[quote]I think that Walmart would do nicely if they refused service to all people that don't have blonde hair and/or blue eyes.[/quote] That is a farse

>assuming people are racist in reality >assuming people will refuse green Even back in the slavery days, slaveowners would totally accept black money when the black slavers auctioned off their slaves Such stupid in such a short post. It's like you've never heard of the free market viciously correcting behaviours

... did you try to use slavery as an example of free market correction? Maybe Stall is the smart one.

Why not? Instead of these ridiculous scenarios and whiny catchwords like discrimination and equality, just explain in rational terms why a private business owner should be compelled to serve those he doesnt wish to serve? Could a black baker refuse to make a KKK cake? Or, does discrimination only apply to the bad ideas backwords folks have?

[quote]Why not? Instead of these ridiculous scenarios and whiny catchwords like discrimination and equality, just explain in rational terms why a private business owner should be compelled to serve those he doesnt wish to serve? Could a black baker refuse to make a KKK cake? Or, does discrimination only apply to the bad ideas backwords folks have?[/quote] Yeah he should have to bake him a cake as long as he isn't threatening the baker and the baker is capable of handling the task. I doubt that would ever happen, but you never know, it might. They also have a right to rally peacefully, and live amongst us. Why should a private business owner have to service someone he doesn't want to? Because I believe the consumers trump the businesses in most cases when it comes to rights and in these cases, the right of the consumer to shop freely as long as they are able to make the purchases and are not engaging in illicit harmful activity, regardless of any of their personal whatever comes ahead of the business owners right to offer and decline business. This of course excludes actual legitimate reasons, like they can't handle their order, the item sold out, there's already an offer being finalized... Tl:dr the rights of the consumer to shop equally trumps the business owners right to choose who to deal with. Is that good enough?

[quote]And if they want to refuse to blacks, let them! Who cares of they're a medical practice, especially the only one for miles.[/quote] That hospital just lost the potential business of over 1/10th of the entire U.S. population. Furthermore, there's no rational reason for the hospital to discriminate. It's within their rights, but do you honestly think it's going to happen? If it does, they've signed their own death warrant as a business. No physician in that hospital will ever hold a job outside of that company ever again. [quote]Same thing for places like Verizon. Why not exclude all Asians?[/quote] Sure. Why not? There's no rational reason to, and they're only aiding their competitors, but it's within their rights. [quote]I think that Walmart would do nicely if they refused service to all people that don't have blonde hair and/or blue eyes.[/quote] I disagree. I think they'd experience a major setback. There's no advantage to arbitrarily restricting your consumer base like that. They'd be operating within their rights, though. [quote]Maybe we could have Russian females who only have one arm and a synthetic left breast only colleges.[/quote] It would be incredibly difficult to find investors to fund the construction of that campus, but, if you managed it, more power to you. Sounds like a poor business model, though.

[quote][quote]And if they want to refuse to blacks, let them! Who cares of they're a medical practice, especially the only one for miles.[/quote] That hospital just lost the potential business of over 1/10th of the entire U.S. population. Furthermore, there's no rational reason for the hospital to discriminate. It's within their rights, but do you honestly think it's going to happen? If it does, they've signed their own death warrant as a business. No physician in that hospital will ever hold a job outside of that company ever again. [quote]Same thing for places like Verizon. Why not exclude all Asians?[/quote] Sure. Why not? There's no rational reason to, and they're only aiding their competitors, but it's within their rights. [quote]I think that Walmart would do nicely if they refused service to all people that don't have blonde hair and/or blue eyes.[/quote] I disagree. I think they'd experience a major setback. There's no advantage to arbitrarily restricting your consumer base like that. They'd be operating within their rights, though. [quote]Maybe we could have Russian females who only have one arm and a synthetic left breast only colleges.[/quote] It would be incredibly difficult to find investors to fund the construction of that campus, but, if you managed it, more power to you. Sounds like a poor business model, though.[/quote] You can't be that oblivious to the point he was trying to make? You literally sat there read what he wrote, quoted each point and probably read it a second time.. And you STILL didn't think "huh.. This might actually make sense.. Maybe discriminating over stupid shit isn't the best way to go about employing people" I just want to put my hand in front of your face and say "stop".

What? He says in his post that the examples would have negative results. His entire point hinges on the idea that discrimination would hinder financial success.

