In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1489
Online now 1464 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
But see purchasing an iPad, or going out to dinner isn't a right. That's a privilege and an economic action. The right is to have the ability to, which you would still have because the government isn't stopping you and there are multiple purveyors of those goods. There is no perfect policy in anything, absolutely no way. That's why j said utility companies and sole source issues could be handled easily. We write things like that into bills all the time.
But a business owner shouldn't have to sell anything to anyone. If I went to a bar and they didn't want to serve me because of who I worked for fine (that's happened). Its their loss of revenue. Just opens up another line of competition.
This post was edited by MTayl72 9 months ago
How about if they didn't serve you because of the color of your skin? That fine too? Essentially that is what you are saying.
If I went to.a store and they wouldn't sell to me for any reason, including the color of my skin, that is their loss and should be their right as a purveyor of private services. If a business owner is ignorant enough to cut off a portion of revenue that is their loss.
I personally don't believe it is right. But I don't feel that it is the governments job to dictate who private entities do business with.
I agree. To add on that , if that is the approach they take, they won't last that long.
Wow. That is some twisted shit right there.
And how would you determine which businesses are enough of a monopoly to be forced as an exception? You mentioned utility companies, but what about the only grocery store in a small town? Should that only grocery store be able to force black people to go to the next town for groceries? What if it's Texas and the next town is 50 miles away? And what if the grocery store there doesn't sell to black people either?
While I get your point (I used to feel the same way, in fact), a country that allows companies to refuse customers based on the color of their skin is not a country anyone should want to live in. IMO.
Coming from a person who has likely never even seen true racism I'm OK with that. Because I know that's what you're implying. Like I said, I don't think its right to do that, but I know it isn't right for the government to decide who people do business with. And furthermore this opens so many people up to frivolous racism claims.
But like I said, I've seen racism in my life. Its ugly and stupid. And if people want to run their business into the ground with it, that's their choice not the government's.
We have provisions set up for sole sources in many types of situations. Provisions for rural areas and high risk areas. Alot of it I know aboug deals with the medical field that I used to work in. You would have to develop a criterion to follow, likely based on population and provider density. Work with the regulatory agency(s) within that state as it would likely be a state law anyways.
Also what are we discussing here? Are we saying if we would or wouldn't have voted for it? Or are we saying this is a problem that we need to go in and change? Because those are very different.
I'm implying exactly what I wrote...that this is a sick and twisted view, the like of which has no place in modern American society. I'm not attacking, just stating that this is archaic Ayn Rand/Rand Paul-type thinking. I have a question. Should business owners who choose not to serve a certain type of person put signs in their windows indicating who they don't serve, or should an excluded patron, an American citizen, be forced to walk into the store and be humiliated in front of other American citizens when the cashier tells him they won't serve him? What if this excluded person is a tourist from a foreign country? Still think it's a good policy for the U.S. government to advocate blatent racism? That sends a brilliant message doesn't it? You care so much about business, don't you think if we're known as a country whose business owners are free to practice racism with no government intervention that might hurt business just a tad?
You say racism is ugly and stupid, yet you advocate it in the name of capitalism and the almighty dollar.
And how the hell do you know who I am and what I have or haven't seen? My screen name, my sig pic, my few posts in this thread? For someone who projects such a cerebral personna on this message board, you're really screwing the pooch on this one. I've travelled the world, been to 49 U.S. states, including Obama's birthplace, the glorious state of Hawaii. What if I told you I was a 60 year old African American from Alabama? Still think I haven't seen racism in my life?
I'd book a plane flight today to finish that Bucket List. It would gnaw on me so.
Working on it. Thanks for your concern.
You are looking at this situation as black and white and unfortunately there is a lot of grey here. MTayl is not advocating racism, but merely stating that the government should not dictate who or how privately owned businesses operates those said businesses. You need to separate the emotion and just think about the logic and it makes sense. This does not mean anyone here agrees with a business owner doing this.
As for the signs in the window, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Definitely make sure that person/business owner receives their fair share of criticism and loss of funds. I'm also not saying I woul dhave voted "no" on the bill either. I just know that there is a problem with the government dictating who a private business does business with. Just like there is an issue with withholding services because of someone's race or religion. I don't think that is right at all either. You're acting way too close minded to even realize that the opposite could be a problem. I'm not trying to appeal the law, I am not even saying I am mad the law passed. I am saying that government dictating what a private business does to that extent can be an issue.
