Unchained Preppers
General Category => News & Politics => Topic started by: rah45 on February 22, 2014, 10:47:17 AM
-
There is a bill in the Arizona legislature right now that has people :gunner: hopping mad. It restores the right of Arizona citizens to refuse "gays" service in private establishments. I found out about it via the Facebook feed of George Takei. I posted the following on my feed, and I'd like to know what everyone else here has to say about it.
I support equal civil rights for everyone, regardless of social, sexual, religious, political, or racial lines. I also have not read this new Arizona bill, and until I have a lot more time to delve into it I probably won't. However, it seems to allow private entrepreneurs to decide whether or not they will serve people who are LGBT.
The "right" of individuals to forcibly enter (i.e., the government backs them with implied force) a restaurant and demand service despite what the restaurant owner feels seems to be a stretch of govt authority, to me. Goes back to the fight for African American rights, which was a GOOD THING, as long as it was limited to PUBLIC services and the political process. Those things which the government had a duty to provide, in an unbiased manner, to anyone regardless of color or creed. However, in fighting for the rights of individuals regardless of their color or creed, what is the logic in crossing this line of banning an individual's right to refuse to allow someone on your PRIVATE property...well, pretty much because you don't want them there for "X" reason?
It is an attempt to legislate morality and ethics, forcing certain standards upon individuals attempting to conduct their own business on their own private property. If someone comes to my house, I can tell them to get off my property, without justifiable reasons. It's private property, I am the ruler of my "domain," and they must go. If I then wish to go to that person's private property, he/she has the right to do the same to me. How is a restaurant ANY different? What obligates them to provide a service to an individual that does not obligate me as a private property owner to be nice and hospitable to a complete stranger if I do not choose to be?
"But, but there will be HUNDREDS of businesses that will alienate "X" faction!" So? Let "X" faction sort itself out in the marketplace. What's to stop them from starting their own business that serves only "X" faction, or opposes only those who oppose "X" faction, or that goes above and beyond and welcomes everyone, setting a good example despite all odds. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world who are LGBT, and many more who support them. To think that there would not be businesses willing to service them is idiotic. No, people are getting angry because they don't like the idea that Joe who doesn't like them for "X" reason can tell them what to do on Joe's property.
Mr. George Takei, I certainly respect your play Allegiance. it tells the story of an atrocity committed against Japanese American citizens during WWII. (They should not have been labeled "Japanese Americans," anyway...three generations in, and successfully assimilated? You're an American, period.) Their individual rights were violated in the name of the public good. How is not letting fellow Americans do as they wish on their own private property (freedom, anyone?) not violating their individual rights in the same way? If an entrepreneur is not operating on public property - if his business is completely independent of public assistance - he should not be told what to do in that business by his own government. He should not have to worry about armed government officials forcibly entering his private business and, under threat of force/incarceration/death if he resists, force him on his own private property to serve individuals that he would otherwise tell to leave his property. I'd like you to explain to me, Mr. Takei, how this does not violate the individual right of the business owner to do as he wants on his own private property.
-
You already have the right to refuse service to anyone, no questions asked. Is this bill suppose to make it so people can openly say "I dont want to serve you because you're GAY!" ?
-
You already have the right to refuse service to anyone, no questions asked. Is this bill suppose to make it so people can openly say "I dont want to serve you because you're GAY!" ?
From what I can see, yes. If you tell someone that you do not want to serve them because of a racial, religious or whatever reason (other than no clothes for example, or smell, which is offensive to anybody), then govt mandates that you serve that person. I think people should serve others anyway, business is business, but I'm not supporting the idea that government should FORCE individuals to operate their private businesses in such a manner. Do you?
-
You already have the right to refuse service to anyone, no questions asked. Is this bill suppose to make it so people can openly say "I dont want to serve you because you're GAY!" ?
From what I can see, yes. If you tell someone that you do not want to serve them because of a racial, religious or whatever reason (other than no clothes for example, or smell, which is offensive to anybody), then govt mandates that you serve that person. I think people should serve others anyway, business is business, but I'm not supporting the idea that government should FORCE individuals to operate their private businesses in such a manner. Do you?
