Poll of the Day > Anti-Gay Tramps Win Case and are ALLOWED to REFUSE Business to GAY PEOPLE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

LinkPizza posted...

Why should a certain set of people starve because the store won't serve them?

I don't think the law makes people serve them, just punishes those that don't, so I don't think it's productive.

LinkPizza posted...

You could probably get news coverage for that. And some chain would probably go out there and build a store quick to help or "help". Especially if they realized they wouldn't have competition...

See this is why I think a law is inappropriate as there are other methods like this that solve the problem more effectively.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Why should a certain set of people starve because the store won't serve them?

I don't think the law makes people serve them, just punishes those that don't, so I don't think it's productive.

LinkPizza posted...

You could probably get news coverage for that. And some chain would probably go out there and build a store quick to help or "help". Especially if they realized they wouldn't have competition...

See this is why I think a law is inappropriate as there are other methods like this that solve the problem more effectively.

That's if they could. If a chain just goes to a random small city where the mom an pop grocery store lets everybody buy, they could end up doing poorly as people would shop there. So they sometimes might avoid certain small towns. They would know without information that a grocery store is limited customers for whatever reason without being there. Meaning they won't be there. I'd rather not rely on them maybe figuring out. And it doesn't always mean they'll come. And even then, who know's how long it will take to get the store up and running. If you don't mind people starving because someone doesn't like somebody, that's fine. I'd rather people not starve...
---

LinkPizza posted...

If you don't mind people starving because someone doesn't like somebody, that's fine. I'd rather people not starve...

That's what kicking out a discriminatory business does? It makes everybody starve instead of just the targeted group.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

If you don't mind people starving because someone doesn't like somebody, that's fine. I'd rather people not starve...

That's what kicking out a discriminatory business does? It makes everybody starve instead of just the targeted group.

No. That would make headlines quick, causing another business to be able to go down there. And because of what was going on, they would probably get a bigger budget to work with, meaning they could build faster. And possibly open up a miniature market of sorts to be able to sell foods and drinks for the duration of the build. If we just let the business do its thing by discriminating, nothing might change. People just have to find a way to travel to get food. And if they dont have a way or time, then it just sucks for them. Instead of letting people discriminate, stop them. Some will probably give up and let them shop. Others will lose all costumers and have to close down, as they should...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Of course not. That would be impractical and authoritarian. There's a case to be made for the government offering incentives to attract grocery stores to food deserts, but forcing businesses to help alleviate existing disadvantages is no bueno. Preventing businesses from creating new disadvantages, however? That seems fair, particularly when there's no reason for it. Think of it in terms of physical injury: it's unreasonable to demand that everyone stitch up any existing stabbing victims they encounter. It is reasonable to demand that nobody creates any new stabbing victims.

Basically, just don't make people's lives worse for no reason, and you're good.

OhhhJa posted...

Growing up in the bible belt, I know that it's not necessarily an excuse. There are legitimately tons of people who think doing something like this would make them a sinner

No, it's still an excuse even then. If you really believe something and are willing to commit to it, you can come up with a more concrete argument than "my religion says so." Not doing any thinking beyond what your priest/pastor/imam/rabbi/whatever says each week is just lazy, and nobody should expect such laziness to be taken as seriously as legitimate arguments.

OhhhJa posted...

Just like it would be rude to go into a business run by gay people and ask them to make some art for you that's pro christian, homophobic rhetoric

Why does this topic always end up with people equivocating gay marriage to hate speech?
---

adjl posted...

Why does this topic always end up with people equivocating gay marriage to hate speech?

Saying you dont want to make invitations for a gay wedding isnt hate speech lol

Hello, I am Mayan prophet. I would like a human sacrifice cake, please.
---

Lokarin posted...

Hello, I am Mayan prophet. I would like a human sacrifice cake, please.

Would you like it to say, Happy Human Sacrifice! Or Merry Human Sacrifice!
---

LinkPizza posted...

Lokarin posted...

Hello, I am Mayan prophet. I would like a human sacrifice cake, please.

Would you like it to say, Happy Human Sacrifice! Or Merry Human Sacrifice!

Sorry for your loss will be acceptable
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

JCvgluvr posted...

For instance, a well-known statistic explains that there were over 300 prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ. All of which were fulfilled. Just google it. Fascinating stuff!

