Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Cyberowl]

Now you're just parsing words. It's a market. Whether you want to now say it's "free" because of the security of the government I would then say it's not "free" because of the restrictions placed on it by the government.

That's not the point at all.

This is about the role of the government in a market, in human transactions. They can't control your decisions.

You are free to read up on the definition of a free market in literature. Property rights can only be provided by some sort of government and they are obligatory in the definition of a free market.

[ro9ue]

Actually, the point was that you either have restrictions from the government, or restrictions from other actors in the market. In no realistic case is there a "free" market without restrictions on behaviour.



So you'd be okay with a competitor murdering your entire family if you don't shut down operations?

Because otherwise, the government is controlling (or at least influencing) your competitor's decision whether or not to take that action.

Right so the point of discussion is about what restrictions on behavior are acceptable for government. Forcing someone to make a transaction is not one of them.

You are free to read up on the definition of a free market in literature. Property rights can only be provided by some sort of government and they are obligatory in the definition of a free market.

I'm well versed, thanks.

[Endus]

Right so the point of discussion is about what restrictions on behavior are acceptable for government. Forcing someone to make a transaction is not one of them.

Because you say so? I don't accept your authority in this, thanks.

Also, no transactions are "forced", anyway. If you run a business, you agree to abide by the laws that mandate that certain transactions must be allowed. If you don't want to play by those rules, you're free to not run that business.

[ro9ue]

Because you say so? I don't accept your authority in this, thanks.

You decided to ignore the entire point I was making to discuss the definition of a free market when I was using it as generic terminology. And it was probably because you couldn't refute my point of the actual role of the government - which is what this thread is about, so you resorted to semantics.

[NineSpine]

Now you're just parsing words. It's a market. Whether you want to now say it's "free" because of the security of the government I would then say it's not "free" because of the restrictions placed on it by the government.

That's not the point at all.

This is about the role of the government in a market, in human transactions. They can't control your decisions.

The government CREATES THE DAMN MARKET.

[ro9ue]

The government CREATES THE DAMN MARKET.

People do.

[nacixems]

People do.

Agree. when the gov. creates stuff, it tends to suck!

[NineSpine]

People do.

Show me an example of a market with no property rights and no currency.

[Kujako]

Show me an example of a market with no property rights and no currency.

Burning man?

[NineSpine]

Burning man?

The festival that you pay almost $500 to enter, after parking fees?

[Thepersona]

You're either describing someone who was never actually bisexual, or someone who had a bad experience with a terrible partner and chose not to act on certain attractions as a result. Either way, it doesn't remotely support your case. In the latter, they remain bisexual, they're just avoiding certain partners they're otherwise attracted to. Much like how my ex-wife was blonde, so I'm likely to avoid dating blondes in the future; that doesn't mean I'm not attracted to them.

date brunettes man, they're gorgeous

[wheresmywoft]

My original post here had the words "should be allowed" - implying a change in government regulations as they apply to private business.

Which is still bypassing current rules. Yet you haven't established why this change 'should be allowed'.

[Thepersona]

People do.

no. the government does. it creates the legal and structural background for a market to succeed
if you don't believe that, go to somalia and start one

[Endus]

no. the government does. it creates the legal and structural background for a market to succeed
if you don't believe that, go to somalia and start one

I really don't see why this is a concept people struggle with.

Whatever guidelines and principles you can come up with that people could voluntarily follow, anyone can just say "hah, no" and do whatever they like. The only way to prevent that is to create some system of punishment for breaking those rules.

And the moment you've done that, well, that's government. It doesn't have to be a big modern system; a tribal leader who gets final say is a form of government. Everyone voting and abiding by the majority decision is government. It doesn't matter if there's 300 million of you, or 10. It's government.

[Dren The Black]

The Civil Rights Act is an unjust law? Lmao. Get a clue, dude.

Really? It's ok to have a quota in your favor just because of your skin or gender? That seems pretty unjust to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It does if there's nowhere else to go. Really, how many time does it have to be pointed out that we've played this game before and it really, really wasn't pretty?

History. It works, bitches!

