Arizona, so stupid it burns
#76
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
#77
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business.
The arguments for getting rid of Jim Crow are integral to the very nature of the civil rights movement. The assertion is that separate but equal isn't, and that equality is necessary in a free society.
#78
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I have no idea, but nevertheless his microwave installation skills are apparently known far and wide.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
Got a counterfeit dollar in his hand
#79
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I have no idea, but nevertheless his microwave installation skills are apparently known far and wide.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...aski+microwave
#82
Banned
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: The exclusive foothills outside of Denver
Posts: 105
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I would like to attempt to explain my position while I still have some reputation worth salvaging.
For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.
I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.
Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!
For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.
I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.
Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!
Which libertarian philosophies?
#85
Country Member
Joined: May 2003
Location: Moved from Georgetown to Round Rock, Texas. 15 miles closer to civilization.
Posts: 936
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I'd be happy to go there too. Preferably on St. Patty's Day (sic) when I will wear orange as always I do on that day.
#86
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I would like to attempt to explain my position while I still have some reputation worth salvaging.
For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.
I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.
Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!
For reasons of context, I would like to state that I have my own business, in partnership with Mrs P, and we serve a full range of clients regardless of all protected classes. In fact approximately half our clients are minorities, and that makes not a jot of difference, as we are in business to make money, and it would make no sense whatsoever to us to turn away good business even if it were legal to do so. And I suspect that irrespective of the law, very few businesses would voluntarily turn away business for reasons of racism of other bigoted prejudice.
I am by nature conservative like leaning, with sympathies for some libertarian philosophies, and a significant interest in the environment and conservation, so all in all a grab-bag of political philosophies that is hard to pigeonhole, and for which no party appeals to more than a part of what I would like a government to be involved with. Sometimes I think I vote more against the policies of one party than for the picture policies of another, and I have certainly voted strategically in some elections.
I enjoy rhetorical discussions, and my posts in this thread were an attempt to discuss the reasons for the law and whether they are valid. What I got in return was a series of repetitions of the law, with which I am familiar, and some of the history, which I am also more than adequately familiar with, but nothing really to further my understanding of why a number of people here believe that it is OK for the government to interfere in the business dealings of a private individual or privately owned business. It seems analogous to the questions of eminent domain that have been discussed by the Supreme Court in recent years, and which remain controversial.
Many people here think they know me, and are willing to pillory me for some posts that are all too easy to take out of context. Perhaps I need to be more guarded in that respect. To those who think you know me: think again!
You mention the government interfering in private business but we're not discussing private business here --- we are discussing public businesses. If a woman does hair in her home, and her clients come to her word of mouth, she can refuse to serve anybody she likes for any reason she likes. But if she rents a store in the mall, and advertises that she's open to the public, then she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, etc.
#87
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
I don't think your position is bad or evil, I just think you're missing the whole point of public accommodation.
You mention the government interfering in private business but we're not discussing private business here --- we are discussing public businesses. If a woman does hair in her home, and her clients come to her word of mouth, she can refuse to serve anybody she likes for any reason she likes. But if she rents a store in the mall, and advertises that she's open to the public, then she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, etc.
You mention the government interfering in private business but we're not discussing private business here --- we are discussing public businesses. If a woman does hair in her home, and her clients come to her word of mouth, she can refuse to serve anybody she likes for any reason she likes. But if she rents a store in the mall, and advertises that she's open to the public, then she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, etc.
Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?
There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.
Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.
As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
Last edited by Pulaski; Feb 23rd 2014 at 1:50 pm.
#88
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,248
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
Should not a private businessman have the right to decide with whom he does business? Granted, it is pretty stupid to turn away paying customers, but if a business wants to do so, I am not even sure why the would-be customers would want to force the issue?
Certainly if I walked into a business that had a sign on the wall saying "We don't serve Englishmen". I'd be more than happy to go elsewhere, and would, in fact, prefer to know that than to do business with someone who hates Englishmen.
Certainly if I walked into a business that had a sign on the wall saying "We don't serve Englishmen". I'd be more than happy to go elsewhere, and would, in fact, prefer to know that than to do business with someone who hates Englishmen.
#89
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
OK. Now we're getting somewhere.
Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?
There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.
Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.
As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?
There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.
Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.
As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
I remember that UK hotel issue, and the argument there - with which I happen to agree - is that sexual orientation should not be a basis for refusing service in a civilized society. That is one of the "norms" that I support, hence I support legislation to uphold that.
There is no possible consistency in the position that "government shouldn't interfere with private people/property/ownership" if you make that lack of interference alone the sole criteria. We want that interference a lot of the time, and we get it, or god knows what life would be like. So the only difference is the set of values we uphold that we use to guide and shape that interference. And those should be chosen with care - but they are always a matter of judgment about the kind of society we want.
Last edited by Lion in Winter; Feb 23rd 2014 at 2:12 pm.
#90
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: Arizona, so stupid it burns
OK. Now we're getting somewhere.
Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?
There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.
Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.
As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.
Is the location of the business premises a legal distinction, or your distinction? Because in the area where I live it is fairly common for a hair dresser to operate from her home. If she advertises, is that enough to make her a public business? I drive frequently past one such business, and she has a real estate style wooden shingle hanging at a nearby intersection, is that enough to make her a public business?
There was also an interesting case on this point in the UK, where the owners of a bed and breakfast lost their appeal claiming that they had a right to decline a room booked by a gay couple. Based on that case clearly operating a home-based business did not protect the owners from litigation. I haven't read all the details of the case, but I suspect the rationale is based in part on contract law, and that the room contract, perhaps booked on line, or by phone ahead of time, and that it was unlawful to break the contract when the couple who had booked the room showed up.
Given that there is a large group of businesses that operate by going to the client's home (cleaners, carpet cleaners, lawn care, handymen, etc., based on your statement above, I think that advertising alone, would make a business public.
As I said above I think declining good business for prejudicial reasons is daft, and could be commercial suicide when the economy is weak, but I find it interesting that solely in the narrow area of businesses run using privately owned assets, that the government can force a business owner to provide services against their will. It seems like a grown-up version of the grade school party invitation rule, that if you're going to hand out invitations in class you have to invite everyone, and that the government seems to think that they can pass a law to make everyone friends.