Can we talk about how North Carolina just passed an LGBT apartheid bill? Businesses can post signs like "No Gays allowed".
good thing i'm not american
Who the fuck wants to go there anyway
>>5911707
we should fight this with gay orgies in front of places with those signs
>>5911707
Who cares. It is a private business. Are you going to force a black bakery to bake a cake for the KKK also?
gays are literally thrown off of buildings in Syria and this is an injustice? Get some perspective
>>5911837
It's instructing the state to intervene in private lawsuits.
That means people can now break a contract with impunity and just say you're gay and the state keeps you from suing them for theft.
Government aiding theft and lawbreaking is the end of the rule of law. Nobody is going to want to do business in that state.
>>5911707
Business is already talking about fleeing. Watch NC turn itself into Pakistan.
>>5911869
>gays are literally thrown off of buildings in Syria and this is an injustice?
Yes. Both of those things are true.
The bill actually bans any protections in the state for LGBT from getting fired or discriminated against, and they are not included in any hate crime. SO if someone fucks you up for being queer you cant sue them
>>5911869
>Bad thing happens far away and nearby, fixable bad thing is still bad?
No you're right. There's an order to these things. We must first vote on the worst thing in the world and then we fix that and then we fix the second worst thing and so on.
This is surely the best way to go about improving the world.
>>5911837
>Are you going to force a black bakery to bake a cake for the KKK also?
It depends. If it's a contract type business, then no. But, for retail businesses, if you have something for sale at $5.00, that means anyone who comes in can buy it for that price. That's the implicit contract of how retail works.
>>5911869
So then would you be content to live on nothing but bread and water for a year? After all, many in the third world have it even worse.
>>5911707
dont tell anyone you're gay, no one will fire you
no one knows who you are in your private life
things like "no gays allowed" are aimed at flaming homos who cant keep their sexuality in their pants, who hurt business
>>5912023
Telling the government to meddle in private lawsuits and enforce theft and contract breaking hurts business.
All the fortune 500 lining to pull out of the state make that clear.
>>5911885
>wahhh businesses should be forced to sell to me
If you want the state to FORCE business owners to sell to homosexuals then you must also want the state to force homosexual businesses to sell to Anti-Gay Christian organizations, etc. If it is a private business they reserve the right to serve WHOEVER they want.
>>5912023
here's the thing though: it's not just directed at flamers. in theory, if you come into a business with your significant other or mention that you're buying something for them, they can refuse service to you
>>5912052
Nobody is forcing anybody to sell anything. They just object to the law interfering with contracts. Somebody has no right to back away from something they agreed to and have been paid. Go to Russia if you want that.
That's exactly why everyone business is getting out of that failed state.
>>5912052
But the right to serve whoever they want is NOT a right to violate contract. If you mark an item as priced at $20, that means anyone who comes in and pays $20 can have it. That's what a price means. Otherwise you'd have to say $20 (blacks pay $50) or something like that and openly announce your bigotry.
>>5911885
>turn into Pakistan
Isn't that what these theocrats want?
Just boycott all said businesses
>>5912065
Exactly. Just watch their constituents turn on them after they loose their jobs though.
>>5912060
Not even that. They just have to think you're gay. They don't have to be right about it.
>>5912080
so what
we have freedom of speech and freedom of service
capitalism, ho
to be honest I wouldn't like to pay my money to bigots either
>>5911707
are you retarded? Nowhere in the bill does it state that.
http://ncleg(d0t)net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf
>>5911707
I do not give one shit if gays aren't allowed at some fire-and-brimstone christian cake shop. It's an encroachment on rights we all have.
There's a saying that goes, "I'd protect the devil's rights if it meant securing my own". We must allow this behavior if we want to preserve our own freedom.
>>5911707
No gays allowed because they don't know what apartheid is.
just fuck me up
>>5911707
You would think big business would protest this shit like they did in other states, but then you remember there's nothing but pig farms and dirt roads in North Carolina.
>>5913154
Charlotte is like the second largest banking city in America, home to the largest energy company in America, and a ton of other huge businesses are headquartered there.
>Charlotte has nine Fortune 500 companies in its metropolitan area, listed in order of their rank: Bank of America, Lowe's in suburban Mooresville, Nucor (steel producer), Duke Energy, Sealed Air Corp, Sonic Automotive, Family Dollar, SPX Corporation (industrial technology), and Domtar (in suburban Fort Mill). The Charlotte area includes a very diverse range of businesses, including foodstuffs such as Chiquita Brands International, Harris Teeter, Snyder's-Lance, Carolina Foods Inc, Bojangles', Food Lion, Compass Group USA, and Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (Charlotte being the nation's second largest Coca-Cola bottler), motor and transportation companies like RSC Brands, and Continental Tire the Americas, LLC., Meineke Car Care Center, Carlisle Companies (along with several other services), along with a wide array of other businesses.[45]
Jim Crow style segregation laws for gays
>>5911956
no they just go to jail for assault, like anyone else, which is fair
>>5911707
It's protecting the freedom of religion guys!