No, all im saying is if a business owner dosent want to serve a person based on skin color, sexual preference, political opinions etc. Then just tell them to leave and give no reason. Theres nothing they can do. This bill would only make it legal to give the reason to the customer, at least as I understand it. It dosent protect the right to refuse service, just the right to openly give your reasons that aren't politically correct.
-
Oh, I see what your point is now. :D
I agree, they might be able to do it that way...but every time? Pretty soon, a pattern emerges, and a lawsuit occurs, forcing the owner to serve "X" group anyway. Just stop prosecuting people for exercising their rights on their private property.
-
If you've ever been to a ticketed admission event, you'll notice it says somewhere on the ticket that they have the right to eject you from the event for any reason. Just because a place of business does not sale tickets for admission does not change this fact. Just because a place of business is "open to the public" does not make it a public place... It's still private property where the owner can do whatever he feels is in the best interest of his business. When government interferes with this principle of operation, it is called fascism.
-
Silence is golden. Innocent until proven guilty. Say they take you to court. You stand there in the court room with not even so much as a lawyer. They ask questions. You only repeat that you have a right to refuse service to anyone ... they've got nothin'. Guys fuck themselves when they admit that the discriminated against X group and its their right to do so.
-
When we elect government officials into office they feel obligated to enforce the will of the people who elected them by passing laws. While the best thing to do would to be not pass ANY laws and let the free market sort itself out. This is an inherent flaw in government. We should instead be questioning the root cause of the problem and ask ourselves why we have rulers at all.
-
When we elect government officials into office they feel obligated to enforce the will of the people who elected them by passing laws. While the best thing to do would to be not pass ANY laws and let the free market sort itself out. This is an inherent flaw in government. We should instead be questioning the root cause of the problem and ask ourselves why we have rulers at all.
Our system does not provide for rulers, it provides for representatives, as well as an executive branch to help organize and carry out activities that the government is tasked to perform. The problem arises when people become lazy and do not remain vigilant against natural corruption within government. Take today's people and instill within them the fire of the 18th century patriots, and you would not have these problems.
-
Rulers or representatives, however you want to define them, you are being ruled either way. And I wouldn't call it laziness so much as stupidity. Let's face it, a good government that provides its people with the things we would like could not come from something as stupid and morally flawed as the average voter. Let me be frank, the average voters are not the internet intellectuals we surround ourselves with. They are the trailer trash who dropped out of highschool and are forcing your tax money to subsidize their lifestyle of having unplanned chieldren and bad choices. They are the kindly church ladys who don't know where Canada is on a map. Yes these people have the same power of vote that you do. And it boggles my mind how people think good governance can come out of this giant flawed system that we are born into. And half the internet intellectuals are the opposite of libertarian. I don't consider myself naturally pessimistic but I do like to think I have a realistic outlook on the way things are. You may call my ideas of anarchy utopian but I call your ideal government just as utopian because people educating themselves is just as unlikely.
-
On the contrary, I think you have valid points. I do not think a utopia exists, or ever will exist. Humans are flawed, and will always be so. No matter the education, we will always be tempted, consciously or unconsciously, to abuse whatever power we have. I advocate government because at least this way you have certain basic requirements such as physical protection against outside groups, a more organized economic system, and an organized way for one party to address its grievances against another. I think that anarchy can do those much better, but is limited to a much smaller scale. The more people you have in a given area, the better an option at limited government is. Anarchy, IMO, seems best given an environment not unlike the American frontiers of the 18th and 19th centuries. Civilization existed, but individuals still could get away and rule themselves, and approach life and civilized groups more on their own terms. Of course, many also died at the hands of these larger groups. There are pros and cons to both.
-
I have fired about a dozen or so customers during my retail career of 30+ years. A lot more if I count the shoplifters.