It's as though it was written after his death.

It is a well-documented fact that dozens of books in the Old Testament section of the Bible (where these prophecies come from) were written hundreds/thousands of years before Christ's birth. Look it up. (If you're interested in learning, instead of arguing.)
---

LinkPizza posted...

No. That would make headlines quick, causing another business to be able to go down there. And because of what was going on, they would probably get a bigger budget to work with, meaning they could build faster. And possibly open up a miniature market of sorts to be able to sell foods and drinks for the duration of the build.

That already applies without the law though. If a business discriminates, the people can kick up a stink, make headlines and a bigger budget business comes and buys them out. If an area is so rural that there's only one food store in an hours drive, there's definitely enough space to set up a mini market to compete.

LinkPizza posted...

If we just let the business do its thing by discriminating, nothing might change.

Nothing would change if nobody cares about the discrimination, and if nobody cares if you can't eat, then it's probably for the best to move instead of getting the only grocery in town shut down.

LinkPizza posted...

Instead of letting people discriminate, stop them. Some will probably give up and let them shop. Others will lose all costumers and have to close down, as they should...

If the only option to get food is via a discriminatory seller, is it not better to have that seller than no option at all?

adjl posted...

Preventing businesses from creating new disadvantages, however? That seems fair,

Prior to making the business, nobody had any advantage though. They're refusing service from their store, not intercepting them going somewhere else. You seem to be coming from the position that the shopkeepers started off without discriminating then changed their tune, but in reality they have always operated this way.

adjl posted...

Basically, just don't make people's lives worse for no reason, and you're good.

And that's what they're doing, they're continuing to discriminate as they always have.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That already applies without the law though. If a business discriminates, the people can kick up a stink, make headlines and a bigger budget business comes and buys them out. If an area is so rural that there's only one food store in an hours drive, there's definitely enough space to set up a mini market to compete.

Not necessarily. That land could already be owned by people. Like if it's a farming town or something. There might not be land around. It all depends.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nothing would change if nobody cares about the discrimination, and if nobody cares if you can't eat, then it's probably for the best to move instead of getting the only grocery in town shut down.

So just let them discriminate and let people starve. I see...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If the only option to get food is via a discriminatory seller, is it not better to have that seller than no option at all?

Like the people being discriminated against. So, let's just only let some people live. I get it. The others can just die, I guess...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Not necessarily. That land could already be owned by people. Like if it's a farming town or something. There might not be land around. It all depends.

They can still be bought out, assuming anybody cares to rectify the issue. There's also the issue that a farming town would have a lot of people with produce, if the grocery won't sell then maybe one of the many farms will. If no store or farm for an hour out will help you, then I'd consider it time to move, not to call the police (since all your neighbours would really hate you after that.)

LinkPizza posted...

Like the people being discriminated against. So, let's just only let some people live. I get it. The others can just die, I guess...

It's not a good thing, but I'd consider it a lesser of two evils.
---

It depends on what kind of farm they have. They could grow produce or have a dairy farm. Or could raise sheep/llamas for the wool. Or raise animals to slaughter.

So, it might be they cant sell their land due to their livelihood. As in needing the land for farming. Though, they may be ok with you getting one place shut down to get another place that sells to everyone.

Moving may be an option for some. But not for all. For example, I want to move out of the shitty house I live in now. But I dont have the money to yet...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Idk know what you're saying.

I'm saying that if you make them, they still won't do help, they'll just stop operating and it'll hurt everyone. I'd rather some people got something than everybody gets nothing.

Can you articulate why this argument doesn't apply to the Civil Rights Act? Or do you also think the Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

WiseTyefighter posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Idk know what you're saying.

I'm saying that if you make them, they still won't do help, they'll just stop operating and it'll hurt everyone. I'd rather some people got something than everybody gets nothing.

Can you articulate why this argument doesn't apply to the Civil Rights Act? Or do you also think the Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

Civil Right Act was great for making the government act in an unbiased manner, I'm fully in favour of the government being forced to serve all citizens they tax fairly.

I don't think it should apply to businesses, but not on grounds of morality. I think it's pragmatic to make starting a business as intising, simple and free as possible. Remember this works both ways, you could make a cafe that doesn't serve Trump supporters and "Nazis" if you want, the operative word being "want".
---

OhhhJa posted...

adjl posted...

