'Right To Discriminate' Bills

lobosrul said:
It was relevant because those were the conditions when there were no anti-discriminatory laws. And this is only about a half century ago were talking about, not some long forgotten age.
Click to expand...

If there had been no discriminatory laws as well you might have a point, but given the US's history, there was pretty much never a time where it wasn't only legal, but the law to discriminate.
 
lobosrul said:
If that was really true then anti-discrimination laws would be unnecessary, or almost so. Say I open a restaurant in some fictional place chock full of racists. 95% of the people are of race A, and 5% are of race B. I realize that my customer pool becomes too small to service only race B. I'll never have enough customers. But I'm not racist, so instead of only serving people of race A, I put a big sign on the front that says "everyone welcome". Well now I'm boycotted by everyone of race A. I realize that financially speaking, I'm better off just conducting business with race A. And that's excluding threats of violence or damage to my business.
Click to expand...

If 95% of the country is racist, then the country clearly isn't advanced enough for the Free Market to work as their is no social pressure because in such a society racism is clearly not unacceptable.

We're talking about countries where the vast majority fine it unacceptable and would act socially against those that do.

If you are talking one town in a country where the majority don't support it, then they can be dealt with regardless of being 95% in that town, well that is unless they like being totally self-dependant. The rest of the country just need to place sanctions them and they'll crack.
 
Upchurch said:
I thought we were talking about the US when the government forced discrimination upon the market, not the current day US.

It seems to me that you've confused the effect for the cause.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that idea from. When the Government supports and even enforces discrimination then there can be no free market way to make businesses stop what they have to do by law.

We're talking where there is neither law for nor against it, but socially, the vast majority of people find discrimination unacceptable behaviour.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The responses to this appear to all revolve around the claim that "the US simply isn't advanced enough to do it because while 'I' might be enlightened enough, all those others out there are a bunch of bigots."
Click to expand...

If your argument was as valid as you thought, you wouldn't need that strawman.
 
Biscuit said:
What is the benefit to society of allowing business to discriminate vs the cost?
Click to expand...
A good question!

What is the benefit to society of preventing discrimination vs the cost?
Click to expand...
Also a good question!

I'll take the latter.
Click to expand...
Does this mean you have good answers for the good question you ask above? If so, will you share your answers?
 
lobosrul said:
You'd be very hard pressed to find a "fully free market" in the last millennium or so, excepting very remote nearly lawless places. Please find an example of a "fully free market" where discrimination is just not done because its costly to do so.
Click to expand...

I think most people understand that such a society is hypothetical since free markets tend to not exist and it's considered far to un-PC not to have anti-discrimination laws since no-one else outside our own tight little groups can possibly behave in the manner we deem correct. Thus we have to have law to make sure that they do.

If everyone lived in a big city where there were myriad choices for services for everyone nearby then it wouldn't be such a big deal. It was in small towns that people suffered the most. It was also a way to essentially create all white communities. Blacks could be essentially driven out of a town because no business there would serve them. Would you live somewhere where you couldn't shop at the grocery store, or go to the bar, or the movie theater etc?
Click to expand...

The onus is on the society outside of such a town (which honestly I doubt would even exist) to stop that sort of behaviour. When the bar can't buy alcohol, the garage runs out of gas, the grocery store can't get fruit and vegetables, and the theatre has to replay "Hank's family adventures, 1994" for the 10 month in a row, they'll get the idea that they might want to stop their discrimination or no other companies are going to be willing to deal with them.

If all anti-discrimination laws were lifted right now in 2014, would discrimination be as bad as it was in 1960? No certainly not. But it would come back, especially in some small little towns in the south, and minorities would suffer for it.
Click to expand...

I think that most people would work out very quickly that it simply wouldn't work to discriminate. If your suppliers refuse to deal with you because of your actions, even if you are the only shop in a small southern town who is selling that thing, you're out of business.
 
Redtail said:
If your argument was as valid as you thought, you wouldn't need that strawman.
Click to expand...

Except it's not a strawman, or have your forgotten your own argument?

Redtail said:
Ah... So when I drive from Wisconsin to California, I would have to research gas stations, resturants, & hotels across 6 states along my route to make sure they don't discriminate againt mixed race couples.(whereas now I can just go.) Oh wait... I would have to do so for multiple routes in case the original is shut down for some reason. Hmmmm... if the truck breaks down, I guess we just have to hope that the local repair shop doesn't discriminate. I guess my wife & son will have to schedule their bathroom stops to the friendly gas stations & rest stops. (In an emergency I could just hide.)

Then there's the drive from California to Missouri where I'd have to do the same. Oh! I'd have to do this every year huh? Can't rely on the places staying under the same management.

Heeeeyyyy... free market right? I wonder if places that cater to those who are targets of discrimination get to charge more? Supply & demand after all.
Click to expand...

because quite clearly all the business owners from Wisconsin to California are bigoted and would refuse to serve you.
 
Redtail said:
I want proof, not your assertions. (Cute how you've gone from "free market" to "totally free market"though.) Show where the free market ruthlessly punished those who discriminate.
Click to expand...

