I support the Indiana law (not for religious purposes), but I have a question

[Boshembechle]

First off, I believe that free speech extends into business practices. Business owners should have a right to express their beliefs through choosing who to not and who to do business with.

My one problem is this: Libertarians and others who are skeptical of "public accommodation" and intrusion into transaction practices of private firms often correctly assert that businesses who choose to be racist or sexist or bigoted not only lose customers who they deny service to, but also customers who are outraged by such behavior. In other words, discrimination is a bad economic decision for a business.

BUT: what about a society in which MOST consumers/customers are racist/sexist/bigoted themselves? For example, the American south till the 1960s. In a society such as that, not only was it not easy for blacks to find firms that would accept their business, but it actually MADE SENSE financially for firms to engage in racist exclusionary behavior, as that is what the customers wanted. In other words, how would you address the "minority groups are free to take their business elsewhere and racist firms will go out of business" talking point in a society in which RACISM (or sexism or homophobia) is the MAJORITY opinion of customers in a given scenario?

In other words, I support the indiana law because firms should be free to both be homophobic and to face the financial consequences. However, when the customer base at large SUPPORTS the same viewpoint as the firm, then I get a bit skeptical.

How would you address this?

And for those of you who will leave the comments about me having y'all write my essay for me....F off!

[tod evans]

How would you address this?

I wouldn't 'cause don't give a $#@!.

[Origanalist]

I wouldn't 'cause don't give a $#@!.

Somebody needs sensitivity training.....

[HVACTech]

Somebody needs sensitivity training.....

and you wonder why you got kicked out of the Ladies Lounge...

sheesh

[Sola_Fide]

First off, I believe that free speech extends into business practices. Business owners should have a right to express their beliefs through choosing who to not and who to do business with.

My one problem is this: Libertarians and others who are skeptical of "public accommodation" and intrusion into transaction practices of private firms often correctly assert that businesses who choose to be racist or sexist or bigoted not only lose customers who they deny service to, but also customers who are outraged by such behavior. In other words, discrimination is a bad economic decision for a business.

BUT: what about a society in which MOST consumers/customers are racist/sexist/bigoted themselves? For example, the American south till the 1960s. In a society such as that, not only was it not easy for blacks to find firms that would accept their business, but it actually MADE SENSE financially for firms to engage in racist exclusionary behavior, as that is what the customers wanted. In other words, how would you address the "minority groups are free to take their business elsewhere and racist firms will go out of business" talking point in a society in which RACISM (or sexism or homophobia) is the MAJORITY opinion of customers in a given scenario?

In other words, I support the indiana law because firms should be free to both be homophobic and to face the financial consequences. However, when the customer base at large SUPPORTS the same viewpoint as the firm, then I get a bit skeptical.

How would you address this?

And for those of you who will leave the comments about me having y'all write my essay for me....F off!

One of the questions that you must ask yourself is "what is the alternative to freedom?"

When you ask yourself this question, freedom...no matter how "ugly" some might think it is...is preferable to the alternative of control and tyranny.

[DamianTV]

Equal Rights means the only limits we have to our Rights are the Equal Rights of others.

While we can hold ultimate authority over ourselves, efforts to extend that authority to demand that someone else be forced to provide something is a Violation of their Equal Rights. People do have a Right to be Gay or Black or Women or Jewish. What I can not do with my Rights is demand that they not be Gay or Black, etc. Likewise, they can not demand something from me because they are Gay or Black or anything else. I have discriminated against people before because of attitudes and behavior, not because of something that is beyond the scope of my self authority to change. Treat me like dog $#@! and I can refuse to provide service. If I treat someone else like $#@!, they can also refuse me service. The thing is, I think when we get the Law involved in this, things just get more $#@!ed up instead of coming to a natural conclusion. A racist person that would discriminate against a particular group of people that opens a buisness where the predominant group is one they are racist against only results in the death of that business, thus, a natural resolution. I go to Iraq and open a 7-11 and refuse to serve any Brown People, I am going to go out of business. Simple as that. Thus, it would be wise on my part to not discriminate based on Skin Color, but to try to accomodate as many as is reasonable. Thus, refusing to serve $#@!s while still providing for the majority of people regardless of skin color or other discriminatory topics would be the better business decision.

Race, at least in the USA is merely the application of a Divide and Conquer tactic, which many use to continue the validation of existence of anti discrimination laws. The Govt solution to the problem tends to be much worse than the problem itself. People can and usually do work things out without interference. Once that Interference is introduced, you end up with a War of Escalation which tends to be much worse than the original problem.

So I agree with Tod, $#@! that Law. Not because of the intention of the Law, but because it validates the continued interference by Govt in everything.

[fisharmor]

BUT: what about a society in which MOST consumers/customers are racist/sexist/bigoted themselves? For example, the American south till the 1960s.