Customers have been fired for some of these offenses:
> Sexual harassment against my employees, female & male
> Abuse of very generous return policy;
- Wearing clothing purchased at one of my stores then returning them
- Buying something that is on sale or has been marked down and demanding full price when item was returned
- Claiming that customer bought X but X was not in the bag when he/she got home
> Drunkenness in one of my stores...Warned then fired when happened again
> Pissing on me. Yup it happened once when I asked a shoplifting cross dresser to leave my store in Marina del Ray, CA.
Now on a similar topic just different gear...One day I will list all of the reasons I have fired current employees - I could write a book. :facepalm:
-
Setting aside the fact that this bill is codifying dumb-ass 1950s bigotry and the people who support this bill make me sick to my stomach with their homophobia, racism, religious bias, bigotry, hatefulness, and misogyny, we're not talking about people's homes or private clubs here. We're talking about PUBLIC businesses where anyone can walk in off the street. We're all part of the "public" no matter who we love, worship, or where we come from. It's a damn shame government has to get involved in it, but if they are going to get involved, shouldn't it be on the side of making our country BETTER for everyone, instead of helping those ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings?
-
Welcome back Wellie! :)
-
:) I've been here - just lurking. Haven't had anything to say (amazing how getting my temper up makes me all wordy ;) ) but have been reading!
-
Setting aside the fact that this bill is codifying dumb-ass 1950s bigotry As opposed to 1940s fascism which you are unwittingly promoting? and the people who support this bill make me sick to my stomach with their homophobia, racism, religious bias, bigotry, hatefulness, and misogyny, we're not talking about people's homes or private clubs here. We're talking about PUBLIC businesses where anyone can walk in off the street Only businesses owned by the govt. are public. Otherwise we're all part of the "public" no matter who we love, worship, or where we come from. No, we are all private individuals interacting (or not) with other private individuals. Even though it is sometimes through the proxy entity of a business, it makes no difference...the interaction is still private. It's a damn shame government has to get involved in it, but if they are going to get involved, shouldn't it be on the side of making our country BETTER for everyone, instead of helping those ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings? So in your mind, a business owner enacting policy that he sees as in the best interest for his business is somehow tantamount and/or paving the way to "ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings"??
I've always found it interesting when those who claim to be tolerant are quick to loose their tolerance when something does not conform to their beliefs. The self righteous love nothing more than to respond by clamoring that the government should do something about it. Yes, whether these self-righteous realize it or not, they are asking for "force of the gun barrel" (which is the simplified but accurate definition of govt.) to be used to carry out their beliefs. It may be too much to ask, but these self righteous should ask themselves, "Am I being intolerant by wanting my beliefs to be carried out by 'force of the gun barrel'?" From my perspective it does not look very tolerant to use "force of the gun barrel" to require a transaction befitting your beliefs between private individuals.
-
Setting aside the fact that this bill is codifying dumb-ass 1950s bigotry As opposed to 1940s fascism which you are unwittingly promoting? and the people who support this bill make me sick to my stomach with their homophobia, racism, religious bias, bigotry, hatefulness, and misogyny, we're not talking about people's homes or private clubs here. We're talking about PUBLIC businesses where anyone can walk in off the street Only businesses owned by the govt. are public. Otherwise we're all part of the "public" no matter who we love, worship, or where we come from. No, we are all private individuals interacting (or not) with other private individuals. Even though it is sometimes through the proxy entity of a business, it makes no difference...the interaction is still private. It's a damn shame government has to get involved in it, but if they are going to get involved, shouldn't it be on the side of making our country BETTER for everyone, instead of helping those ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings? So in your mind, a business owner enacting policy that he sees as in the best interest for his business is somehow tantamount and/or paving the way to "ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings"??
