Thank goodness our government isn't full of small-minded people who don't get that concept.

 

[JohnnyBeeDawg]

We just established that I'm right. Your confusing freedoms and rights

Government does not and should not guarantee there's a hotel room for somebody.
If the owner of a hotel refuses service, there is no loss of freedom or rights. The customer has no moral right or claim to a free person's goods or services. They certainly have a moral right to equal government services, however. But you cannot morally claim a "right" on property and services that belong to someone else.

Our country fell off the slippery moral slope long ago by declaring that goods and services dont actually belong to their owner or producer or creator...under our laws, we are increasingly forced to provide them to others...sometimes against our will. Our services now belong to the Community and may be used as the planners see fit. You've forgotten who's doing the providing in the hotel scenario. The buyer has moral "right" to buy only from a willing seller in a free society.

If you really want freedom for everyone (which you pretend, but philosophically despise) you will have to come to the realization that freedom is a two way street. For freedom to exist, there must be freedom for everyone...even the small minded people with whom you disagree. Just like free speech.

Now we are jumping the shark and expanding the "Community" mindset and declaring that a law that limits government infringement on liberty of conscience is somehow "discriminatory" when the exact opposite is true.

Our society passes laws that don't just forbid injurious behavior, but now require action. You MUST serve this person. You MUST buy health insurance. You belong to the Community now, not to yourself. That's "progressive", and its crossed a line that true fans of Liberty would never support.

We have moved from moral suasion to outright force. Its the same movement that endows Executive action with legislative force. That may be an expedient path for the sanctimonious who want to dictate a mindset, and control a population, but it is really the first steps toward tyranny. I'm right on this, and you defeated your own argument.