>>5911707
As they should be allowed to do. Business should be allowed to discriminate against any group they want.
Statist scum pls go.
>>5911707
Why are you people surprised shit like this is happening?
I mean it's only 2016, not the age of acceptance
>>5913931
It's just not America unless youre oppressing someone, huh? Creating second-class citizens is a bad thing, read a history book.
>>5913970
Government forcing private business to serve people they don't want to is a bad thing. As a private business they reserve the right to serve who they want. If you don't like it, start your own business.
The places that do this wouldn't be places gays would go to anyway.
>>5911707
Why the fuck would I want the government telling private businesses who they should serve?
Honestly, if there's a shop that doesn't want to sell to black people, let them. In this day and age, they'll be ruined from a lack of business from local backlash.
Same thing with getting a cake for a wedding.
Why the fuck would you go to a Christian/Muslim/whatever shop and order shit when they hate you?
The only thing that needs to have enforced anti-discrimination measures is public services.
>>5913985
>As a private business they reserve the right to serve who they want. If you don't like it, start your own business.
Not if they want to be legally recognized as a legitimate business. And I don't think you understand how businesses work - when you put a price tag on something, you are making a contract with the public: "If you give me X amount of money, you can have this thing". Refusing to sell to gays is a violation of contract. Sure, you could say it's a violation of rights to be forced to keep the contract, but it looks ridiculous if you cancel the contract when a gay guy comes in, only to reinstate it again five minutes later.
>>5914032
it's not like some red states are like 90% Christian or anything
they aren't walking into a "Christian/muslim" bakery, they are walking into a bakery. that's it.
I agree with >>5914642 mostly
so the wedding thing is kinda eh, because they aren't selling "gay cakes" they are being asked to make one in which case I think they have a right to refuse.
but generally you can't refuse to not sell something because of someone's race, sex, gender,sexual orientation, country of origin, political affiliation. or atleast you shouldn't be able to as they are wholey unrelated. I think only like two thirds of what I listed are actually guaranteed by the federal government
>>5911837
It's not the same thing at all. It's like asking the jews to cooperate with nazis.
Gays are a minority which can still be victims of discrimination. Unlike what you read on tumblr, white are usually not.
>>5914739
>Gays are a minority which can still be victims of discrimination.
Gays aren't prevented from owning property and starting a business.
If you want to make a shop and ban straight people, it should be within your power to.
>>5912091
If we are going with that kind of logic, businesses should be able to sell toxic food because you can shop outside.
Let's be realistic here. The libertarian mindset can only end up in the already privileged ruling over the under privileged. Libertarians are neo-feudalists.
>>5914747
That's not valid until we have a perfectly effective way of preventing de facto monopolies from forming. Because a monopoly that's allowed to discriminate would be able to deny goods and services to certain demographic groups.
>>5911837
I wouldn't make them
but really who cares?
it's a stupid cake, and these guys are giving you money.
Religious people could always use the excuse that their God will be mad at them for participating in a gay ceremony or something, but what excuse do black people have really?
>>5914747
That argument doesn't make much sense. If one doctor decides to ban trans people from his clinic, do these guys have to perform medicine on themselves ?
If a teacher decides to bash you because he thinks you're gay, do you simply have to pull out your bootstraps and learn by yourselves ?
My point is that freedom of one can't infringe on freedom of others - which is why governments regulations are actually protecting your freedom to have a service regardless of who you are.
Take healthcare for example. It's an exemple of a system where regulations are actually helping people to get the meds and treatments they need, without "forcing" doctors to take care of them (is it really forcing when you are simply asked to do your job ?).
In conclusion and tl;dr : when business turn down customers for any reasons other than strictly professional (a extreme sports guide refusing an obese client, for example) they are infringing on their rights.
it is within my idea of state and society that all the regular business should be FORCED to sell and deal with anyone without any "stupid" discrimination. ( non stupid discrimination would be refusing to serve someone that can't actually use your product, or refuse to serve someone who personally did a concrete wrong to you or your business, or perhaps a convicted criminal).
it surprise me that some of you think "it's all fine, the magical pink fairy of free market will fix it, because magically people will shame a business for not dealing with gay and another more competitive and free business will pop up".
the theory just doesn't translate in practice so easily.
people could counter-shame the second business and reward the first business, to the point that it would not be able to compete. and it's not like the day after a bakery refuse to serve a gay person the next day a magical rainbow cake shop will pop up in the same town.
why would you even want a business to discriminate against a sector of the society and expect the society to discriminate against that business and everyone who stands up for it? you are just encouraging people to fight...creating cracks in the society and inreasing the collective stress, just to wonder the next day why you are on the top of the rampage shooting internationl list.