So you support discrimination, good to know. Glad to know economic freedoms are worth more to you that personal freedoms. Or I mean, not [i]all economic freedom[/i] as you're fuсking over the consumers. But.. pro business! Yay!

[quote]So you support discrimination, good to know. Glad to know economic freedoms are worth more to you that personal freedoms.[/quote] Huge misconception. Do I personally [i]support[/i] discrimination? No, but I recognize that it's within people's rights. I don't smoke marijuana, but I'm not going to support the idea that it should be made illegal. As for "personal freedoms," there is no "personal freedom" to have the state force somebody to hire you. Your freedom is not restricted if somebody doesn't want to take a transaction with you. A man could be on the side of the street, selling trinkets. He might offer one of them to a lady for $3. She thinks about it. I speak up and offer $10. He declines, and sells the trinket to the lady for $3. The only one losing out is him, apparently. However, it's within his right to sell to whom he pleases. My "personal freedoms" were not violated because I do not have a right to force him into a transaction against his will.

[quote][quote]So you support discrimination, good to know. Glad to know economic freedoms are worth more to you that personal freedoms.[/quote] Huge misconception. Do I personally [i]support[/i] discrimination? No, but I recognize that it's within people's rights. I don't smoke marijuana, but I'm not going to support the idea that it should be made illegal. As for "personal freedoms," there is no "personal freedom" to have the state force somebody to hire you. Your freedom is not restricted if somebody doesn't want to take a transaction with you. A man could be on the side of the street, selling trinkets. He might offer one of them to a lady for $3. She thinks about it. I speak up and offer $10. He declines, and sells the trinket to the lady for $3. The only one losing out is him, apparently. However, it's within his right to sell to whom he pleases. My "personal freedoms" were not violated because I do not have a right to force him into a transaction against his will.[/quote] Force someone? No one gets forced. It goes like this, people apply. If someone feels they've been discriminated against, they sue. The investigation happens, ruling or settlement is made, and both parties go on their separate ways. And by supporting the "right" to do something, yes you support that thing. That's what supporting is. You're an enabler. Your freedom as a consumer is restricted when someone refuses your business. So again, you're pro business, not pro consumer. The side of the street example is nice. But, 1). That's the ability to change their prices, not discrimination. He has the ability to sell the item at whatever he deems fit. 2). Since he isn't in a formal shop there's a good chance he isn't a licensed business man and is merely selling the items illegally [spoiler]Without a permit, you cannot sell things on the street, with the exception of a few businesses.[/spoiler] 3). The deal was already struck between him and her, you merely came in at the last second and offered. 4). That has nothing to do with the situation. He did not discriminate against you, [spoiler] discrimination- the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people [/spoiler] he merely already made a deal with someone else and did not renege on the deal. 5). Again, Your personal freedoms, were not violated because he was open to anyone. If you had been there prior, you could have bought the trinket. The personal freedoms to shop anywhere as long as you can afford the items was [i][b]not violated[/b][/i] as he did not discriminate against you. He did not refuse you because you were black, or white, or missing a limb. He refused because of an already made deal. You cannot go to a grocery store and buy the groceries of the person in front of you at the checkout because you like them better, and expect that to work because you were willing to pay more money.