The racism problem in the south was never just a problem with individual businesses. It was inherent in the state.
If blacks were able to start their own competing businesses, then the problem would have self-corrected within 15 years.
But since the state exists and regulates who is and who is not allowed to start a business, it therefore is also (erroneously) given the power to dictate what that business may or may not do.

If the state had stayed the hell out of every facet of running a business, including starting one, then you might have a point with a "most consumers racist" argument. If the situation happened absent state micromanaging of business throughout the period, then yeah, we'd have to answer how come libertarianism isn't solving race issues.

But the example you bring up was not a free market. It was a controlled market where blacks weren't just disallowed from certain establishments: they were disallowed from competing freely. So that argument falls flat.

[HVACTech]

So I agree with Tod, $#@! that Law. Not because of the intention of the Law, but because it validates the continued interference by Govt in everything.

Reported.

clearly an anti-conspiracy theory denier.

[oyarde]

Has anybody read the bill ?

[Origanalist]

Has anybody read the bill ?

Why would we do that?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The idea that this is a "problem" that needs "addressing" means one is defending freedom of association, not as an absolute ability that extends from controlling a piece of property. You are conceding that free association is in theory an ability afforded to all, but in practice some evil that needs reigning in, lest some cultural outsider be turned away. It's like asking "if we have total free speech, how do we stop black people's feelings from getting hurt"? You don't. Freedom means that a lot of things that liberals find distasteful or even evil would be as common dirt; that is something to celebrate, not rationalize away.

[dougx]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason. The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

People need to quit inventing fake reasons to discriminate against others. Get your liberal cousin to make the wedding cake if you're too delicate to do it.

It's just too much of a slippery slope. What if the business owner claims he saw the customer with a limp wrist but the customer said he wasn't gay. How does that work out?

[Christian Liberty]

"Homophobia" is a good thing, because homosexuality is disgusting.

[luctor-et-emergo]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason. The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

People need to quit inventing fake reasons to discriminate against others. Get your liberal cousin to make the wedding cake if you're too delicate to do it.

It's just too much of a slippery slope. What if the business owner claims he saw the customer with a limp wrist but the customer said he wasn't gay. How does that work out?

If that business owner does that a couple times it will probably lead to bankruptcy. Free to make stupid mistakes, free to be an $#@! and yes, free to go bankrupt.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And for those of you who will leave the comments about me having y'all write my essay for me....F off!

Oh, I see. Guess you're now back to your original persona of someone who "trolled (played the devil's advocate) this site, spouting common socialist beliefs, so that I could gain new knowledge and insight." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...admit-who-I-am).

Anyway, your thread is full of assumptions with the usual liberal themes, including how the **** and blackie are so delicate and weak that they need whitey to wipe their ass for them.

History is full of Harlem Renaissances, Branch Rickeys, Beale Streets, etc. It even extends to the more mundane, such as Coach Ridley's basketball success at Tennessee's Pearl High and the many others like them whose stories are untold.

Now, I'm sure RPF's Democrats, like PRB, ZippyJuan, or TheCount, will be along shortly to also play "devil's advocate." They will backhandedly claim that pointing out historical successes of so-called minorities represents the libertarian's pining for the days of slavery. They will never focus on how the gay or a woman can't do something without condescending government.

So stick my opinion in your paper, your pipe, or wherever you like for your purpose. You're welcome.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

People need to quit inventing fake reasons to discriminate against others.

People need to quit inventing fake reasons that claim discrimination.

Get your liberal cousin to make the wedding cake if you're too delicate to do it.

Get your government off my hard working business if you're too delicate to do things for yourself.

[KCIndy]

Has anybody read the bill ?

Here's the link (opens in PDF form) to the final version if anyone's interested:

http://www.indianahouserepublicans.c...RFRA%20Law.pdf

[euphemia]

I think the views shared by the OP are heterophobic, Christophobic, captialistophobic, and Americaphobic.

[Henry Rogue]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason.

Why democracy is at it's core evil.

The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

I don't know about you, but my property taxes pays for a third of the width of the road in front of my property. If i had property on both sides of a road then it would pay for two/thirds of that road. Same goes for the businesses in my community. Everyone who provides a good or service, contributes to society as a whole, although their intentions may be purely selfish, this is the greatest of positive externalities. What's more, people have no choice but to use the rent seekers roads. If one is forced into a cesspool, telling him to stop swimming if he doesn't like his situation, isn't much of an argument. As for the costumed gangs, they shouldn't exist as an institution.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason. The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

Yeah, what about the businesses that can't succeed because of over regulation? Progs like to point out the success stories and credit the state, but they never do the same for the failures... Wonder why...

People need to quit inventing fake reasons to discriminate against others.