I've always found it interesting when those who claim to be tolerant are quick to loose their tolerance when something does not conform to their beliefs. The self righteous love nothing more than to respond by clamoring that the government should do something about it. Yes, whether these self-righteous realize it or not, they are asking for "force of the gun barrel" (which is the simplified but accurate definition of govt.) to be used to carry out their beliefs. It may be too much to ask, but these self righteous should ask themselves, "Am I being intolerant by wanting my beliefs to be carried out by 'force of the gun barrel'?" From my perspective it does not look very tolerant to use "force of the gun barrel" to require a transaction befitting your beliefs between private individuals.
To all: :thumbsUp:
-
Setting aside the fact that this bill is codifying dumb-ass 1950s bigotry and the people who support this bill make me sick to my stomach with their homophobia, racism, religious bias, bigotry, hatefulness, and misogyny, we're not talking about people's homes or private clubs here. We're talking about PUBLIC businesses where anyone can walk in off the street. We're all part of the "public" no matter who we love, worship, or where we come from. It's a damn shame government has to get involved in it, but if they are going to get involved, shouldn't it be on the side of making our country BETTER for everyone, instead of helping those ripping us apart and trying to turn us back to segregation and lynchings?
So you would support the government forcing us to do business with those we don't want to by threat of violence?
-
The difference is, though, that those who are intolerant and want to be able to discriminate are always the ones who want to hold the guns. Just wait until old, white, Christian men get thrown out of a store because of their beliefs and see how they scream. I find that most people who complain about not being able to discriminate have never been discriminated against. They're the ones with the power and being forced to share said power is anathema to them.
How can it be best for a business to discriminate, thereby lowering their customer base? I absolutely see this shit-for-brains legislation as ripping us apart - forcing people to hide who they are or pretend to belong to the dominant paradigm just to get a bleeping tube of toothpaste from the local grocery store because the next closest store is over an hour's drive away. Stores that cater to the public are NOT private entities. Store owners can be as bigoted and hateful as they want so long as they don't act on their bigotry and exclude people from their stores.
-
Since this conversation has gone off the deep end, I'll add that for many reasons I'd rather live in a country where *hatred is legal than in a country where it is suppressed by government force. Do you really think you can legislate/enforce *hatred away? Who is to decide what is *hatred? What are you going to do when someone labels your words and/or actions as *hatred?
*I'm using the term "hatred" here because even though it is not the most accurate, in order to get my point across it seems to be the only word understood by some.
-
There are literally dozens of reasons off the top of my head, why a business owner should have the right to refuse anyone service for any reason they like. To make it against the law is infringing on their inalienable rights as a human being. Its their property or service etc. To force them to serve anyone who shows up is a total attack on their rights. If you want to do business with me you follow my rules.
-
Ok I know this is going to sound dumb but I must say it, how do business owners know their clients are gay? Seriously how do they know its not like every single gay person announces to the whole entire world they are gay. Second I believe every single business owner has the right to decline service to whoever he or she pleases. I'm starting my own Private Investigator business in the near future so I would like the right to decline service whoever I please. That's my .2 cents.
-
I won't address right, wrong, or morals of this legislation. I will only refer to the Constitution of the United States with gives all power to the individual states other than those few mentioned as being given to the Federal government. The individual states can make all sorts of laws. If they wished, individual states could even name and enforce a state recognized religion for that individual state under the constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that they cannot. Actually, their is no mention in the constitution of a separation of church and state even for the Fed. The constitution only says that the Fed can't impose a religion of it's choice over another.
In order for any legislation to be trumped by the Fed or any law the Fed makes, the Fed has to show how it affects interstate commerce, or the national defense, or is part of a treaty ratified by the Senate.
Or it has to have Supreme Court judges willing to corrupt the Constitution with meanings that the plainly written document, and federalist papers, never contained. I've always found it odd that the documents that our nation is founded on were written by men who never attended a law school. Yet somewhere along the way, society decided that people with law degrees had to "interpret" those documents for us.
Just my opinion.
-
@Sledge - what about that part in the constitution that states that any law that isnt in compliance with the constitution is void. Or something to that effect. A state cannot write unconstitutional laws.
