Should small businesses be allowed to discriminate?

[timosman]

In an effort to discourage frivolous lawsuits against small businesses, I think it would be a good idea to allow small businesses (less than 500 people according to US gov) to discriminate. It is hard to argue the impact of such a "discrimination" would be significant for anybody as they would always have an option of going to a bigger business where they would be guaranteed not to be discriminated against.

[Schifference]

Only if the business is owned, employed, or caters to people of color or any entity other than caucasian.

[angelatc]

You lose me at "allowed."

[Occam's Banana]

You lose me at "allowed."

/thread

[timosman]

/thread

If it only were so simple.

[RonZeplin]

Discrimination is an everyday thing. If you run a restaurant you will want to discriminate against against rotten botulism ridden food, so that your customers don't all croak, sue you, or just leave.

Same with people, throw the rotten ones out.

[dannno]

Should women be allowed to discriminate against who they sleep with

[timosman]

..

[fisharmor]

If it only were so simple.

It really is that simple.
If you're asking "should we allow X", there are two possible answers: "Yes", or "That's a stupid question".

Should we allow people to have 5 gallon flush toilets?
Yes.

Should we allow murder?
That's a stupid question.

[Occam's Banana]

If it only were so simple.

It really is that simple.
If you're asking "should we allow X", there are two possible answers: "Yes", or "That's a stupid question".

Should we allow people to have 5 gallon flush toilets?
Yes.

Should we allow murder?
That's a stupid question.

What he said. (!!!)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

[timosman]

What he said. (!!!)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

That's what the government thinks.

[Suzanimal]

That's what the government thinks.

I doubt the government would give fisharmour any rep but I will.

[Occam's Banana]

That's what the government thinks.

Then the government is right for a change - I really do have to spread some reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

[timosman]

Then the government is right for a change - I really do have to spread some reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

For those unaware of the situation the government does not agree with libertarians on this one. #bakethecake

[Occam's Banana]

For those unaware of the situation the government does not agree with libertarians on this one. #bakethecake

And??? &&&???

For those unaware of the situation the government is just as likely to agree with the proposal in the OP as it is to agree with the libertarians!!!

Even less so,,, when you account for the influence of the government'''s big-business cronies who aren'''t going to put up with remaining susceptible to discrimination laws///lawsuits while their smaller competitors do not ... ... ... (((and who don'''t have the PR stones to support the idea that they should be allowed to discriminate,,, too ... ... ...)))

###ridetheunicorn

[timosman]

And??? &&&???

For those unaware of the situation the government is just as likely to agree with the proposal in the OP as it is to agree with the libertarians!!!

Even less so,,, when you account for the influence of the government'''s big-business cronies who aren'''t going to put up with remaining susceptible to discrimination laws///lawsuits while their smaller competitors do not ... ... ... (((and who don'''t have the PR stones to support the idea that they should be allowed to discriminate,,, too ... ... ...)))

###ridetheunicorn

Looks like we are in a violent agreement.

[Swordsmyth]

This will never be allowed, if it ever were possible it would be possible to restore the affected right to everyone.

[VIDEODROME]

Why do they want to discriminate? Like booting out Sarah Sanders from a restaurant?

Or just the standard stuff like No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service?


Certainly the Walmartians show they still have a place to shop.

[Madison320]

In an effort to discourage frivolous lawsuits against small businesses, I think it would be a good idea to allow small businesses (less than 500 people according to US gov) to discriminate. It is hard to argue the impact of such a "discrimination" would be significant for anybody as they would always have an option of going to a bigger business where they would be guaranteed not to be discriminated against.

Why only small businesses?

[timosman]

Why only small businesses?

It'd be easier to push it through. The big behemoths could join if they wanted but they probably couldn't given how dependent they are on sucking the government tit.

[TommyJeff]

In an effort to discourage frivolous lawsuits against small businesses, I think it would be a good idea to allow small businesses (less than 500 people according to US gov) to discriminate. It is hard to argue the impact of such a "discrimination" would be significant for anybody as they would always have an option of going to a bigger business where they would be guaranteed not to be discriminated against.

Why must it be less than 500 people?

[not.your.average.joe]

If by "discriminate", you mean "withhold one's goods and services from another", then I think that nobody is entitled to someone else's labor. Outlawing discrimination is legalizing slavery. By outlawing discrimination, you are saying that someone else has a higher claim on my property than I do, which is a slippery slope when you consider that one's own life is his property.
I believe the free market protects against discrimination because business owners want as many patrons as possible for larger profits and would also face societal retaliation and pressure against any discriminatory policies.

[Madison320]

If by "discriminate", you mean "withhold one's goods and services from another", then I think that nobody is entitled to someone else's labor. Outlawing discrimination is legalizing slavery. By outlawing discrimination, you are saying that someone else has a higher claim on my property than I do, which is a slippery slope when you consider that one's own life is his property.
I believe the free market protects against discrimination because business owners want as many patrons as possible for larger profits and would also face societal retaliation and pressure against any discriminatory policies.

Never mind, I agree. I read it wrong.

[Madison320]

It'd be easier to push it through. The big behemoths could join if they wanted but they probably couldn't given how dependent they are on sucking the government tit.

I think that "equality under the law" overrides "bad law". For example I wouldn't favor legalizing drugs for government employees (but not the for general population), even if legalizing drugs is a good thing.

[Swordsmyth]

How does withholding one's goods and services say that someone else has a higher claim on my property? In a free society exchanging good and services is voluntary. Forcible exchange is a trait of a totalitarian societies.

I think he is saying the opposite of what you understood him to be saying.