'Right To Discriminate' Bills

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Are you suggesting that her giving an asked for refund because she offended is proof that she would have refused to sell to you had she been allowed?

 

[PhantomWolf]

So donating money to keep gay marriage from being legal isn't discrimination?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Hmmmm... their sales went up...

Are they banning gays from shopping in their stores?

Do the vast majority of Americans think that the ban on Gay Marriage is unacceptable? (here's a hint, currently only 52% of Americans actually are accepting on Gay Marriage.)

 

[Distracted1]

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.

Perhaps it is a cultural difference. Americans find the concept of child exploitation morally unacceptable ( in theory) but we don't get to involved in doing anything about it (in practice) , especially when doing so might cost us a few dollars and some inconvenience. ( I am not excluding myself from this judgement )

 

[332nd]

Are you suggesting that her giving an asked for refund because she offended is proof that she would have refused to sell to you had she been allowed?

Yes.

 

[Distracted1]

Unless this place is very small, then you've missed out on some very important aspects of your scenario. Most towns don't have only one restaurant, which means that multiple restaurants will need to compete with each other. If 20 restaurants all compete for the business of race A, then they're each going to get a little less than 5% of the total population. A new restaurant would do better to gain a monopoly on that unserved population B than to compete for a small fraction of population A.

Furthermore, this hypothetical isn't really representative of anywhere in the US anymore. More realistically, the number of people who would refuse to eat at a restaurant that served racial minorities is itself going to be a minority, and likely smaller than the number of people who would refuse to eat at a restaurant that refused to serve racial minorities. So restaurants that cater to them have access to a smaller market, and those customers themselves have access to fewer restaurants, and would likely pay higher prices for less selection. In a realistic scenario in this country, those customers would be hurting themselves with their discrimination. What's more likely to happen now even in the absence of antidiscrimination laws is that almost all restaurants serve everybody, and the racists will end up eating at the same restaurants as the minorities even though they don't like



The owners who don't care about making more money will lose out to the owners who do.

Getting back to this. Have you considered what happens to your math when you factor in the relative affluence of the two groups?
If the average wealth of group "b" is only 1/5 of the average wealth of group "a", perusing a monopoly on group " b" at the expense of alienating the %30 of group "a" that will actively seek out "group a only" establishments is a recipe for failure.

 

[332nd]

Are they banning gays from shopping in their stores?

No. Is working to keep gays from marrying discrimination?

Do the vast majority of Americans think that the ban on Gay Marriage is unacceptable? (here's a hint, currently only 52% of Americans actually are accepting on Gay Marriage.)

Did the vast majority of Americans think the ban on interracial marriage was unacceptable?
(Here's a hint, in the year I was born, 1972, 60% felt interracial marriage was unacceptable. Luckily the government struck the ban down in 67.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes.

Really? You don't think that perhaps there might be a few tiny steps between using what today is high unacceptable language, but what she likely grew up with, and running to the front door to slap a "Whites Only" sign on it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

No. Is working to keep gays from marrying discrimination?

It's irrelevant to the discussion which is whether Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers. Please leave the goal posts alone, they disapprove of being molested.

Did the vast majority of Americans think the ban on interracial marriage was unacceptable?
(Here's a hint, in the year I was born, 1972, 60% felt interracial marriage was unacceptable. Luckily the government struck the ban down in 67.)

Totally irrelevant, what is the figure today, and how does it relate to Businesses and their customers? Please try and keep on topic rather than running off into the middle of nowhere.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps it is a cultural difference. Americans find the concept of child exploitation morally unacceptable ( in theory)

Evidence? Particularly Evidence that the vast majority of Americans find child exploitation in other countries to be morally unacceptable.

but we don't get to involved in doing anything about it (in practice) , especially when doing so might cost us a few dollars and some inconvenience. ( I am not excluding myself from this judgement )

So you are the only American that refuses to buy such products?

 

[332nd]

Really?

Yes.

You don't think that perhaps there might be a few tiny steps between using what today is high unacceptable language, but what she likely grew up with, and running to the front door to slap a "Whites Only" sign on it?

Wow... ok, let me hold you hand and walk you through it. Her use of ****** is just stupid, bad but I just chalk it up to ignorance. What makes me think that she would discriminate against us is the fact that she was disgusted by the fact we were married.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes.

Wow... ok, let me hold you hand and walk you through it. Her use of ****** is just stupid, bad but I just chalk it up to ignorance. What makes me think that she would discriminate against us is the fact that she was disgusted by the fact we were married.

It's still a non sequitur. You are making a huge assumption, even if you are right she was disgusted at the marriage. Your evidence that she'd be extremely willing to whack up a "Whites Only" sign is lacking.

Let me walk you through it...

Not agreeing with inter-racial marriage ≠ unwilling to do inter-racial business.

 

[Distracted1]

Evidence? Particularly Evidence that the vast majority of Americans find child exploitation in other countries to be morally unacceptable.


So you are the only American that refuses to buy such products?

We have passed laws against it here, because it is a behavior we disapprove of. We don't make laws for other nations, that doesn't mean the behavior of those nations citizens is approved of.
Unless, you are asserting that we have a general indifference towards those who belong to groups that we don't consider to be part of "us"? If that is the case, you may want to examine how that attitude might manifest itself in a majority/minority dynamic.

As to whether I exclude myself from my opinion of my peers attitudes. You may wish to re-parse the sentence to which you replied.

 

[332nd]

It's irrelevant to the discussion which is whether Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers. Please leave the goal posts alone, they disapprove of being molested.

& this goes to whether or not a business would risk income by discriminating. Sorry its not irrelevant.

Totally irrelevant, what is the figure today, and how does it relate to Businesses and their customers? Please try and keep on topic rather than running off into the middle of nowhere.

Well see, this isn't irrelevant either because it points out that it could take decades for a "vast enough majority" to put that pressure on the business that discriminate.

So... goalposts are still there. Your aim just sucks.

 

[PhantomWolf]

We have passed laws against it here, because it is a behavior we disapprove of. We don't make laws for other nations, that doesn't mean the behavior of those nations citizens is approved of.
Unless, you are asserting that we have a general indifference towards those who belong to groups that we don't consider to be part of "us"? If that is the case, you may want to examine how that attitude might manifest itself in a majority/minority dynamic.

As to whether I exclude myself from my opinion of my peers attitudes. You may wish to re-parse the sentence to which you replied.

Pretty much the highlighted part. As to how that would "manifest itself in a majority/minority dynamic" again it is different when it's right in your face. Seeing a "Whites Only" sign or a "No Gays" sign or even a "No Whites" sign in your own neighbourhood is going to get a decidedly different reaction to seeing a documentary about some kids you don't know in what you consider to be a third world country.

 

[332nd]

It's still a non sequitur.

Nope.

You are making a huge assumption, even if you are right she was disgusted at the marriage. Your evidence that she'd be extremely willing to whack up a "Whites Only" sign is lacking.

What would you accept as evidence?

Let me walk you through it...

Not agreeing with inter-racial marriage ≠ unwilling to do inter-racial business.

No, but it does make it more likely... well, if discriminaton wasn't against the law.


Eta: Also, do you think that a "whites only" sign is the end-all, be-all of discrimination?

 

[PhantomWolf]

& this goes to whether or not a business would risk income by discriminating. Sorry its not irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because there is no vast majority to force change, so no likely loss of income. If the polls were saying that 85% of the country thought that disapproving of Gay Marriage was Morally unacceptable, then you might have a point, but since this is far from the case, you don't.

Well see, this isn't irrelevant either because it points out that it could take decades for a "vast enough majority" to put that pressure on the business that discriminate.

So... goalposts are still there. Your aim just sucks.

No it is irrelevant because you are talking about it taking decades to change society to where it will consider a form of discrimination morally unacceptable. That is totally different to having a vast majority in the society that already considers it unacceptable putting pressure on businesses that don't.

You are pointing at the goalposts in the field next door.

 

[332nd]

It's irrelevant because there is no vast majority to force change, so no likely loss of income. If the polls were saying that 85% of the country thought that disapproving of Gay Marriage was Morally unacceptable, then you might have a point, but since this is far from the case, you don't.

Thus free market can't do anything to correct an obvious injustice while the government can.

No it is irrelevant because you are talking about it taking decades to change society to where it will consider a form of discrimination morally unacceptable. That is totally different to having a vast majority in the society that already considers it unacceptable putting pressure on businesses that don't.

Again, thus the free market can't... OH! That's why you're so desperate to handwave those points! They point out a huge flaw in your free market babble.

You are pointing at the goalposts in the field next door.

Don't get mad because you were posterized.

 

[Octavo]

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.

I'm just a little confused by your contention.

Is it that, without the laws which "forced" discrimination, that there would have been no or at least very little discrimination?

Or is it that now, present day America would not accept it, so we no longer need those laws?

If the former, then it follows that such laws were passed against the will of the majority? So why have a civil war about it?

If the latter, what makes you think that the removal of such laws would not allow a progression back towards less enlightened attitudes?

 

[Upchurch]

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.

That doesn't address Zig's point. He was making the argument that government enforced slavery is the only way a slave owner could manage to keep slaves and, absent government controls and regulation, it wouldn't exist. However, even despite government controls to prevent slavery, it still occurs.

Now imagine that we had a truly free maket system, where there are no government controls on slavery at all. Not only would slavery still exist, there would be little-to-nothing to constrain it or even keep it passably humane.

Societal outrage? That might temper the actions of one or two slave owners who are in the hot seat of the moment, but once the furor dies down, what prevents them from going back to old ways? Societal outrage is both fleeting and toothless.

Your post, at best, highlights why government regulations and law are required, at a minimum, to reduce slavery. The free market, alone, could not achieve that so long as there is a need for cheap goods and services, regardless of what is needed to make it cheap.

 

[Ziggurat]

That doesn't address Zig's point. He was making the argument that government enforced slavery is the only way a slave owner could manage to keep slaves and, absent government controls and regulation, it wouldn't exist. However, even despite government controls to prevent slavery, it still occurs.

But not on anything like the scale that the South saw. And yes, it still occurs on a small scale... even with government prohibition.

Now imagine that we had a truly free maket system, where there are no government controls on slavery at all. Not only would slavery still exist, there would be little-to-nothing to constrain it or even keep it passably humane.

I suppose this is a semantic issue, but I don't consider allowing slavery (which obviously infringes upon the rights of the slave) to be compatible with free markets. If the slave is not free to sell his own labor as he wishes (and he's not, or else he wouldn't be a slave), then he is excluded from the market.

Your post, at best, highlights why government regulations and law are required, at a minimum, to reduce slavery.

I absolutely agree. Government is also required to protect property and enforce contracts, or you don't end up with a market at all. But that's not the level of government we're debating here.