-
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/#.UwtNdYXqjlc (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/#.UwtNdYXqjlc)
This is quite an extensive list [of items in the Constitution protecting private property]. The only reason it wasn't even longer was because the Constitution was designed to give the federal government only limited powers over property. Under their Constitution, the states, not the federal government, would be the primary protectors and regulators of property.
So I guess it is up to the states to ultimately safeguard all the facets of private property and the individual's rights on it.[/list]
-
Great thoughts Sledge.
As we all know the war between the states was not over slavery it was about states rights or does the Federal government have the right to tell states what to do. Our Federal government won and has been slowly expanding "their will" over all states for the past 150 years or so.
I do think that Texas is the only state that can secede from the United States of America legally. Check out Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Although it does not specifically state the state can seceded it does state that:
Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
and then my favorite, Article 1, Section II
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
-
Reading this thread restored some faith in humanity, thanks guys.
Oh and witch girl, any business who chooses to act on their own ignorant prejudices will weaken themselves financially and disappear over time through competition with it's market opponents, You won't see any more "no chinks allowed" signs on the west coast yet that used to be a big issue which dissipated before these laws were passed.
Also with your stated example where a store holds a geographical monopoly is likely because it's in an economically depressed area (side issue) Your demand for Goods/Services still remains upon his refusal. This will give an other non bigoted enterprising individual the opportunity to earn your money by providing set goods and services. Likely at a higher cost. this excess profit will make him a stronger competitor to your bigoted store owner and threaten his profit margins. and will continue to do so until he gives in or settles for less, stagnates and becomes insolvent.
And the unfairly discriminated against live happily ever after. :dancingBanana:
-
@Sledge - what about that part in the constitution that states that any law that isnt in compliance with the constitution is void. Or something to that effect. A state cannot write unconstitutional laws.
You are correct. No they can't. But some states do it frequently enough, as do the Fed many times. As mentioned, all that is required for these laws to stand is for a judge to rule in a fashion that corrupts the meaning of the words in the constitution and for the citizens of the state to accept it. In our time, that has become the rule rather than the exception.
I'm sure that if the founding fathers could somehow visit us today and see what has become of the nation they founded and the Government that has evolved, they would be asking themselves why they went to the trouble in the first place.
-
Burt YOUR BACK! :cheers:
Burt has an interesting point...Why does the government have to come in on either side of an issue? Let the market decide who they will shop with. If I saw a sign up that said "We do not sell to insert ethnic/gender/religion here I wouldn't shop there. Me being a true capitalist I would sell my wares to pretty much anybody except red headed women of course. ;)
On another note: The minority is asking more and more for the government to step in and make the big bad bully's, (the majority), do X or Y. I can hear those minorities say, "My government will show you...You bully!"
From someone who has been on this earth for 58 years now, I have learned that YOU have to take care of the bully PERSONALY. I learned that in elementary school when the class bully was picking on me and the teacher stepped in. Yup it stopped for a minute, hour or that day however "he came back!"
I finally realized it was incumbent on me to end the bullying not the teacher (government). I did and yup got in trouble. But never had to worry about the class bully again...He moved on to the next pussy until that person got it and beat the crap out of him...Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
-
The big problem you're not acknowledging is the extreme power of privilege. Most people refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit their personal narrative of how the world works. Do you really think the civil rights movement would have succeeded without government intervention? No, because the majority of the population had their privilege firmly entrenched. Saying business will take care of it is short sighted and woefully ignorant of human nature. Businesses aren't impartial entities, but organizations run by people - prejudiced, privileged, kind, or kooky. You can't trust them to do right - just ask anyone who's ever worked for a big corporation. Those mofos are downright evil. (But, I digress.) Businesses won't magically pop up to serve under-served markets. Otherwise there'd be tons of business in economically depressed or high-crime areas where there's lots of need for grocery stores and clothing stores and such, which would then theoretically improve the area. Doesn't happen. Allowing discrimination like this is allowing people (who run businesses) to turn non-straight, non-white, non-Christian people into second-class citizens with government blessing. It's flat out wrong and it's anti-American in every facet.