As for the how they hell do I know bit you just went on about, most people I deal with complaining about racism in the way you are doing it have never actually seen it. So many people are quick to call racism because it is easy and they think they know what it is. I'm not an expert, but I've definitely been there when it occurred. Got called a n***** lover and had bottles thrown at me because I was with black friends. That's messed up.
Like I said, I don 't disagree with a lot that you've said. I just don't disagree with Rand on that issue either. I realize the problems on both sides.
Remember, you're the one who started all of this because I didn't stick up for Obama enough. Then you tried to call me a birther. I actually had an invitation to his speech yesterday in Galeburg, Illinois. I wanted to go, but unfortunately with my time off last week dealing with the death of a grandparent I couldn't make it work. But keep trying to pigeon hole me as some ancient ultraconservative racist because it makes you feel better.
How about the government requiring a business to have a state/local business license, pay tax, conform to OSHA standards, conform to Equal Employment Opportunity standards, pay the federal minimum wage to its employees, conform to EPA standards, conform to HIPAA privacy standards, honor the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and not employ underage children in its factories? Aren't these policies by which the government dictates how private businesses operate? Should a business owner be able to decide if he will ignore these as well?
You are right about one thing though. I am looking at this in black and white. If the government allows businesses to practice select discrimination, then they are advocating discrimination.
There are pieces of nearly all of that that I believe are over regualtion. Hell a lot of people on both sides do. I am not advocating for the complete deregulation of anything, I am saying that that could be over regaulation. None of those tells a business who they can and cannot do business with.
Not true. Look at his response to me. He's claiming that in his perfect world, some businesses would be allowed to discriminate based on skin color, and some businesses would not. And there would be some new bloated government regulatory body to determine what businesses can discriminate based on skin color, and which ones can't discriminate based on skin color.
Seems like a lot of expense and effort simply to make the country less desirable to most.
I may be drawing a very narrow distinction here, but racism is only one facet of discrimination. And I don't believe any of us are naive enough to believe discrimination does not exist in our society today.
Ex: A successful business catering to Evangelicals in Mississippi will not have that same success in San Francisco, and vice versa.
I understand what Mtayl is arguing and agree with his general premise, but that issue is much more complex than a few posts on a message board. Some businesses that discriminate would thrive in certain areas, it's just a fact of life.
For every person that would boycott Chick Fil A for their owners anti-gay views, there is a person that would support them for the very same reason. What Mtayl is advocating is let the market decide, not the government. I do agree with the premise, but I am positive we would not agree on how to implement that premise.
In a way, the government stepping in and making discrimination illegal just drives that discrimination underground. Instead of overt racism, businesses make up other reasons to hire/fire, serve/not serve, advertise with/against, etc. There are still business out there that discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, looks, weight, education level, etc. They just aren't allowed to legally say "I did not hire you because you're gay."
It would actually make it easier to identify the racists, bigots, homophobes and other businesses that want to discriminate if it was not illegal for them to do so. Then you'd know which businesses to boycott/utilize depending on your views.
If a business had leaders that consistently advocated not allowing gays the same rights as heterosexuals, or suggested a women's place is at home raising children rather than working, or believed Latinos/illegal immigrants are a drain on our society and should have no right to become a US citizen and worked hard to suppress African american and other minority voting rights, that business would have a gigantic problem on their hands by limiting their consumer base to white men. But that business and it's leaders made their choices and the market is responding to it, hence the pure free market argument.
The question then becomes, when consumers reject a businesses message, does the business change the message to attract more consumers, or change the laws to marginalize the consumers that don't agree with it's message?
This post was edited by rck127 9 months ago
This started by me suggesting to you that the dire state of the economy would have been remembered differently by Republicans in 2008 if the shoe was on the other foot. If that's an attack, I do apologize sir. Wasn't aware of your fragile psyche. As for the birther comment, my post to which you are referring was in the form of a question following a comment by you that could have easily been construed as containing a "birther" slant and it went something like this, "Birther?" Again, sorry to be so aggressive.
As for ME trying to pigeonhole YOU, you're posts are doing a pretty damn good job in that regard.
Okay guys, this discussion is probably suited better on a different board. I'm going to lock this up.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports