forced acceptance of homosexuality.

[Larry Gude]

You...

When something is a life-saving issue, I do believe there is a "general welfare" provision in the constitution that gives the federal government oversight into such an issue. When it's whether or not someone's teeth are whitened, or they can be inseminated, or they get a latte from the store of their choice, I see (personally) no such "general welfare" that would put the government into play.You're mistaking the reason of discrimination for the reason discrimination should be allowed. If we truly are a free society, a capitalist society, then anyone has the right to build or destroy their business as they see fit.

I would not go to a store or restaraunt that denied service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc. I doubt you would, either. Therefore, if a place of business chose that avenue, they would probably go under. That's freedom - freedom to succeed or fail all on your own. I really don't care what the reason is this doc decided not to serve this customer. I just believe a business has the right to deny service as they see fit. I do not believe the government has the right to deny service as they see fit, as they are BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE. Target is not. Target is a private organization. Should they choose to only serve pretty young black girls in short skirts, they have that right. And, they have the right to fail. And, if you're a pretty young girl in a short skirt, you have the right to recognize that would be a stupid, discriminatory, abhorant action on Target's part, and not frequent the store.

I do not see the constitutional authority for the government to tell me who, as a business owner, I have to provide my product/services to. Unless there is a compelling "general welfare" component (say, an ER doctor, an electricity provider, a single grocery store within hundreds of miles, etc., etc.), I see no authority nor reason for the law/government to be involved at all.

If you want the government to ensure private social equality for all, forced upon people, I think you're in the wrong. That's all.

...know, that's just what all sorts of people and business's used to say back before it became illegal to discriminate based on race and sex.

I find it interesting that you see a general welfare provision in the constitution that compels people to act against their will in some case but not others yet you can't begin to find a general welfare provision for a city or state to declare certain conditions in exchange permission to set up shop.

Actually, I don't find it interesting. People carve out exceptions for their own prejudices and bias's and that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about handicap laws? Careful here. It's a trap.

 

[bcp]

..
Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about handicap laws? Careful here. It's a trap.

which laws and which handicaps are you referring to, different handicaps deserve different assistance and or treatment.

 

[Larry Gude]

Very...

which laws and which handicaps are you referring to, different handicaps deserve different assistance and or treatment.

...good! You sidestepped that rather adroitly. You are proving to be a very discriminating person.

 

[This_person]

...know, that's just what all sorts of people and business's used to say back before it became illegal to discriminate based on race and sex.

You mean I'm not alone in my opinion? That's good to know.

I don't support discrimination, I just don't think it's reasonable to enforce discrimination laws on private enterprise. The key word there is "laws". Entrepenuers will handle, though freedom and capitalism, ensuring services are available to all. Peer/society control will handle the issues of rewarding and punishing discriminators. The government can not, and should not, discriminate against any citizen in any way. Citizens have the right to be as stupid and backward as they want to be, provided they don't inflict harm on others.

I find it interesting that you see a general welfare provision in the constitution that compels people to act against their will in some case but not others yet you can't begin to find a general welfare provision for a city or state to declare certain conditions in exchange permission to set up shop.

Maybe the cities and states can (the tenth amendment pretty much allows for that). But, that's not the point here, unless the state's licensing of a fertility clinic states that all clients must be seen, regardless of anything. If there is not a specific statement to that effect on a license for the clinic, I see no law being violated by allowing a private business to not provide their service if they don't want to.

Again, though, it's a common sense kind of thing - it's not "all the time or none of the time" kind of a deal. If you're a plumber, you pretty much should always be able to decide how many clients you wish to serve. But, if you're in a publicly necessary type of position, like an ER doctor, you give up the right to determine that based upon your choice of profession. It's not that you give up the right period, because you choose to work in that position. So, the general welfare provision applies when there is a general welfare issue, but not when there is not.

Actually, I don't find it interesting. People carve out exceptions for their own prejudices and bias's and that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Well, I am prejudiced towards freedom, biased towards individual rights, that's a fact.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about handicap laws? Careful here. It's a trap.

What laws do you refer to? Are you asking me if I think it's right that a business must provide access for wheelchairs, that type of thing? Or, are you asking me if an owner of a bus company must hire a blind person so as not to discriminate against anyone for anything, ever?

 

[This_person]

...good! You sidestepped that rather adroitly. You are proving to be a very discriminating person.

I think you mistook someone else's answer to a question you asked me.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think everyone...

I think you mistook someone else's answer to a question you asked me.

...knows where everyone stands anyway.

 

[bcp]

...knows where everyone stands anyway.

do people really stand where they stand or do people stand where they stand just to create arguments

 

[Larry Gude]

Unless...

do people really stand where they stand or do people stand where they stand just to create arguments

...it's a tongue in cheek argument for the fun of it, I enter every discussion on here based on the premise of actually presenting my thought out and reasoned views subject to learning whatever I learn and/or good points folks make.