Exhibit A: Mel Gibson
Exhibit B: Michael Richards
 
PhantomWolf said:
Except it's not a strawman, or have your forgotten your own argument?



because quite clearly all the business owners from Wisconsin to California are bigoted and would refuse to serve you.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing nor did I infer it.

In response to this...

Seriously? What a fantasy world. Even if these lines of communication appeared (how would the customers learn who his suppliers were?), my perennial question is still important: what about this person in the example*in the meantime?
Click to expand...

You posted this....

Well one could try looking at the brand name of the product that is sold, and as for the communications, well you know, a number of years ago there was this strange device invented called a... Telephone. It's used for talking to people. Then there is another invention called the... Internet, useful for getting stories out and rallying supporters. Other marvellous devices we have these days includes Newspapers and radio and television, and the people that work for those tend to like juicy stories that get people upset. Amazing ideas, right?*
Click to expand...

To which I responded with the quote you are desprately twisting so you can cling to your strawman.

Its quite clear that I'm saying I would have to check & make sure that they don't discriminate because some will. It doesn't take every business owner to turn that trip into a disaster that could lose me my 2nd biggest contract... it just takes one.
 
Redtail said:
I said no such thing nor did I infer it.

In response to this...



You posted this....



To which I responded with the quote you are desprately twisting so you can cling to your strawman.

Its quite clear that I'm saying I would have to check & make sure that they don't discriminate because some will. It doesn't take every business owner to turn that trip into a disaster that could lose me my 2nd biggest contract... it just takes one.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you know? Are you really so sure that a business would be willing to lose it's suppliers by doing so? The reality is that you don't know, you assume it because you assume that our people are no where never as enlightened as you and so will do it.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You have to do it secretly and in hiding, the same as any other criminal. However, no one is going to return the person you had as a slave and agree with you that it just isn't right, a slave escaping from their master, are they?

Instead when Society find out about your actions, you get dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Click to expand...
In the US our swift and decisive action takes the form of legal sanctions that our government enforces for us.
If we were really all taking the time to consider the moral implications of our economic choices ( as enlightened actors in a free market ) would children in Bangladesh still be making our clothing in sweatshops? As far as I know this practice is not secret.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Really? How do you know? Are you really so sure that a business would be willing to lose it's suppliers by doing so? The reality is that you don't know, you assume it because you assume that our people are no where never as enlightened as you and so will do it.
Click to expand...
Why would a discriminatory business lose its' suppliers? The suppliers aren't going to drop customers voluntarily, that would run contrary to good business.
 
Distracted1 said:
Why would a discriminatory business lose its' suppliers? The suppliers aren't going to drop customers voluntarily, that would run contrary to good business.
Click to expand...

Have you actually been reading this thread?

Let me explain it for you....

If the majority of society explains to the suppliers that supplying businesses that discriminate ties them to the same action. Then notes that condoning discrimination in that way is unacceptable, and so will result in a boycott on their goods, do you think that they'll keep supplying places that discriminate?
 
Distracted1 said:
In the US our swift and decisive action takes the form of legal sanctions that our government enforces for us.
If we were really all taking the time to consider the moral implications of our economic choices ( as enlightened actors in a free market ) would children in Bangladesh still be making our clothing in sweatshops? As far as I know this practice is not secret.
Click to expand...

There is quite some difference between buying clothing from a store that might purchase items from a sweatshop in a far removed country, and having discrimination right in front of you where your neighbours are able to watch your decision on what to do.

On top of that, while our societies find sweatshop labour in our own country unacceptable, our societies have not got to the point where they are willing to find sweatshop labour in poor countries totally unacceptable. Our societies have got to the point where discrimination is considered socially unacceptable in our countries.

Your example is poor.
 
Last edited:
Your previous post asserts that morally unacceptable behavior will result in large scale boycotts. You follow that with a post about morally unacceptable behavior that is going on openly right now receiving little resistance.
One of us may in fact not be " actually reading this thread", but I am giving even money that it isn't me.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really? How do you know? Are you really so sure that a business would be willing to lose it's suppliers by doing so? The reality is that you don't know, you assume it because you assume that our people are no where never as enlightened as you and so will do it.
Click to expand...

Because I'm black, I'm married to a white woman & even in 2013 we have faced some nasty situations including a seemingly sweet little old lady who owned an antique store in Iowa that had no problem refunding my wife's money when said wife got offended by the question "what made a pretty white girl like you marry a ******?" Among other things throughout my life.

Now then, don't hurt you hand waving.
 
Distracted1 said:
Your previous post asserts that morally unacceptable behavior will result in large scale boycotts. You follow that with a post about morally unacceptable behavior that is going on openly right now receiving little resistance.
One of us may in fact not be " actually reading this thread", but I am giving even money that it isn't me.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read it of you'd not have responded a you did. Sweatshops in Bangladesh are not morally unacceptable to the majority of those in our society. Those that do find it morally unacceptable would be boycotting such goods, just as those that find it morally unacceptable to buy cage eggs will only buy free range or won't eat eggs at all. Perhaps you should read what is written instead of what you hoped I'd write next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom