My opinion is that your ownership of your house and your ownership of the storefront should be treated no differently. Both belong to you, not to anyone else, and therefore, whom you allow in should be totally at your discretion, even if your discrection makes you a jackass.
For the record, I feel that people who discriminate because of someone’s race, sex, religion, or anything else not related to their ability to meet their part of the bargain (whether it be paying for services or performing a job) are assholes. I just don’t support legal sanctions against people who do so, except for the reasons I already stated above.
So if a privately owned business that chooses not to serve blacks we should provide them tax payer paid police to remove black people from their business? What is the purpose of this exercise, to provide more power to the wealthiest of bigots?
It’s been over 50 years now since we made it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on protected class status. Why should we undo this when the only benefactors to doing so are bigots? Are there non-bigots being harmed by current law?
The primary purpose would be to recognize that private property is private property, no matter what the owner uses it for. That it is the owner’s prerogative to open up his property, and that it should be his right to control the extent of it however he chooses. Unless he seeks special privileges from the authorities, in which case they should be able to attach conditions.
The freedom to harm people seems to be a really shitten freedom. To harm people in an organized fashion, dividing society into fragments, some of which have rights that others are denied, is one of the worst ideas ever.
Private property that has no public purpose – your home – is one thing, but private property that is involved in dealings with the public – a store front – is very different.
The worst of this is: we’ve been there. We tried it. We went through the “No Irish Need Apply” era, and it sucked! It was an ugly, evil, bitter, poisonous, dogshit of an era. Some of us here are old enough to remember it, and there was not one single advantage in the world.
I also remember when it was perfectly okay for a man to urinate in public, right up against the wall of the grocery store, if he needed to. Some freedoms are not worth restoring!
I’d say a Muslim person’s ability to travel that is limited by gas stations being willing to sell to them is less free than someone who is not subject to the same bigotry.
Why is a freer society a goal? We limit the freedom of people every day. We imprison people all the time. You think we should stop doing so in the name of freedom?
You really aren’t providing any compelling argument to change our existing laws. Why should we go back to allowing open bigotry?
Exactly. We’ve been there. People think that their era is somehow better, or will respond to market forces differently, than past eras did. Better technology doesn’t somehow make for better people. The passage of years doesn’t change human nature. Certainly not the relatively few years that we’re talking about.
It’s the same psychological phenomena that causes people to not vaccinate their children.
“There’s no measles, so why do I need to vaccinate?”
“Businesses don’t refuse minorities, so why do we need anti-discrimination laws”?
Whether or not their was much discrimination about Irish, Jim Crow was most certainly NOT a myth. And de facto segregation DID exist even in states that didn’t have legally required segregation.
Do you honestly think that if the 1964 Civil Rights Act was repealed tomorrow there would be White and Colored Lunch Counters in areas of the country? Separate water fountains and restrooms?
In 1964, blacks would sometimes have to travel hundreds of miles before they could find a hotel or restaurant that would serve them. That was a serious issue that needed a serious piece of legislation to stop that terrible injustice.
A wedding cake?!? Shop the competition if one single store won’t serve you. There is no demonstrable need for such overbearing legislation in this area. Yes, I know you will bring up a hypothetical rural area where there is only one cake store within a 1,000 mile radius, and if and when I see evidence that people must go without wedding cakes because of refusals by businesses, then I might change my mind.
I live in the sticks and there are about 10 places that will bake a cake within 25 miles of here.
What is and what is not compelling depends on the person. I value individual freedom over equality in this case. No individual should be forced, on his own property, to interact with another individual against his will. Any interaction or transaction between individuals should be voluntary for all participants, or should not happen.
Why? What’s the value in allowing this particular freedom? What’s the drawback in disallowing it? Is this just a case of putting principle above everything else, or is there some concrete reason why this would be a better system? And, if I may ask, are you personally putting anything on the line by advocating this? I don’t mean to suggest that a straight white male shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the discussion, but your position would have a bit more weight behind it if you were sacrificing something yourself, rather than dictating what sort of mistreatment is allowable for people who aren’t you.
Didn’t we go over all this already with the pharmacist debate? It seems to be exactly the same discussion to me.
Hey, if conservatives are willing to let pharmacists withhold anything that could possibly maybe cause a sperm to not meet an egg, even though birth control is sometimes used as a straightforward medication, why wouldn’t they be in favor of allowing the solitary town grocery store to not sell to teh gheys?
That works fine if it only happens very rarely in isolated cases. To tell you the truth, if we lived in some perfect ideal fantasy world where people had the right to discriminate but very very rarely ever did so, I - might - be willing to live in such a society. In fact, I probably would accept such a situation. So my question to you is, how do you think it would work out, if people we free to discriminate however they wish, as much as they wish, do you think they would restrain themself or do you think most people would not?