 

[This_person]

...it's a tongue in cheek argument for the fun of it, I enter every discussion on here based on the premise of actually presenting my thought out and reasoned views subject to learning whatever I learn and/or good points folks make.

Given that, I have to ask - is it possible you stopped thinking my point of view was bigotted long enough to consider its merits? Did I affect your opinion?

 

[Larry Gude]

You...

Given that, I have to ask - is it possible you stopped thinking my point of view was bigotted long enough to consider its merits? Did I affect your opinion?

...point of view is that of an absolutist. Absolutes begin and end, to me, with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. The rest are listed and to be accepted as is unless otherwise noted and/or modified of which there is much noting otherwise and modification.

Within the laws we have, the guidance they provide, the absolute right of an individual to do as they please, in commerce, does not exist. It is, by definition, subordinate to the wishes of the community via acceptance of the community being the agent that licenses, approves of, the business. Not the other way round.

You all on that side are consistent; you are full force for the absolute professional right to discriminate for any reason...any reason that is until you run up hard against something you suddenly see as an obligation of the business. Then, you are all for coercion. That alone, in my view, disqualifies your argument because all you're really saying is that you just disagree with this particular incident of coercion.

On that note, I give all due credit that you, at the very least, recognize an obligation of a business to accommodate, on some level, it's neighbors and community that has given it permission to operate. To those 100% committed to the idea of being able to discriminate in ANY and ALL circumstance, there is, obviously nothing to talk about with a person who sees zero obligation in return for the good will of the community and sees it as a sole function of the individual. Anarchy that way lies. We long ago moved out of caves and into a much more sophisticated world. I'm not real big on re-trying ideas we've outgrown especially when the reasons for leaving them to museums are so self evident. Or should be.

So, to me, this is a very simple argument of whether or not the community has the right to add to the list of requirements a provision declaring that you may open up shop as long as you are willing to provide your service free of personal bias and discrimination to those seeking your goods and services in good faith.

As this has long been pronounced an unacceptable accommodation and, in fact, a violation of the business's rights to those on your side, that is why we have courts.

It's been a very good debate in my view!

 

[This_person]

(Your)...point of view is that of an absolutist. Absolutes begin and end, to me, with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. The rest are listed and to be accepted as is unless otherwise noted and/or modified of which there is much noting otherwise and modification.

Huh?

Within the laws we have, the guidance they provide, the absolute right of an individual to do as they please, in commerce, does not exist. It is, by definition, subordinate to the wishes of the community via acceptance of the community being the agent that licenses, approves of, the business. Not the other way round.

So, there is an expectation that every business serve everyone, no matter what? The serious question that begs to be asked, then, is why there is virtually always a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in many places of business. Are those signs legal, in your opinion? CAN a business ever refuse to provide their service, other than the obvious (when they're closed, blind people driving, etc)?

You all on that side are consistent; you are full force for the absolute professional right to discriminate for any reason...any reason that is until you run up hard against something you suddenly see as an obligation of the business.

This is where I agree with your statement above - that business do HAVE to provide their service when it is a necessity - emergency medical, water, power, etc. I do not see a requirement in a licensing agreement to sell/provide your product/service to anyone at any time. I just don't.

Then, you are all for coercion. That alone, in my view, disqualifies your argument because all you're really saying is that you just disagree with this particular incident of coercion.

No, I'm saying that a service that is a real requirement implies that the provider will provide it when needed, and a service that is optional is optional for all.

On that note, I give all due credit that you, at the very least, recognize an obligation of a business to accommodate, on some level, it's neighbors and community that has given it permission to operate. To those 100% committed to the idea of being able to discriminate in ANY and ALL circumstance, there is, obviously nothing to talk about with a person who sees zero obligation in return for the good will of the community and sees it as a sole function of the individual. Anarchy that way lies. We long ago moved out of caves and into a much more sophisticated world. I'm not real big on re-trying ideas we've outgrown especially when the reasons for leaving them to museums are so self evident. Or should be.

Discrimination and bigotry will move the businesses to museums, but I don't see it as being the government's job to get involved in my business unless I provide a necessary service.

So, to me, this is a very simple argument of whether or not the community has the right to add to the list of requirements a provision declaring that you may open up shop as long as you are willing to provide your service free of personal bias and discrimination to those seeking your goods and services in good faith.

As this has long been pronounced an unacceptable accommodation and, in fact, a violation of the business's rights to those on your side, that is why we have courts.

It's been a very good debate in my view!

I agree it's been a good debate, and we've both been able to get our points across.