[quote]Force someone? No one gets forced. It goes like this, people apply. If someone feels they've been discriminated against, they sue. The investigation happens, ruling or settlement is made, and both parties go on their separate ways.[/quote] The employer is 1) found guilty of a crime (which would imply that he violated somebody's rights), and is 2) punished. That isn't justified. The employer's wealth is being confiscated because he didn't comply with the state-mandated standards. He either enters the transaction (hires the applicant), or he faces punishment for discriminating. [quote]And by supporting the "right" to do something, yes you support that thing. That's what supporting is. You're an enabler. Your freedom as a consumer is restricted when someone refuses your business. So again, you're pro business, not pro consumer.[/quote] Okay. So I guess you could label me as pro-marijuana, which I am in a sense. You've labeled me. Specifically, you've labeled me as "pro-business." Fantastic. What's the point? I support the right of an employer to set standards to his liking, no matter how irrational they seem. They are, after all, going to face the consequences (or reap the rewards, depending on how it turns out) of their actions. So you can say I'm pro-discrimination, but that doesn't necessarily detract from my point. I could label you, too, but that wouldn't really do much to change your mind. [quote]1). That's the ability to change their prices, not discrimination. He has the ability to sell the item at whatever he deems fit.[/quote] His reasons were his own. He took less profit for some reason. Let's assume that he did it because he's a sexist. I'm a man, and he didn't want a man to buy his trinket. Now what? My rights still aren't violated, because I still don't have a right to force him into a transaction. [quote]2). Since he isn't in a formal shop there's a good chance he isn't a licensed business man and is merely selling the items illegally[/quote] We can head down Semantics Boulevard, but I think the hypothetical explanation was adequate. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all of his permits were in order. That doesn't bear relevance to the topic at hand. [quote]3). The deal was already struck between him and her, you merely came in at the last second and offered.[/quote] Again, we can change the situation. The lady arrive after me. I offer $10. She offers $3, afterwards. The man takes the deal with her. Again, my rights aren't violated. [quote]4). That has nothing to do with the situation. He did not discriminate against you, he merely already made a deal with someone else and did not renege on the deal.[/quote] Go back to my example of sexism. Assume he discriminated against me because of my sex. It doesn't change the fact that I can't force him into the transaction. [quote]5). Again, Your personal freedoms, were not violated because he was open to anyone. If you had been there prior, you could have bought the trinket. The personal freedoms to shop anywhere as long as you can afford the items was not violated as he did not discriminate against you. He did not refuse you because you were black, or white, or missing a limb. He refused because of an already made deal.[/quote] Once more, assume he did discriminate against some arbitrary characteristic of mine. Also assume that I made the first offer. I have blue eyes. The lady has brown eyes. I make the first offer of $10, and the lady comes along and offers $3. The man sells the trinket to her. My rights, again, were not violated. The order of bidding doesn't matter in this sense. Hell, the man might be 100 miles away taking online offers for the trinket. 20 offers might come in at different times, and he might select the one that has the best font. Nobody's rights were violated, because nobody can force him into that transaction against his will.

[quote][quote]Force someone? No one gets forced. It goes like this, people apply. If someone feels they've been discriminated against, they sue. The investigation happens, ruling or settlement is made, and both parties go on their separate ways.[/quote] The employer is 1) found guilty of a crime (which would imply that he violated somebody's rights), and is 2) punished. That isn't justified. The employer's wealth is being confiscated because he didn't comply with the state-mandated standards. He either enters the transaction (hires the applicant), or he faces punishment for discriminating. [quote]And by supporting the "right" to do something, yes you support that thing. That's what supporting is. You're an enabler. Your freedom as a consumer is restricted when someone refuses your business. So again, you're pro business, not pro consumer.