Let's try a thought exercise: Man is shot. Needs a blood transfusion, but the only available doctors/nurses/janitors who aren't afraid of needles are Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in that. They refuse to perform the transfusion on religious grounds. Then is it harmful to allow someone's religious proclivities to dictate their work ethic? Any reasonable person would, I think, quite well tell the doctor to nut up and do his goddamned job and save the patient.

Yes, because refusing to serve someone in america automatically means they can't go elsewhere, right? This isn't a "you'll die if you don't get served here" argument. That's ridiculous hyperbole. I don't know of ANY christian denomination that won't try to help you recover should you be injured.

- - - Updated - - -

True, but the CRA is not going anywhere as no one has yet come up with a valid reason on why it's unjust other than hurting those who are prejudice. The law won't bend towards that group, no matter what you hope or believe.

People have begun questioning how right or wrong the "civil rights act" actually is. I mean, if believe in actual equality you would realize that the "CRA" does nothing other than give someone an undeserved leg up.

Was watching the Hulu show 11.22.63 and there was a scene where a black lady was not able to get gas at the station because the employee/owner said she could walk over to the colored town to get her gas. I guess few in the forum think this should be allowed.

It's ridiculous that some feel that way, but they should have that freedom should they choose.

- - - Updated - - -

They prioritized industry over agriculture. Similar to why so many starved in China under communism. Greater good itself was not the root cause. But the reason given as people perished.

You're comparing offering services at a pre-determined price as slavery? You've got some screws loose.

No one said that "the greater good did it". That's silly seeing as how the greater good is just an ideal. Obviously, people used the idea of the greater good to do atrocious things.

No, I'm comparing governmental enforced/coerced service to slavery. What's the difference between answering to a single master and answering to a large group of masters?

- - - Updated - - -

Because you say so? I don't accept your authority in this, thanks.

Also, no transactions are "forced", anyway. If you run a business, you agree to abide by the laws that mandate that certain transactions must be allowed. If you don't want to play by those rules, you're free to not run that business.

Unless it's to a protected class of people, right? What of the business owners? Why do they get shafted? Why can't you say the same thing to customers in regards to the owner's wishes?

- - - Updated - - -

The government CREATES THE DAMN MARKET.

What kind of nonsense are you trying to say.

[Endus]

Really? It's ok to have a quota in your favor just because of your skin or gender? That seems pretty unjust to me.

Well, that isn't what affirmative action programs are about, fundamentally. If you understood the context, you'd understand how ridiculous this claim is.

They don't get consideration because of their gender or skin color.

Unless it's to a protected class of people, right? What of the business owners? Why do they get shafted? Why can't you say the same thing to customers in regards to the owner's wishes?

Because people have a right to fair treatment.

Businesses do not have any "right" to engage in rank prejudice.

[Masark]

Unless it's to a protected class of people, right?

There's no such thing as a protected class of people. Protected classes are aspects of people.

"Gay people" is not a protected class. "Sexual orientation" is, which means they can't discriminate against you for being gay OR for being straight, or bisexual, asexual, etc.

[Endus]

There's no such thing as a protected class of people. Protected classes are aspects of people.

"Gay people" is not a protected class. "Sexual orientation" is, which means they can't discriminate against you for being gay OR for being straight, or bisexual, asexual, etc.

Right.

Same reason you can't be refused employment because you're a man, or because you're white.

This is what I meant by "context". The only reason certain minority groups are getting preferential offers is because they haven't been getting fair treatment already. If black people had equal job opportunities across the board, compared to the average, affirmative action programs would no longer be giving them any particular advantage.

[Themius]

Meh.

Private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason - but should also be prepared to face the consequences of reduced business or bad reputation.

For crying out loud, the government does NOT need to manage every little aspect of our lives.

Um no... we don't need jim crow era laws... things don't just "work out" they never do when it comes to discrimination like this.

[Sargerasraider]

There's no such thing as a protected class of people. Protected classes are aspects of people.

"Gay people" is not a protected class. "Sexual orientation" is, which means they can't discriminate against you for being gay OR for being straight, or bisexual, asexual, etc.

Just to clarify, sexual orientation is considered protected in some states, but not all. It is -not- included as a protected class in the CRA.