Why does this topic always end up with people equivocating gay marriage to hate speech?

Saying you dont want to make invitations for a gay wedding isnt hate speech lol

Did you not read the post I quoted from you?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You seem to be coming from the position that the shopkeepers started off without discriminating then changed their tune, but in reality they have always operated this way.

In which case they have always been creating disadvantages for no reason. Furthermore, if we're considering homophobia specifically, then it's completely believable that somebody has lived in the area for years without problems, then suddenly found themselves unable to get groceries because they came out as gay. It's also possible that the business changed hands and the new owners were so dickishly discriminatory. They could also have decided that they're fed up with "political correctness" and that the current political climate means they'll be able to get away with pushing back against it (which, for people with such complaints, usually means being an unapologetic asshole to certain groups for no reason).

There are plenty of explanations for why it could be a recent problem, but really, your logic of "it's always been this way so it's fine" isn't remotely valid logic at all and I don't need to come up with alternative explanations. If it'll make you feel better, feel free to mentally substitute "maintaining disadvantages" for "creating disadvantages" in my prior statement of the bottom line, and that should cover your entire position.
---

adjl posted...

In which case they have always been creating disadvantages for no reason.

They were never obligated to start a business in the first place, nobody had the right to buy things from the shopkeeper prior to starting a business. When they started the business, everybody gained the advantage of being able to use his shop. If he does not sell to a person/group, they simply do not get that advantage, they have not been deprived.

adjl posted...

Furthermore, if we're considering homophobia specifically, then it's completely believable that somebody has lived in the area for years without problems, then suddenly found themselves unable to get groceries because they came out as gay.

Then they were using an advantage the shopkeeper was not willing to give to them for years.

adjl posted...

It's also possible that the business changed hands and the new owners were so dickishly discriminatory.

The previous owner offered the service, the new one does not, at no point was anybody owed that service.

adjl posted...

They could also have decided that they're fed up with "political correctness" and that the current political climate means they'll be able to get away with pushing back against it

Sounds like they were forced by circumstance to offer an advantage they weren't happy to offer and when given the opportunity to act freely, they stopped offering the thing they didn't want to give.

adjl posted...

There are plenty of explanations for why it could be a recent problem, but really, your logic of "it's always been this way so it's fine" isn't remotely valid logic at all and I don't need to come up with alternative explanations. If it'll make you feel better, feel free to mentally substitute "maintaining disadvantages" for "creating disadvantages" in my prior statement of the bottom line, and that should cover your entire position.

As I think I've made clear, they were never entitled to that person's business, so they went from +1 advantage to 0, they did not go from 0 to -1 (a disadvantage).

While I don't care for this to be suddenly flipped on, let's imagine it did. A provision could easily be made that previous customers can continue to use services available to them but no new customers could. That would mean that nobody who already put down roots would be effected, but anybody who moves in to rural hickland should be wary of potential restrictions and act accordingly. If they cannot use a service then it's on them to ensure their move would allow them to live how they want to.
---

LinkPizza posted...

It depends on what kind of farm they have. They could grow produce or have a dairy farm. Or could raise sheep/llamas for the wool. Or raise animals to slaughter.

So, it might be they cant sell their land due to their livelihood. As in needing the land for farming. Though, they may be ok with you getting one place shut down to get another place that sells to everyone.

Moving may be an option for some. But not for all. For example, I want to move out of the shitty house I live in now. But I dont have the money to yet...

Fair enough.

I think my previous post should address this, but I'd like to put forth another idea. Imagine the government establishing a policy to do landgrabs to ensure fair treatment. Say, if an area has one store that the locals can use and it's being discriminatory, a potential buyer could petition the government to take over operation. When they recieve a request, they buy the property off the discriminatory owner at market value and sell it to the buyer who's willing to operate without discrimination, thus killing off the issue of no space to compete.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I don't think it should apply to businesses, but not on grounds of morality. I think it's pragmatic to make starting a business as intising, simple and free as possible.

I honestly did not think people still opposed the Civil Rights Act in 2019. I guess if that's where you're at I'm probably not going to change your mind without explaining why the Civil Rights Act was important.