[/quote] Okay. So I guess you could label me as pro-marijuana, which I am in a sense. You've labeled me. Specifically, you've labeled me as "pro-business." Fantastic. What's the point? I support the right of an employer to set standards to his liking, no matter how irrational they seem. They are, after all, going to face the consequences (or reap the rewards, depending on how it turns out) of their actions. So you can say I'm pro-discrimination, but that doesn't necessarily detract from my point. I could label you, too, but that wouldn't really do much to change your mind. [quote]1). That's the ability to change their prices, not discrimination. He has the ability to sell the item at whatever he deems fit.[/quote] His reasons were his own. He took less profit for some reason. Let's assume that he did it because he's a sexist. I'm a man, and he didn't want a man to buy his trinket. Now what? My rights still aren't violated, because I still don't have a right to force him into a transaction. [quote]2). Since he isn't in a formal shop there's a good chance he isn't a licensed business man and is merely selling the items illegally[/quote] We can head down Semantics Boulevard, but I think the hypothetical explanation was adequate. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all of his permits were in order. That doesn't bear relevance to the topic at hand. [quote]3). The deal was already struck between him and her, you merely came in at the last second and offered.[/quote] Again, we can change the situation. The lady arrive after me. I offer $10. She offers $3, afterwards. The man takes the deal with her. Again, my rights aren't violated. [quote]4). That has nothing to do with the situation. He did not discriminate against you, he merely already made a deal with someone else and did not renege on the deal.[/quote] Go back to my example of sexism. Assume he discriminated against me because of my sex. It doesn't change the fact that I can't force him into the transaction. [quote]5). Again, Your personal freedoms, were not violated because he was open to anyone. If you had been there prior, you could have bought the trinket. The personal freedoms to shop anywhere as long as you can afford the items was not violated as he did not discriminate against you. He did not refuse you because you were black, or white, or missing a limb. He refused because of an already made deal.[/quote] Once more, assume he did discriminate against some arbitrary characteristic of mine. Also assume that I made the first offer. I have blue eyes. The lady has brown eyes. I make the first offer of $10, and the lady comes along and offers $3. The man sells the trinket to her. My rights, again, were not violated. The order of bidding doesn't matter in this sense. Hell, the man might be 100 miles away taking online offers for the trinket. 20 offers might come in at different times, and he might select the one that has the best font. Nobody's rights were violated, because nobody can force him into that transaction against his will.[/quote] You're full of shit. You changed the situation to suit your own needs after your first one broke. The "pro business" part is to let you know that you aren't for economic freedom. You're for business freedom, consumer be damned. And the labeling as pro discrimination is to let you know you aren't for personal freedoms either, as people are allowed to lose them on account of being whatever. In your next bullshit scenario the one with sexism, The trinket seller is discriminating against you, so you have the right to take him to court to ensure his next customers are all able to buy equally. But wait, you don't believe in consumer equality, so you won't. You do have the right to be treated equally, regardless of what you say. And I love how you so carefully ignored the grocery bit. That's nice. Because all information that doesn't support you gets thrown out. The font thing, is a silly scenario. Of the twenty offers, I would assume Mr font doesn't have the highest offer.. [spoiler]because then the scenario falls apart too easily[/spoiler]. Well, it still doesn't matter. As he chose the price he was willing to accept for it, and that person offered it. As he controls the prices and who specifically to sell it to. Just because you have the most money doesn't mean he has to sell it to you. You don't get to force your way in because you have the most money, the person who gives the right offer got it. Maybe that font reminded him of the grandkids he loves. Offer businesses don't work the same, and nice try thinking font is equal to race and sexual discrimination. Real equality right there. Anyway, let's sum it up. You do: Support discrimination Support businesses Shift scenarios when they don't work and try to act like it's the same thing You don't: Support consumer freedoms Support personal freedoms Understand how offers work Support equality, hooks to personal freedoms, but whatever. And you know, that cake example everyone loves? It would be possible for then to turn down the gay couple if say, they had too many orders and it wouldn't be done on time. It does go both ways. The business cannot refuse you because of your personal traits excluding that you don't have the proper allowance for the item. And the customer doesn't have the right to force business onto the shop because they're, take your pick.

