Good job Arizona

Rob Roy said:

Of course racism is stupid. However a harm is not created by a person refusing to associate with somebody. That is simply maintaining a neutral position, "you leave me alone, and I leave you alone etc. " . A harm is created when people force others to associate or force others to use their body or their property in ways that the owner would prefer not to.

Click to expand...

If someone walks into the shop and is hustled out the door, that's force by your definition.
If someone goes to the counter, and is refused service because they have a pink shirt, that's called neutrality?

Could you explain that seeming incongruity a little more?

Bombur said:

As disgusting as it is to me that someone would refuse a mutually beneficial transaction due to unrelated personal choices like sexual orientation.. I can not support the government forcing the hand of business owners. It is simply wrong.

To the people who believe businesses should be forced to do business with everyone: what if a customer walks in with a KKK uniform on? Or a nazi uniform? Should you not be allowed to refuse them service? Can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

This is a true and fair statement, it baffles me how other people can't see it this way.

Like gay and lesbian marriage, in my opinion, they should have the same right to marry as anyone else does, the only caveat being, if a particular preacher or church feels they do not want to perform the ceremony, their rights should be upheld as well.

heckler73 said:

If someone walks into the shop and is hustled out the door, that's force by your definition.
If someone goes to the counter, and is refused service because they have a pink shirt, that's called neutrality?

Could you explain that seeming incongruity a little more?

Click to expand...

So do you believe a black business owner should be required to do business with someone in a KKK uniform? If you're open to the public, you're open to all of the public, right?

No different than the asian food places that DO NOT HIRE WHITE FOLKS....

Every panda express or other little hole in the wall only hires asian's.

Now is that racism! No not at all, It is their choice and right to do so.

So whether it is selling goods to someone or hiring them it is the store owners right to refuse service or not hire that person....PERIOD!!!!!!!!

jahbrudda said:

This is a true and fair statement, it baffles me how other people can't see it this way.

Like gay and lesbian marriage, in my opinion, they should have the same right to marry as anyone else does, the only caveat being, if a particular preacher or church feels they do not want to perform the ceremony, their rights should be upheld as well.

Click to expand...

Do you also equate homosexuality with the KKK and nazis?

Bombur said:

So do you believe a black business owner should be required to do business with someone in a KKK uniform? If you're open to the public, you're open to all of the public, right?

Click to expand...

Do you?
I am debating Rob's definition of neutrality. If you want to refuse service, go ahead, but don't try to dress it up as being anything less than active resistance.
The act of refusing service is a form of force.

heckler73 said:

Do you also equate homosexuality with the KKK and nazis?

Click to expand...

I assume he doesn't, and neither do I. But you didn't answer the question, should business owners be required to serve all of the public, or not?

heckler73 said:

Do you?
I am debating Rob's definition of neutrality. If you want to refuse service, go ahead, but don't try to dress it up as being anything less than active resistance.
The act of refusing service is a form of force.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. What is a business owner forcing a person to do by refusing service? They are simply declining to enter a transaction. A transaction requires two voluntary parties, if one party is forced into it then freedom is compromised.

heckler73 said:

If someone walks into the shop and is hustled out the door, that's force by your definition.
If someone goes to the counter, and is refused service because they have a pink shirt, that's called neutrality?

Could you explain that seeming incongruity a little more?

Click to expand...

If someone walks into a door of a private property and they are not there by the consent of the owner of private property, THAT is the initiation of force. In that instance the hustling somebody out the door that is not welcome is the act of person defending their private property. The color of a shirt or a person or the lipstick they may be wearing is irrelevant if the question is one of who has ownership and therefore sets the rules does it?

heckler73 said:

Do you?
I am debating Rob's definition of neutrality. If you want to refuse service, go ahead, but don't try to dress it up as being anything less than active resistance.
The act of refusing service is a form of force.

Click to expand...

No it is not. Force is an actionable step taken against another person or their justly acquired property. Your compassion is appreciated, but is not relevant to the circumstances of determining what is force or not.

jahbrudda said:

This is a true and fair statement, it baffles me how other people can't see it this way.

Like gay and lesbian marriage, in my opinion, they should have the same right to marry as anyone else does, the only caveat being, if a particular preacher or church feels they do not want to perform the ceremony, their rights should be upheld as well.

Click to expand...

Exactly, marriages are between consenting people. Toss the government out of the equation and the decision and it then becomes a matter between the interested parties, not you, not me, not some control freak.

heckler73 said:

Do you?
I am debating Rob's definition of neutrality. If you want to refuse service, go ahead, but don't try to dress it up as being anything less than active resistance.
The act of refusing service is a form of force.

Click to expand...

In order to "resist" there must be something being resisted. If a person is resisting they are in a defensive position. If a person "persists" they are in an offensive position and likely the initiator of the breach of the other persons private property and wishes.

heckler73 said:

Do you also equate homosexuality with the KKK and nazis?

Click to expand...

I don't except your red herring, the question is whether the government has the moral authority to infringe on one persons rights, by extending them to another, I say no.

jahbrudda said:

I don't except your red herring, the question is whether the government has the moral authority to infringe on one persons rights, by extending them to another, I say no.

Click to expand...

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

Mindmelted said:

No different than the asian food places that DO NOT HIRE WHITE FOLKS....

Every panda express or other little hole in the wall only hires asian's.

Now is that racism! No not at all, It is their choice and right to do so.

So whether it is selling goods to someone or hiring them it is the store owners right to refuse service or not hire that person....PERIOD!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Even if it were racism. .. The idea is that in a free society the motive of why somebody doesn't want to associate with others is secondary to the idea that a person has the right to define the terms on THEIR property, but not on the property of others.

If a black person doesn't want to associate with a white person solely because of race that might be an ignorant reason, but they should be free to determine how they will conduct themselves on their own property and to decide who is welcome and who is not.

In a truly free market, the ignorant person would be shooting themselves in the foot for turning away good customers to other more enlightened businesses willing to trade without regard to gender preference, race or some other silly difference.

jan brewer will not be signing this bill into law anytime soon..she's what you call a TEASE

Bombur said:

As disgusting as it is to me that someone would refuse a mutually beneficial transaction due to unrelated personal choices like sexual orientation.. I can not support the government forcing the hand of business owners. It is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

so you also oppose title II of civil rights?

Bombur said:

To the people who believe businesses should be forced to do business with everyone: what if a customer walks in with a KKK uniform on? Or a nazi uniform? Should you not be allowed to refuse them service? Can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

no one is born with a nazi outfit or KKK outfit on, like they are born with a skin color or sexual orientation.

FAIL.

jahbrudda said:

This is a true and fair statement, it baffles me how other people can't see it this way.

Like gay and lesbian marriage, in my opinion, they should have the same right to marry as anyone else does, the only caveat being, if a particular preacher or church feels they do not want to perform the ceremony, their rights should be upheld as well.

Click to expand...

that's fine for an actual church, but cake shops and lunch counters are not churches, and you retards fail to understand this simple concept.

Bombur said:

No it isn't. What is a business owner forcing a person to do by refusing service? They are simply declining to enter a transaction. A transaction requires two voluntary parties, if one party is forced into it then freedom is compromised.

Click to expand...

tell that to the blacks in the south before civil rights who faced demonstrable harm from the denial of service they had to endure thanks to their arbitrary skin color.

jahbrudda said:

the question is whether the government has the moral authority to infringe on one persons rights

Click to expand...

since no one has a right to cause harm to anyone else, the government is not depriving anyone of a single right by telling racist and bigoted business owners that they are not allowed to practice denial of service based on protected civil right statuses.

you clearly do not get how rights work.

you have a right to swing your fist, and it ends at my face.