http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6506354.shtml
Three comments from Paul in there that make him sound like either a total corporate bootlicker or an absolute moron.
Printable View
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6506354.shtml
Three comments from Paul in there that make him sound like either a total corporate bootlicker or an absolute moron.
Looks to me he'd fit right in with the bunch of idiots that have gone before him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
"Too many ob-gyn's aren't able to practice their love with women across this country" GWB 09/06/08
"I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." -Arnold Swarzenegger 2003
"I remember landing under sniper fire"
-- Hillary Clinton
"Every week we don't pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.'' -Nancy Pelosi
"We have to pass the bill to know what is in it." -Nancy Pelosi
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." --Bill Bennett
Shit... Rand could be president with the crop of morons we currently have.. (shakes head)
As long as a business depends on the public roads for the transport of persons and goods, as long as a business depends on the public mails for communication and advertisement, as long as a business depends on the police to guard the neighborhood in which it resides from crime, as long it it depends on the fire company to keep it secure from fire etc. etc. etc. there is a place for government within its walls to protect the civil liberties of its clients and workers.
Nobody makes money or does anything else without the society at large. Everybody has a responsibility. Something that the Randian egoists keep denying.
That was a short trip, Trish. Thought you were foing to be gone for a couple of weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Yea and those same services are used by individuals for non-business purposes, yet it is deemed that you have a right of association. The issue lies in the core belief that some hold in which they see making a living as a privilege instead of a right.
I'm certainly not advocating that a business should be able to do things that an individual cannot, but I also think the fact that money making is in the equation shouldn't change the rights a person has. If one can choose not to associate with someone (for whatever reason) as an individual then they should have that same freedom when running their business.
"If one can choose not to associate with someone (for whatever reason) as an individual then they should have that same freedom when running their business."
This is of course pure belief, without reason. However, there is a distinction between business associations and other kinds of interactions. You know when you're doing business and when you're not. Everyone knows the distinction between business and pleasure, business and friendship etc. Why should the language of rights not make the distinction?
It is ground in reason. If providing for yourself is a fundamental right (which it is under almost any definition of fundamental right) and a right of association is a fundamental right (which it is according to our constitution), then you cannot separate the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Take a different approach for a moment. Say the government decides tomorrow that you must sell your goods to anyone regardless of their expressed political views. Now a Nazi group comes in and demands a seat in your restaurant, but you hate what they stand for and do not want to serve them. However, the government has decreed that you must or you lose your business license and face suit. So you are now placed in the untenable situation of deciding whether or not to harm your mode of survival or violate your right of conscience.
Now, of course you will point out that the law doesn't take that step in regard to political views, but applying your logic it could without violating anyone's rights. Also, some will state that the law primarily deals with race, which is distinct from political view. However, it also covers religious beliefs, and those happen to be quite similar to political beliefs.
For example, you run a restaurant and happen to dislike the stance that Southern Baptist groups take on gay marriage. So a Southern Baptist group comes in for lunch and you refuse to serve them because you have a policy to not associate with members of that Church. Congratulations are now in order because you have just violated Title 42 §2000a subsection (a) of the United States Code.
Long post, but my point is that as foolish as some forms of discrimination may be others are ground in sound logic and deep moral conviction, and private entities must be left to make their own choice of association if we are to protect the rights of all free individuals.
The right of association is simply not the interpretable as the right not to do business with. What's the difficulty here? If you're business is open to the public, then it's open to the public. Long post for a non-issue.
I won't because the law does. What do you think a creed is? Sorry, but you don't get to discriminate over politics either. You're not talking about association. You're talking about somebody eating. You just happen to be the one with the food. How about taking it another step. How about the grocer or the farmer? Should they withhold food because they don't like someone? Of course not. There's a distinction between business & association. There's no interference with anyone's ability to earn a livelyhood at all. If you don't want to be open to the public, go "members only".Quote:
Now, of course you will point out that the law doesn't take that step in regard to political views...
About the only loophole left to assholes is sexual orientation. In '64, everybody was scared to death of the "S" word, so it almost never made it into the law, & was added as a last minute amendment to the bill as a gender discimination issue. (That year or the next, Darren & Samantha Stevens [Bewitched] became the first TV couple to sleep in the same bed. Very risque.) Since "the gay" isn't mentioned directly, assholes at the State level have been real busy making sure that non-heteros can't be protected, & the assholes in Congress would love to take it a step beyond marriage. Sooner or later, somebody's going to figure out how to argue the 9th Amendment. In the meantime, the assholishness is getting whittled away & the stigma is shriveling. Before you know it, the only ones left who it will be politically correct & socially acceptable to hate will be the French.
Yes they should be able to, for the reasons I addressed above.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Trish: You know as well as I do that they are not separate things. Association and business are very intertwined. Besides your argument is weak in the fact that places "open to the public" refuse people on other grounds all the time.
Bars/Clubs for instance will refuse ppl dressed a certain way, people of a certain age, people not "beautiful" enough, etc. They're open to the public but still choose which members of the public they will serve.