People need to quit creating fake designations like "gender*****" and "nonbinary" to justify their own lack of identity within the modern world.

Get your liberal cousin to make the wedding cake if you're too delicate to do it.

Why is the onus on the business owner?

It's just too much of a slippery slope. What if the business owner claims he saw the customer with a limp wrist but the customer said he wasn't gay. How does that work out?

Badly for that guy. Freedom leads to unpleasant consequences sometimes.

[DamianTV]

Doing Business should be like Sex; BOTH parties must concent.

[cindy25]

I also support it, but was it necessary? it could lead to unintended problems, and loss of votes for those who support it in a general. and yet to win a primary they will need to support it.

[Origanalist]

I also support it, but was it necessary? it could lead to unintended problems, and loss of votes for those who support it in a general. and yet to win a primary they will need to support it.

There's always "unintended consequences". Great point.

[Origanalist]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason. The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

People need to quit inventing fake reasons to discriminate against others. Get your liberal cousin to make the wedding cake if you're too delicate to do it.

It's just too much of a slippery slope. What if the business owner claims he saw the customer with a limp wrist but the customer said he wasn't gay. How does that work out?

Quit defecating on a perfectly good name.

[oyarde]

I also support it, but was it necessary? it could lead to unintended problems, and loss of votes for those who support it in a general. and yet to win a primary they will need to support it.

You are correct , I think , not needed... as far as votes , nah , just my guess .

[Cleaner44]

If you have a business, you have to serve everyone, within reason. The public protects and supports your business with roads, police protection, etc.

Wrong. I don't have to serve everyone and I don't. In fact I just told somone threee weeks ago that I will not ever do business with him. I will never take his money or deliver any services. I reserve the right to refuse service for any reason that I want to. I will not enter into a relationship with a customer by force. It is my business and I will decide who I will have relationships with and who I will not.

I can not force a customer into a relationship. I can't force anyone to buy from me and I should never be able to. Now I realize that people with insurance comanies love that they can get people like Obama, Reid and Boehner to force people to buy their products, but I don't have that luxury and I never should. Customers should always have freedom of choice, just like business owners.

[thoughtomator]

I have heard suggestions that this will lead to businesses operating under Sharia law, an outcome which would be absolutely hilarious.

[milgram]

So Mike Pence doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the governor's mansion. He supports this bill yet cannot answer basic questions about it. Yesterday George Stephanopoulos asked him at least four times if it should be legal to discriminate against gay couples. He dodged the question each time.



Are the relevant concepts (competing rights, freedom to associate, etc.) really that hard to explain, or is it considered political suicide to even try to do so?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So Mike Pence doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the governor's mansion. He supports this bill yet cannot answer basic questions about it. Yesterday George Stephanopoulos asked him at least four times if it should be legal to discriminate against gay couples. He dodged the question each time.




Are the relevant concepts (competing rights, freedom to associate, etc.) really that hard to explain, or is it considered political suicide to even try to do so?

Mike Pence has no balls.

[jmdrake]

First off, I believe that free speech extends into business practices. Business owners should have a right to express their beliefs through choosing who to not and who to do business with.

My one problem is this: Libertarians and others who are skeptical of "public accommodation" and intrusion into transaction practices of private firms often correctly assert that businesses who choose to be racist or sexist or bigoted not only lose customers who they deny service to, but also customers who are outraged by such behavior. In other words, discrimination is a bad economic decision for a business.

BUT: what about a society in which MOST consumers/customers are racist/sexist/bigoted themselves? For example, the American south till the 1960s. In a society such as that, not only was it not easy for blacks to find firms that would accept their business, but it actually MADE SENSE financially for firms to engage in racist exclusionary behavior, as that is what the customers wanted. In other words, how would you address the "minority groups are free to take their business elsewhere and racist firms will go out of business" talking point in a society in which RACISM (or sexism or homophobia) is the MAJORITY opinion of customers in a given scenario?

In other words, I support the indiana law because firms should be free to both be homophobic and to face the financial consequences. However, when the customer base at large SUPPORTS the same viewpoint as the firm, then I get a bit skeptical.

How would you address this?

And for those of you who will leave the comments about me having y'all write my essay for me....F off!

Did you know that the lunch counters in Nashville that were the target of the infamous "sit ins" during the 1960s desegregated prior to the passage of the civil rights act?

When you look at Chic-Fil-A, which never refused service to gays, apologizing for a personal opinion about gay marriage due to public pressure, how does your comparison racial discrimination the 1950s even compare?

Seriously, common sense should tell you that we've reached a cultural tipping point in this country where is more economically viable to be politically correct on the liberal end than it is to be politically correct on the conservative end. Let me know when you can come up with one solid example, besides the Dixie Chicks, of a right wing economic boycott that amounted to squat.