Remember this works both ways, you could make a cafe that doesn't serve Trump supporters and "Nazis" if you want, the operative word being "want".

What do you mean "both ways?" Gays vs. Trumps supporters or white supremacists is not a "two ways" dichotomy. There are protected classes in the Civil Rights Act. LGBT activists want sexuality to be included as a protected class, like race. They are not pursuing adding political orientation, on either side, as a protected class.

But again, if you think it should still be legal for gas stations to ban black people I can see why you would want them to be able to ban homosexuals too.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

It depends on what kind of farm they have. They could grow produce or have a dairy farm. Or could raise sheep/llamas for the wool. Or raise animals to slaughter.

So, it might be they cant sell their land due to their livelihood. As in needing the land for farming. Though, they may be ok with you getting one place shut down to get another place that sells to everyone.

Moving may be an option for some. But not for all. For example, I want to move out of the shitty house I live in now. But I dont have the money to yet...

Fair enough.

I think my previous post should address this, but I'd like to put forth another idea. Imagine the government establishing a policy to do landgrabs to ensure fair treatment. Say, if an area has one store that the locals can use and it's being discriminatory, a potential buyer could petition the government to take over operation. When they recieve a request, they buy the property off the discriminatory owner at market value and sell it to the buyer who's willing to operate without discrimination, thus killing off the issue of no space to compete.

So, basically making the store non-discriminatory by buying it and taking it over. I guess that would work...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They were never obligated to start a business in the first place, nobody had the right to buy things from the shopkeeper prior to starting a business.

Irrelevant.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If he does not sell to a person/group, they simply do not get that advantage, they have not been deprived.

Only if we assume an infinite market. In practice, one shop of a given type opening in an area frequently prevents other, similar shops from opening in the area due to the fact that there simply isn't enough of a market to support more than one, particularly if we're talking about a small town (as we have been). Therefore, by operating in a manner that excludes a group, that group is likely to be deprived of the ability to get the service without traveling.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then they were using an advantage the shopkeeper was not willing to give to them for years.

You're really going to go with "the closeted gay person is the villain here, not the homophobic dickwad"? Really?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The previous owner offered the service, the new one does not, at no point was anybody owed that service.

Irrelevant. The new guy's still an asshole.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sounds like they were forced by circumstance to offer an advantage they weren't happy to offer and when given the opportunity to act freely, they stopped offering the thing they didn't want to give.

Oh no! They were afraid that people might think they were assholes for acting like assholes, so they had to hide it! How horrible!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As I think I've made clear, they were never entitled to that person's business, so they went from +1 advantage to 0, they did not go from 0 to -1 (a disadvantage).

0 is disadvantaged relative to +1. Unless you're going to try telling somebody with 0 food that they should be glad they don't have -1 food.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While I don't care for this to be suddenly flipped on, let's imagine it did. A provision could easily be made that previous customers can continue to use services available to them but no new customers could. That would mean that nobody who already put down roots would be effected, but anybody who moves in to rural hickland should be wary of potential restrictions and act accordingly. If they cannot use a service then it's on them to ensure their move would allow them to live how they want to.

While that's a particularly absurd hypothetical, blaming those moving in is only reasonable if it's well-advertised that they won't be able to shop there. Otherwise, you've just got a bunch of assholes making people's lives worse for (presumably) no reason, which is exactly what I just said not to do.

_AdjI_ posted...

Irrelevant.

It's the entire point. You can't go up to any person and demand they sell you stuff and a business is run by people. They don't owe you, they're giving you an opportunity.

_AdjI_ posted...

by operating in a manner that excludes a group, that group is likely to be deprived of the ability to get the service without traveling.

Nobody is entitled to a store nearby, the fact most people have the advantage doesn't mean they're disadvantaged, just that everybody is complacent over their privileged position.

_AdjI_ posted...

You're really going to go with "the closeted gay person is the villain here, not the homophobic dickwad"? Really?

I'm not debating morals with you. I'm simply explaining how they aren't entitled to access. It's like how it's illegal to steal food to feed your family; it's not immoral, but it's still not allowed. You can't make somebody give you benefits because you deserve it.

_AdjI_ posted...

Irrelevant. The new guy's still an asshole.

It's not illegal to be an asshole, and it's inappropriate for the government to enforce morals.

_AdjI_ posted...