-
Ohhhh this chapter is really cool!!
Is when the libtards start calling people who think different "short sighted and woefully ignorant"
-
The big problem you're not acknowledging is the extreme power of privilege. Most people refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit their personal narrative of how the world works.
I'm going to assume you're addressing me, since you say "most" and since your inference is that if I support the idea of the market correcting itself based on the actions of individuals pursuing their own happiness, I must be "privileged." Please, elaborate on what makes me privileged.
Do you really think the civil rights movement would have succeeded without government intervention? No, because the majority of the population had their privilege firmly entrenched.
Yes, I think it would have. It was never really given a chance purely on an economical level. A minority cannot play the game of the bully on the bully's terms. You find your strengths and apply them to his weakness(es). Since we're addressing the civil rights era, did the blacks ever completely stop purchasing products from whites in favor of investing into and developing their own industry? Not really. Could they have done so? Well, yeah. They had farms. There were black individuals who were educated enough and had the knowledge to create machinery to manufacture necessary items, enough to satisfy the everyday needs of black Americans at the time. If the white government had tried to crack down on them, they had the right as human beings to civilly disobey. They had firearms, and could defend themselves if they chose to do so if the government had attempted to bend them to its will.
They had the power and determination, and organization under M. L. King, Jr. and the like, to accomplish what they wanted to do. They chose to go the government route. They rightfully pursued the recognition of their rights to public transportation, and the ability to effectively participate in our political system. However, they chose to go too far down that route and decided to get as much government "assistance" as they could. They, and we, are still reaping the "benefits" today.
They became used to the government being their daddy, and now the majority of them, especially their descendants, depend on it in some way. I think if they'd realized their own power, their own strength, they'd have picked themselves up by the bootstraps decades ago. They would have taken, not solicited by overreaching government authority, the lives they wanted for themselves and their children, and they would have earned a great amount of respect for doing it. "Protection for minorities" has come to mean getting a free ride on the backs of the majority who works to earn that money. There's nothing noble in this - this is where government interference, and later dependence, gets you.
Saying business will take care of it is short sighted and woefully ignorant of human nature. Businesses aren't impartial entities, but organizations run by people - prejudiced, privileged, kind, or kooky. You can't trust them to do right - just ask anyone who's ever worked for a big corporation. Those mofos are downright evil. (But, I digress.)
No one said that businesses were impartial, or naturally good. They are based on people, and people are fallible. Oh, and you do remember that corporations would not be corporations without government, right? You seem to be countering your own point here.
Businesses won't magically pop up to serve under-served markets. Otherwise there'd be tons of business in economically depressed or high-crime areas where there's lots of need for grocery stores and clothing stores and such, which would then theoretically improve the area. Doesn't happen.
This makes no sense. An economically depressed area is not what we're discussing. We're discussing group A, the minority, being refused service in the local marketplace by group B, with all other variables assumed to be constant. I don't believe any logical person, from groups A, B or X, would choose to invest in an area that was dying economically unless there was some resource he could exploit. If oil was discovered in that area, for instance, any entrepreneur from any group with the appropriate knowledge and enough capital from investors to get started could begin a successful business. People in group A, if not living there already, begin to enter the area as economic opportunities become available. Entrepreneurs from group A, or from other groups who support A, could then start businesses to support A if group B still refused to support them. There will always be someone to fill in the gaps in the laissez-faire system.
Allowing discrimination like this is allowing people (who run businesses) to turn non-straight, non-white, non-Christian people into second-class citizens with government blessing. It's flat out wrong and it's anti-American in every facet.
