Yeah, I can’t wait for the Association of Conservative Builders to declare that they will no longer build houses for Liberals, because we have the wrong opinions.
Or the owner of Menards (fine Conservative fellow that he’s known to be) to start refusing entry to his stores to the wrong people.
Any
Day
Now.
Nah, weaponized labeling is fantastic hyperbole.
‘Gee-golly left wing people/ groups would never do that.’
:rolleyes:
What are you talking about? Weaponized labeling? Alliance Defending Freedom are deeply shitty people, and Amazon chose not to do business with them.
You know the difference between having your business cut off and having your body parts cut off? Only the latter involves a weapon.
Now, if you want to argue that Amazon has too great an influence in their marketplace, and that we need to engage in the 21st-century equivalent of trustbusting, I’m there with you. But the problem isn’t that Amazon decided not to do business with a bunch of dickheads, it’s that Amazon has too much power.
Oh no, a law firm did some things that others didn’t like and got criticized for it. And then another business decided not to do business with them. How unfree for people to exercise their freedom of speech by criticizing, and then business folks to exercise their freedom to sever existing business arrangements.
Seriously, this is all just part of a free society. Conservative organizations are free to criticize liberal organizations and businesses, and they certainly do. If their criticism doesn’t get the same traction, then that’s because it didn’t resonate with the public. Everyone has the same chance to try and resonate with the public.
I won’t argue about Amazon because it’s related to my point. There are disproportionate power levels that can be too quickly and easily employed nowadays. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have freedom to associate. I do find it strange and hypocritical that many in this thread want to force business to associate.
This reminds me of the sexual assault stuff that got Al Franken to resign. At what point do people realize that reactions are vastly disproportionate in many cases? And the side effects of these reactions are going to be not what people hope for.
Businesses are a Public Accomodation
"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.
Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations. Title II’s definition of public accommodation is limited to “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests” and so is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws, but religious organizations are encouraged to comply."
And this was put in place to stop rampant race-based denials of service.
So again, just to make it clear, you want to do away with civil rights, because Joe Bob shouldn’t have to serve those people.
If that is your conclusion then you still aren’t comprehending simple English.
A business is not a person. It has no thoughts, no feelings, no morals, no race, no sexual orientation. And not the same rights as individuals, either. A business is not born, it is created within the specific framework of the society its founders wish to operate in. It doesn’t have unalienable rights, only those rights and regulations society dictactes it must.
One of which being to cater to everybody regardless of race, color or creed and only being able to make point-to-point exceptions rather than sweeping ones. Because history has shown that when that’s not the case, assholes have sway. I have yet to hear of any business refusing service to Christians, heterosexuals or Caucasians.
Funny how that works.
Furthermore, you seem to be undercutting your own point, in that you seem to *want *Amazon to be forced to associate with the ADF ?
Ok, stop this nonsense. You are pushing a stupid argument that is being shot down left and right and you keep pushing it like it is self-evident and pulling this “you don’t comprehend simple english” bullshit when you don’t like the answers.
I comprehend what you are saying just fine. If you are saying something other than what I’m concluding, it is in fact YOU who are doing a piss poor job of communicating exactly what you mean that isn’t what I’m drawing from your words.
Quite clearly, I am not the only person who thinks this way.
Knock off aspersions about others’ reading comprehension.
[/moderating]
Ok, octopus, let’s get to the point.
What exactly is your claim here, how do you think this works and how are people being damaged here?
If you’re angry about me not understanding what you mean, then please clarify your position so that I may understand how you think companies should have the right to choose their clients that is not currently available to them.
Do you feel that being black is an undesirable trait? Do you feel that being black is dangerous, immoral, and/or unethical? Do you feel that businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve customers because they are black? Do you support laws that prohibit businesses from refusing to serve customers because they are black?
Do you feel that being Jewish is an undesirable trait? Do you feel that being Jewish is dangerous, immoral, and/or unethical? Do you feel that businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve customers because they are Jewish? Do you support laws that prohibit businesses from refusing to serve customers because they are Jewish?
Do you feel that being gay is an undesirable trait? Do you feel that being gay is dangerous, immoral, and/or unethical? Do you feel that businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve customers because they are gay? Do you support laws that prohibit businesses from refusing to serve customers because they are gay?
What is the relevance of this post?
You folks clearly don’t understand that mass communication has changed the magnitude of the impact of ostracism, shunning, bullying, boycotting etc. Furthermore, certain labels have been manipulated in such a way that the undereducated and overly emotional unwashed masses react in a Pavlovian manner. This is analogous to times and areas where people are burned merely for being accused of witchcraft.
Do I support customers patronizing who they wish? Yeah 99.999+% of the times there is no issue with that. Do I support businesses being able to discriminate, in most cases no.
Now one of the sillier things I have read in this thread is that businesses aren’t people. No joke. But businesses are owned and operated by people and damages to businesses are paid for by people.:eek: it’s like people who foolishly advocate for higher and higher business tax. Who actually pays business tax? The customers of the business. :eek:
“We folks” aren’t going mass hysteria over the idea. The sky is not falling.
Again, please explain how you believe businesses should be able to discriminate against people or refuse them service in ways they cannot currently do.
From my perspective you’re just preaching at this point, and we’re not going to accept that the sky is falling just because you say so. If there were tons of decent folks suffering greatly due to boycotts, then maybe I’d consider that you might have a point. But this hasn’t happened. There are tons of calls for boycotts, by individuals and organizations on all sides, and only a relative few actually “succeed” and harm the targets or motivate them to change their behavior.
I don’t care what you accept. I’m just stating my opinion.
Okay. I don’t think you’ve offered anything to support your opinion.
White supremacist record shop given the boot by Long Island community.
Care to defend their right to do business, octopus?
Very well. In your opinion, how should we go about preventing people from boycotting a business?
Sure. They have a right to do business. They don’t have a right to someone else’s property though. I don’t think a cake baker could refuse them a swastika cake though. That’s discrimination!
I don’t think we can. I think we can get people to think how things are different now with mass communication.