[quote]You're full of shit. You changed the situation to suit your own needs after your first one broke.[/quote] Nothing broke. We can assume that the situation goes down 100 different ways. [b]The fact of the matter is that the vendor is free to sell under his own terms.[/b] [quote]The "pro business" part is to let you know that you aren't for economic freedom. You're for business freedom, consumer be damned. And the labeling as pro discrimination is to let you know you aren't for personal freedoms either, as people are allowed to lose them on account of being whatever.[/quote] Ignorant. My current argument is in favor of economic freedom - that people are free to set their own hiring standards. "Business freedom"? Sure, if that's what you want to call it. The consumer is operating freely, just as the business owner is. Nobody has to be coerced. Nobody has to be punished. And, as I've demonstrated, you don't lose your "personal freedoms" by being discriminated against by a private business owner. The man sells the trinket to the lady because he doesn't like my accent. I've been discriminated against, but my rights weren't violated. I don't have a right to make him sell to me. [quote]In your next bullshit scenario the one with sexism, The trinket seller is discriminating against you, so you have the right to take him to court to ensure his next customers are all able to buy equally. But wait, you don't believe in consumer equality, so you won't. You do have the right to be treated equally, regardless of what you say.[/quote] Nope. I've been discriminated against, certainly. My rights weren't violated, though. I have the right to be treated equally? In one sense, I do. The state cannot rightfully discriminate against me. However, private citizens should certainly be allowed to. They own their business. The man owns the trinket. He can sell it to whom he pleases. Again, I don't have a right to force him into that transaction. [quote]And I love how you so carefully ignored the grocery bit. That's nice. Because all information that doesn't support you gets thrown out.[/quote] Perhaps you ignored the part where I said, "The order of bidding doesn't matter in this sense. Hell, the man might be 100 miles away taking online offers for the trinket. 20 offers might come in at different times, and he might select the one that has the best font. Nobody's rights were violated, because nobody can force him into that transaction against his will." The grocery example was referring to the order in which a bid was placed. The order is irrelevant, as is the amount, when it comes to the seller's rights. But then you said - [quote]The font thing, is a silly scenario. Of the twenty offers, I would assume Mr font doesn't have the highest offer..[/quote] Just as the lady didn't have the highest offer on the street. The seller is still free to sell the trinket on his own terms. His terms might not make much sense to us, but he still gets to make them. But you understand that, because you say - [quote]As he chose the price he was willing to accept for it, and that person offered it. As he controls the prices and who specifically to sell it to. Just because you have the most money doesn't mean he has to sell it to you. You don't get to force your way in because you have the most money, the person who gives the right offer got it. Maybe that font reminded him of the grandkids he loves. Offer businesses don't work the same, and nice try thinking font is equal to race and sexual discrimination. Real equality right there.[/quote] Is font equal to race and sexual discrimination? On ethical grounds, arguably not. But imagine that the man requires you to list your sex on the offer. 19 women offer, and 1 man offers. The seller is a sexist, and he gives the trinket to the man. His motivations might seem unethical, but he's still operating within his rights. [quote]Support discrimination[/quote] Sure, in the sense that private citizens ought to be able to associate with whom they so choose. [quote]Support businesses[/quote] I do. But this applies to anybody. Even a non-business owner can tell his black neighbor to stay off his lawn. [quote]Shift scenarios when they don't work and try to act like it's the same thing[/quote] You act like I made some fundamental change to the scenario when I obviously didn't. The lady makes a small offer. I come up and make a larger offer. The seller chooses the lady. My rights aren't violated. We can add endless conditions to the situation, but the principle remains the same - my rights weren't violated. We can change the order in which the offers were made, but my rights still aren't violated. We could give a specific motive to the seller - he's a sexist - but my rights aren't violated. The seller owns the trinket, and he can sell it to whom he pleases for any reason. It doesn't violate my rights for him to choose irrationally. [quote]Support consumer freedoms[/quote] That doesn't even make sense. I possess the exact same protected rights as the seller. I could choose to not buy from him because he's a man. I could go across the street and buy a trinket from a woman vendor. I've discriminated against him, but his rights weren't violated. I can do what I want with my cash, just as he can do what he wants with his trinket. I don't support the idea that, by virtue of being a consumer, I can violate the rights of the seller. [quote]Support personal freedoms[/quote] The irony of this one must be lost on you. You're talking to the guy arguing that a private citizen ought to have the freedom to choose the people with whom they associate. I'm a Libertarian. You won't find a bigger supporter of personal freedoms. [quote]Understand how offers work[/quote] As we've seen, the orders of the offers are irrelevant. We can switch the order around. I make a large offer first, and then the woman butts in. The man sells the trinket to the woman. Still, my rights aren't violated. [quote]Support equality, hooks to personal freedoms, but whatever.[/quote] I support equal rights. The consumer and the seller have the exact same rights and the exact same protections. I don't get to violate the seller's ownership of his property by virtue of being a consumer. I also don't get to violate somebody's ownership of their business by virtue of being a certain gender. They can choose to not associate with me, and I can choose to not associate with them. No coercion or punishment required. [quote]And you know, that cake example everyone loves? It would be possible for then to turn down the gay couple if say, they had too many orders and it wouldn't be done on time. It does go both ways. The business cannot refuse you because of your personal traits excluding that you don't have the proper allowance for the item.[/quote] Hence my argument. I posit that the business owner should be able to deny service for any reason. It's their business - their labor. It's the man's shop - his trinket. People own these things, and they can do what they want with them. [quote]And the customer doesn't have the right to force business onto the shop because they're, take your pick.[/quote] The customer cannot force the business to cater to them. The business cannot force the customer to do business with them. Freedom of association. Associate with whom you please.

You're ignorant. It's really that simple, and don't want to see it. I've proven it over several different arguments. In the end, your entire standpoint can be summed up by this A white man has been injured, he will die if he is not treated. The only doctor for ten miles refuses his services because he's white. The man dies. This, is alright with you, because he's a private practice. His personal rights to life have vanished because of that mans "rights of association". You may associate as a libertarian, but you've got the shadiest sense of human rights I've ever seen. Not to mention the most ado about nothing in your posts. You have a lot of filler in your responses. Bye Felicia. Thanks for playing [spoiler]this, is condescending. And meant to be an attack on your personal being, as you don't seem to understand coherent rational thoughts. Stay stuck in your rut, that's what America needs.[/spoiler]

You got absolutely destroyed holy hell.