I'm conflicted on "public accommodation" laws

[Boshembechle]

On the one hand, I see where the left is coming from. Businesses benefit from services (roads, police, plumbing) that are party financed by the very people that they could potentially discriminate against. Why is it fair that a gay man is forced to pay taxes that go towards public service that the business benefits from? That doesn't seem fair to me, and I think this is the primary reason why public accommodate was created in the first place.

On the other hand, it does set a dangerous precedent to justify government regulation of private behavior (such a choosing who to serve) simply on the grounds that such private persons use public services. That could open the door to a slew of bad things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Businesses benefit from services (roads, police, plumbing) that are party financed by the very people that they could potentially discriminate against.

You're talking theoretically, so theoretically, everyone benefits. Not just business. It's a wash.




Why is it fair that a gay man is forced to pay taxes that go towards public service that the business benefits from?

The gay also benefits. Just like everyone in your theoretical scenario.






I'm conflicted on "public accommodation" laws


Oh, knock it off already. You're not conflicted on anything.

Your disingenuous posting history of explaining your dual forum identities* means that your "conflicted" statement is baloney. I used to think you were writing essays, but now I think you might just be another ZippyJuan type.


* Your thread title: "Time to admit who I am" http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456258-Time-to-admit-who-I-am

[dannno]

The business pays taxes for the roads, taxes for police, bills for utilities.. that is a poor argument that some how gay people or any group is financing other people's businesses just because they pay taxes, too. Not to mention government hurts business, businesses would do much better if they weren't under the thumb of government. The whole idea that businesses owe society more than their 'fair share' of taxes, which some may argue is wrong to begin with, doesn't make any logical sense.

[Acala]

The fact that people are forced to pay for, and use, "public" benefits is no excuse for depriving them of more freedom.

[phill4paul]

Businesses partly finance services (roads, police, plumbing) that everyone uses therefore everyone should be forced to do business at their establishment.

[jmdrake]

On the one hand, I see where the left is coming from. Businesses benefit from services (roads, police, plumbing) that are party financed by the very people that they could potentially discriminate against. Why is it fair that a gay man is forced to pay taxes that go towards public service that the business benefits from? That doesn't seem fair to me, and I think this is the primary reason why public accommodate was created in the first place.

On the other hand, it does set a dangerous precedent to justify government regulation of private behavior (such a choosing who to serve) simply on the grounds that such private persons use public services. That could open the door to a slew of bad things.

No. That's not the reason public accommodation laws were passed. The reason they were passed is an attempt to rectify the effects of forced discrimination. Schools were forced by law to discriminate. In some states even private schools were forced to discriminate. And what wasn't done by government force was accomplished through paramilitary force. The KKK was very strong in parts of this country from the late 1860s through the 1960s so much so that they had the power to sway gubernatorial elections. (Candidate George Wallace actually supported "negro rights" until he got beat in his race for governor by someone endorsed by the KKK.) White businesses that might want to serve black people were afraid to do so.

If you look at the history of the civil rights movement, private businesses were starting to desegregate prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Passing the CRA certainly speeded up the process. But businesses could have gotten around it if they really wanted to. In the Ollie's BBQ case that affirmed application of the CRA against segregated restaurants, the High Court noted that if Ollie's had simply bought all of its food from in state, the CRA wouldn't have applied. So....why didn't Ollie's and other restaurants simply buy all of their food in state and continue discriminating? Because businesses are about making money. Southern businesses needed political cover in order to be able to serve black customers and not face the wrath of the KKK and/or massive boycotts by their white customers.

In contrast, do you honestly believe that there are businesses who feel "intimidated" into not serving gays? I would say looking at what happened with Chic-Fil-A the opposite is true. Not only has Chic-Fil-A never had a "don't serve gay people" policy, but the company was forced to apologize for one executive having a political opinion against gay marriage and donating money to groups that feel the same. Is there some discrimination against gays? Yes. Is there discrimination against overweight unattractive women? Have you ever seen one working at Hooters? Here's the deal. There has never been the level of discrimination against gays that there once was against blacks. (Black kid Emit Till was beaten to death for whistling at a white woman. Black gay civil rights icon Byron Rustin was arrested multiple times while having sex with white men in cars, but he was only charged with the same "lewdness" charge that a heterosexual would have been charged with and he was never beaten.) And now it is economically disadvantageous to discriminate against gays just like it is to discriminate against blacks. The market works. Really a bakery that advertises "We bake gay wedding cakes" will likely see a jump in business not just from gays, but from "trendy" heterosexuals who want to support "gay friendly" businesses.

[milgram]

Is there discrimination against overweight unattractive women?
That could easily be the next social justice campaign, right? Last December EU courts ruled that obesity is a disability, so clearly it's a movement that can garner significant attention.

It seems like only a matter of time before the next cause is picked up in the US. Whenever advocacy for the current crop of victims reaches some political conclusion, another group - which is probably less aggrieved - must be swapped in to begin the whole process anew.

[presence]

Businesses partly finance services (roads, police, plumbing) that everyone uses therefore everyone should be forced to do business at their establishment.

lol reminds me of finding a place to take a piss in NYC

[erowe1]

On the one hand, I see where the left is coming from. Businesses benefit from services (roads, police, plumbing) that are party financed by the very people that they could potentially discriminate against. Why is it fair that a gay man is forced to pay taxes that go towards public service that the business benefits from? That doesn't seem fair to me, and I think this is the primary reason why public accommodate was created in the first place.

On the other hand, it does set a dangerous precedent to justify government regulation of private behavior (such a choosing who to serve) simply on the grounds that such private persons use public services. That could open the door to a slew of bad things.

Of course a gay man should not have to pay taxes for services to a business he doesn't want to support.

The correct solution to that problem is obvious.

[fisharmor]

The fact that people are forced to pay for, and use, "public" benefits is no excuse for depriving them of more freedom.

My house was on a well up until 2002 when I bought it. The county specifically mandated that the previous owner connect it to city water before it was sold to me.


Businesses partly finance services (roads, police, plumbing) that everyone uses therefore everyone should be forced to do business at their establishment.

I think skydiving companies should be forced to accept paraplegics as clients.

This gives me another idea. I think sometime when I'm about 60 years old I'll try to enlist in the Marines.
When they don't take me, I'll sue them for age discrimination and score an easy million.

[Ronin Truth]

I've come around to the idea of "public accommodation" laws being one more very good argument against starting any kind of businesses that serves the public.