Democrats’ Hypocrisy on Display, Again

There are still, in 2022, businesses and groups that still exclude certain populations. For instance, private golf clubs do not have to give a membership to anyone who can meet their fee.

If anything, depending on the group(s) being excluded, the business and its marketing savvy, I would think that there are plenty of businesses that would use the publicity that would come from the issue to generate a massive swell of profits as conservatives line up to own the libs. I think it would be pretty easy to run a Whites-only business in Alabama or a number of other states if it were just left to the free market.

If there are enough people who actively approve of discrimination against xyz plus people who are indifferent to discrimination against xyz to form a reliable customer base, then the business would do just fine.

Like literally, if Chick-fil-a were legally able to assert the right to not serve LGBTQ customers instead of just donating to anti-gay causes, I'm guessing it would do just fine.

Consistently applying personal superstitions wouldn't necessarily result in the same treatment for every customer. That fairy tale worshipping shit is either in or it's out, and before you are too quick to prohibit it, realize that you're just driving it back to the "right to refuse service to anyone" level of customer interaction. They just won't give a reason.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions there. Not the least of which being that normal people who aren't lunatics calling themselves "activists" are not going to enjoy dealing with crowds of protestors, cops and news media to buy a chicken sandwich.

Sure, there are plenty of places that would have once had these signs but couldn't get away with them now even if they were legal, but that's only because of decades of change brought about by the law forcing them to play nice, and a few generations seeing that the sky in fact did not fall.

While it's not there yet, the general trend is roughly the same in most countries that put same sex marriage recognition rights into law, the pool of opponents rapidly shrinks as the change becomes normalized.

However it can go the other way. Erode rights and you can get just a handful of places able to be shitheels now, but they can gradually spread and revert.

That's right. I'm commenting on reality as it exists now, not the fucking 1950s.

Reality as it exists in the USA, for fuck's sake.

There is no right to a transaction with another party. Erode the obligations imposed by the law, maybe. But this really just sounds like you don't want to take the chance that free will won't shake out the way you want.

I'm not quite sure that I understand your arguments, do I have these points right?

1. It was once justified to put in place laws that prevented businesses from putting up signs like "no blacks, Jews or Mexicans served".
2. After the 1950s such laws became unneccesary.
3. Support for such laws staying in place now is a sign of some sort of cowardice, or times have changed such that they are no longer morally justifiable.

The fuck are you talking about? There have been kosher delis for hundreds of years here (not sure about halal - likely a hundred years) and I have never once heard of anyone trying to force them to provide a service or a product they don’t currently provide. Same for I’ve never heard of a ‘regular’ butcher shop being forced to carry goat or other less common (in the US) meats.

Just accept you are a retard and move along.

oh no.... he didn't get that stupid from his parent's giving him their genes from an exclusive pool.
He went out and earned it by huffing leaded gasoline all on his own.

I was clear in my meaning. It's a different population now than 70 years ago, and things like whites-only businesses aren't going to fly. To insist it is "necessary " to meddle now is to admit you believe businesses should be punished for merely offending you. Saying they don't approve of gay marriage, sending you to a urinal if you have a dick, or refusing to make a cake with two grooms, things like that. Not refusing you service, but refusing to placate you. It's a symptom of a bored, overindulged society that has forgotten the taste of real strife and suffering.

I'll take that as a yes that I did understand those three points then.

Not entirely. You rest on singular interpretations of concepts like "necessity" that don't apply the same way.

Fair enough. So this was my understanding of your argument (trying to break it down into individual points)

1. It was once justified to put in place laws that prevented businesses from putting up signs like "no blacks, Jews or Mexicans served".
2. After the 1950s such laws became unneccesary.
3. Support for such laws staying in place now is a sign of some sort of cowardice, or times have changed such that they are no longer morally justifiable.

How should I think of 2, if unneccesary isn't the right word to use?

I say "necessary" in this context depends on the problem you are trying to correct, that since the 50s this sort of thing has downgraded from "interfering with someone's ability to function in society" to "offense and hurt feelings." Yes, there are a few fringe lunatics out there, but if I can't make ya'll answer for few green-haired screechbags from Berkeley, I'll not indulge any delusion that the sort of people who would run a "no coloreds" restaurant in 2022 represent anything but a tiny minority.

Ok, I think I get what you're say ijng. These type of laws are undesirable because they infringe on personal freedoms, but that infringement was outweighed by the huge benefits to many of them being in place. Now that you don't perceive them as protecting those benefits at anywhere near the same scale they should be wound back to maximise personal freedom?

These things aren't equal.
Stop saying they are.

At my paintball field I ended a kid's birthday party because the kid was saying faggot this and gay that. I told his dad to cool it because I would not have my workers abused and he laughed. I ripped his check up in front of him and told him to get off my field. When he argued about his kid's birthday I told him it would be a shame to have to have the cops drag him off the property as a present to his son. You go explain to your kid and his friends why they can't play paintball on my field because you are all a bunch of bigots.

It was not like they could drive up the road to some competition either. Yes, they could do something else, but when you want a specific service something else might not be as good.