Oh no! They were afraid that people might think they were assholes for acting like assholes, so they had to hide it! How horrible!

That's the system I actually want. People should act on what demand is and what risks they're willing to take, I don't think it should be legally enforced.

_AdjI_ posted...

0 is disadvantaged relative to +1. Unless you're going to try telling somebody with 0 food that they should be glad they don't have -1 food.

0 is advantaged relative to -1, that's not a useful metric.

Do you also think people selling their home should be forced to give their home to a homeless person? They're very disadvataged, no home or no money! They want to discriminate against the poor and sell their home to a wealthy person, but according to you they can't make the homeless person disadvantaged by not letting them buy it for a crumpled up one.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

While that's a particularly absurd hypothetical, blaming those moving in is only reasonable if it's well-advertised that they won't be able to shop there.

Why? Can it not be the responsibility of the person moving to check they can use the services? But regardless, I imagine they would want to advertise their position to avoid having to scream at people coming in they don't want.

_AdjI_ posted...

Otherwise, you've just got a bunch of assholes making people's lives worse for (presumably) no reason, which is exactly what I just said not to do.

I'd imagine the law has something against being unnecessarily beligerent.
---

I didn't even think about it but how does a topic like this not get modded for being offensive/sexist? Lol

Kyuubi4269 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

While that's a particularly absurd hypothetical, blaming those moving in is only reasonable if it's well-advertised that they won't be able to shop there.

Why? Can it not be the responsibility of the person moving to check they can use the services? But regardless, I imagine they would want to advertise their position to avoid having to scream at people coming in they don't want.

Usually, discrimination isnt a selling point when trying to get people to move there. Also, you have to account for management switching to someone who then discriminates when the original owners didnt...
---

OhhhJa posted...

I didn't even think about it but how does a topic like this not get modded for being offensive/sexist? Lol

Because it has leftist undertones. How many times must the mods show their openly leftist and feminist biases before people understand this?

I can ASSURE you that if I made a directly insulting post that anyone with a brain would moderate, it would get moderated. Then let's say that our resident Marxists would make the very, same exact post, nothing would happen.

Try to guess why.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's the entire point. You can't go up to any person and demand they sell you stuff and a business is run by people. They don't owe you, they're giving you an opportunity.

But we're not talking about a random person on the street. We're talking about an established business that is offering the service in question.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nobody is entitled to a store nearby, the fact most people have the advantage doesn't mean they're disadvantaged, just that everybody is complacent over their privileged position.

It's not about entitlements. It's about necessities. If you don't have a grocery store nearby, things don't run very well. Ergo, a community should have a grocery store, and if the person running the only one is such an asshole that they're going to force some people to go elsewhere, then they're impairing things' ability to run well and should either be forced to amend their assholish ways, or be replaced.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm not debating morals with you.

You certainly seemed pretty interested in painting the formerly-closeted customer as the bad guy.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's the system I actually want. People should act on what demand is and what risks they're willing to take, I don't think it should be legally enforced.

It wasn't legally enforced. We're just in a political climate now where people think expecting basic goddamn manners is somehow an affront to their freedom that must be aggressively resisted.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

0 is advantaged relative to -1, that's not a useful metric.

The term "advantage" is a relative term. It has no absolute value. If you don't think measuring it relatively is a useful metric, then you don't actually understand what we're talking about.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you also think people selling their home should be forced to give their home to a homeless person? They're very disadvataged, no home or no money!

You notice how I keep putting "for no reason" in there? There's a reason for that. I would consider the value of a home to be an excellent reason to not simply give said home away. That's not a trivial amount of money.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why? Can it not be the responsibility of the person moving to check they can use the services?

I sincerely hope you don't think it's remotely practical for somebody looking to move to a new area to call all of the local businesses and ask if they'll be willing to serve them after listing a series of their attributes. That's not reasonable (again, a term I used for a reason).
---

The_tall_midget posted...

I can ASSURE you that if I made a directly insulting post that anyone with a brain would moderate, it would get moderated. Then let's say that our resident Marxists would make the very, same exact post, nothing would happen.

That's a very easy hypothesis to test. You have a ctrl key, you have a C key, and you have a V key. You're entirely capable of making the very, same exact post to demonstrate that it would be modded. Go for it.
---