"Second-class citizens?" To whom? That sounds more like weakness of character than a concrete social issue. As long as each group gets the same amount of legal/government respect and Constitutional abilities as the others, it does not matter what groups think about each other. If you're from group A, and someone from group B refuses to serve you, you have two options: 1) take your business somewhere else, or create a demand for that business from someone who WILL serve you, or 2) get butt-hurt about it, cry out for someone to come help you, and wait and see what happens. If I decide that I despise Wiccans, and convince all my buddies in my county to not serve them in their businesses, do you really want to force me to take your business anyway? You really want to HELP me continue to stay in business? How does increasing government power overall to force someone who is your enemy to let you give him your money to help him stay in business going to help you, ultimately? All this is about people getting their feelings hurt and reacting emotionally. If they were to shut the hell up, nut up, and get shit done, they could become self-sufficient economically and have vendors competing for their business.
Edited: Whew! Reading all that blue font was making my head hurt!
-
This is some good meat and potatoes discussion. We need to start attracting more people with non Libertarian mindsets.
-
Ok let's discuss the economically depressed & partially repressed market because I think you can tell it's the core issue here.
The big problem you're not acknowledging is the extreme power of privilege.
This economic power (really the wrong word) Influence is bestowed on any business how? Through consent of their patrons who choose to spend their money there. It really is a type of voting system.
You can't trust them to do right - just ask anyone who's ever worked for a big corporation. Those mofos are downright evil.
You can. Following Katrina Walmart mobilized a massive fleet of trucks with relief supplies to help the troubled area, to sell and donate. They were turned back by the military. (oh and let's leave the Walmart hating to an other time.)
Businesses won't magically pop up to serve under-served markets. Otherwise there'd be tons of business in economically depressed or high-crime areas where there's lots of need for grocery stores and clothing stores and such, which would then theoretically improve the area.
Doesn't happen.
You're right, ask yourself: Why?
Allowing discrimination like this is allowing people (who run businesses) to turn non-straight, non-white, non-Christian people into second-class citizens with government blessing. It's flat out wrong and it's anti-American in every facet.
No that's not why, There are entrepreneurs in those area's, only their activities are hampered by regulation because they need "food handlers permits" to open a taco stand. FDA inspections to sell produce. FCC accreditation to start a phone company. Gets raided by the ATF by making a tasty spirit. This reduces the available businesses centralizing the already established pool of market influence. This causes scarcity, and then legislators hamper them out of "necessity". You can't sell this on your property. Because it serves "the public". You can't say this on your property. Because it serves "the public".
They are only doing all that in your best interest you know... :lmfao:
Edit: Typo
-
Allowing discrimination like this is allowing people (who run businesses) to turn non-straight, non-white, non-Christian people into second-class citizens with government blessing. It's flat out wrong and it's anti-American in every facet.
Are you kidding me? You must believe in white privilege too? On what planet outside left-wing extremist heads, is the listed above, the only discrimination? White, christian, straight people get it as much as anyone. Wake up please.
-
So some people think it's okay for the government of Arizona to actively promote discrimination, yet think it's not okay for a government to say you can't legally discriminate. In some ways, we (as a nation and as human beings) haven't progressed very far at all.
:P
-
So some people think it's okay for the government of Arizona to actively promote discrimination, yet think it's not okay for a government to say you can't legally discriminate. In some ways, we (as a nation and as human beings) haven't progressed very far at all.
:P
Could you please clarify? I find your statement a bit confusing.
Arizona's legislation does not "allow" entrepreneurs to stop servicing the LGBT community. Individuals already possess that freedom if they choose to exercise it. It merely stops the government from having the authority to shut down an entrepreneur's business for acting on his personal beliefs and desires on his own private property. It shouldn't be limited to "gay" anything...it should repeal all laws penalizing private property owners who choose to operate a business on their property in the way they see fit. As long as the laws criminalizing discrimination extend only to publicly-owned property, I have no problem with them.
-
So some people think it's okay for the government of Arizona to actively promote discrimination, yet think it's not okay for a government to say you can't legally discriminate. In some ways, we (as a nation and as human beings) haven't progressed very far at all.
:P
In my ideal America the government would have no stance at all. But the government insists on having a stance on everything and arresting anyone who dosent agree. So in this case im glad their stance is to let freedom ring. Its kinda like having no stance because there wouldn't be a law to arrest the people who disagree for once.