If it makes that much of a difference, and it is not a necessity for survival like food or transportation, then I am ok with the business saying no. There are millions of web designers. It is not like you walked into a pharmacy for your medicine and idiot won't give it to you because they are religious and think you should suffer. It is not even someone else's business and the worker is not doing work for them. It is your business, then you do not work for people if it is a business people can survive without, or even an area where you have little inconvenience to find an exact alternative.

When an area is saturated with options for the same service, and someone wants to forgo a contract for whatever reason I am good with that. I would never run into this problem with a web designer because I would actually go find a GLBT web designer over a straight owned one simply to support the community.

it's now okay (in his mind) to have a sign saying "No Fags, Freaks, or Muslims" because bigotry is a thing of the past and those people are (presumably) immoral somehow. I mean, I can see how "protestors" blocking access to a madrasa is totally different than not letting Ruby Bridges go to white people school 60 years ago, because... reasons?

If only we could concentrate the population of people that UA doesn't like... maybe in camps?

I know it is exclusionary, but there are so many decent places to go.

When I was in my early twenties I hun around with the goth and punk people my age. We got treated rudely by a diner or two. We just went to a place up the road and fuck that place. If you have a not welcome sign up for certain people, except for bigots, then I do not want to spend money in your place.

Evejn way back in college when there were townie bars and the college bars, I did not want to go into the townie bar just to fuck with the pissed off drunk locals. Do feel free to label your business as exclusive. In the end anyone who I know who is decent drives by the bigotry on display. If I ever saw a whites only sign I would not shop there.

Scale and severity, but otherwise yeah, I think that's mostly fair.

It was always "ok" in that free speech is not constrained by hurt feelings. At issue are tangible consequences where free association butts up against "why should I participate in your society if I cannot function?" In 2022, you obviously can still function with plenty of easily accessible options if you have to shop around for a chicken sandwich or bake your own wedding cake.

And yes, I think the direction we're heading leads to some degree of balkanization as the humans are increasingly unwilling to play nice. Until the coming collapse of civilization renders our petty grievances moot.

Never said it was. You've jsut been repeating that strawman for so long that you convinced yourself it was real.

not sure wtf you're talking about here? "cannot function"? Because someone asked a cake maker to put two of the same toppers on a wedding cake rather than the pair?
so , the more historical "No Jews, Blacks, or Irish" was oppressive, but "No Fags, freaks, or Muslims" is about feelings and is therefore different somehow?
Honestly man, you go off on these weird, vague tangents that don't really mean anything.


Thing is too, humans are increasingly willing to play nicely. You disparage them as shrill pink hairs.

Maybe the problem isn't with the universe, Bev.

To be fair, it seems to be green hair that's triggering his histrionics today.

But yes, it shouldn't escape anyone's attention that being a decent human being has been added to the list of things that the right wing cannot abide.

He must work near some cosmotology school where all the girls mock him all day.

Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees!

Thanks.

Do you think it's just in the last few years that such laws should have been removed? For example into the 21st century Alabama (since you said you only want to discuss American examples) still had around half of its white population opposing interracial marriage, and would no doubt have seen businesses discriminating on racial grounds if allowed to.

We're all making assumptions. It's just a question of whose are reasonable.

Mine include that there are a lot of people who would actively patronize a discriminatory business or at least who would tolerate it, and that there is a limit to the effectiveness of boycotting such businesses. There aren't crowds of protestors at your typical Chick-Fil-A currently even though the business has overtly donated toward anti-LGBTQ concerns. I tend to think that there would generally be more people who would fit in the categories of "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care and I will continue to patronize the discriminatory business" and "I like that they are discriminating/I want to tweak the protestors so I will continue to patronize the discriminatory business" versus "I think it is so horrible that they are discriminating so I will take my business elsewhere."

There would almost certainly be lots of libertarians who would defend the business's right to discriminate as much as they want, with the thought that the market will decide. Unfortunately, the free market presumably has some appetite for discriminatory businesses if their products are cheap enough, good enough, or otherwise appealing enough.

I would say it's less different than you would think. The former president of the United States and likely frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination invited for dinner a white supremacist and anti-semite, and he and his supporters have been fairly openly courting/parroting white supremacist people and arguments. Very few people seem on the Right seem to be willing to out and out say that is a bad thing.

So the notion of a business getting shut down for openly discriminating if anti-discrimination laws were all repealed relies on such assumptions as:
1. There would be a big enough and sustained enough outcry in the face of discrimination that it would lose too many customers to be profitable
2. The business would not be smart enough to go to the plausible deniability/dog whistle route with its discrimination
3. There was not a substantial enough pro-discrimination or neutral-to-discrimination customer base to keep the business going
4. The discriminating business would not be able to get resources to stay afloat from other places, such as conservative activists/donors (the Go Fund Mes of the world in addition to various conservative billionaires/foundations)
5. The discriminating businessperson values profitability over making a point about discrimination.
6. The discriminating business isn't in a location or isn't selling a good/service that is in relatively rare supply, making it so that there aren't viable alternatives for the people who are discriminated against.

This convo has severe Shelby County v Holder vibes.

In other words: "After we hired an overnight security guard, our store completely stopped being burglarized! Clearly that means we can lay off the security guard now."