Society is about cooperation of everyone and it makes no sense to allow such discrimination... no one should be told " we don't care if you were born here and you are not a criminal, we don't want to live with you so go fucking cry to another city".
and don't even get me started on " you shouldn't say you are gay in public". not the point and not the solution.
>>5914796
Sadly, this will go over waffletarians head.
>>5914765
Monopolies are inherently an enemy of the free market, which is why in a libertarian setting, one of the few things the government does is ensure competition at a fair level.
>>5914780
>If one doctor decides to ban trans people from his clinic, do these guys have to perform medicine on themselves ?
Medical care is entirely unrelated, providers are obligated to give aid regardless of the patient's status.
>If a teacher decides to bash you because he thinks you're gay, do you simply have to pull out your bootstraps and learn by yourselves ?
If you're at a public school, that inherently wouldn't be allowed.
But, if you enrolled into a private catholic school (or whatever), the school's own policies dictate its faculties behavior.
>My point is that freedom of one can't infringe on freedom of others
Again, you don't have the freedom to force a trade with an unwilling participant. Making a business serve people it doesn't want to is not what a free system is based on.
>>5914642
Yeah, no. That's not how contracts work. When selling something, you get to choose who to sell it too. It'd be different if they signed a contract vowing to sell it to anyone, or to a specific person, but they didn't. Offering services and putting a price tag on something is not making a contract with anyone.
Extreme example, pet stores have price tags on animals the same as any other store. Let's a an animal abuser came in looking to buy a dog for a fight, should the store be sued if they refuse to sell? In your delusional world they are breaking a contract, I guess they better sell that dog to the animal abuser.
>>5914750
Untrue. Selling toxic food under the pretense of it being safe would be breaking the NAP. Please actually learn about our idealology before criticising it.
>>5914765
Regulations are what's creating monopolies. If you would give us our free market like we want, more competition would enter the market. The big corporations push for the regulations because they stomp compete to on and prevent small businesses. It's nearly impossible to just up and start a new business currently.
>>5914817
you are retarded. first of all, animal abuse is a crime, so refusing to sell to a criminal is not discrimination when you're talking about the exact thing they are doing is what your product is used for.
But even if that weren't true, what you are describing is refusing service, not charging the cock fighter extra for being a cockfighter, completely missing the point of what the person said.
>>5914796
> you are just encouraging people to fight
You're making false ties throughout your response.
In no way is removing restrictions encouraging discrimination and hatred.
>creating cracks in the society and inreasing the collective stress
Forcing people into an ideology, regardless of what it is, will receive backlash, even if it's not outright.
>the next day why you are on the top of the rampage shooting internationl list.
To be fair, US 'rampage shooting' deaths are entirely irrelevant compared to the other causes of death there are.
> no one should be told " we don't care if you were born...
The key word is 'told'
Everyone has the right to say as they will, if you move next to a guy who hates the fact you suck cock, that's his problem. He can't evict you, and if he were to cause issues, there is police for a reason.
>>5914817
>Regulations are what's creating monopolies. If you would give us our free market like we want, more competition would enter the market. The big corporations push for the regulations because they stomp compete to on and prevent small businesses. It's nearly impossible to just up and start a new business currently.
no dumbfuck, thats rich corporations making those laws to benefit them. actual regulations are things that break monopolies. Jesus fuck you are so god damn stupid, why don't you 360 degrees and walk back a century and a half and live in cholera infested england and tell me the free market fixes its own problems.
>>5914817
In the absence of governments, what exactly could me make want to respect the NAP ?
Or let's say, what prevents a water company from putting a clause in the contract declining responsibility in case of toxic outbreak.
I know too much about libertarianism for my own good. I know it's a nice looking ideology, but in reality it simply cannot work and is more often that not used by racists rednecks to cover up their bigotry.
>>5914811
If your ideology can't be internally consistent that's bad omen.
By the way, a completely free society would be only private schools. Let's assume you were born in the wrong state. Are you ready (and more importantly, able) to go 100 miles in faggotopia were gays have finally pulled out their bootstraps and made a functioning utopia ?
>Again, you don't have the freedom to force a trade with an unwilling participant.
That's literally the plot of the Incredibles, people wanting to sue heroes because they saved their lives.
But you're probably meaning it in other way, in which case, you are standing against the very basis of human society. Good luck with that.
>>5914865
>By the way, a completely free society
You realize that there is still a government in a Libertarian setting, right?
You're dangerously close to 'muh roads' level of reasoning.
>That's literally the plot of the Incredibles, people wanting to sue heroes because they saved their lives.
I don't understand how you're trying to tie a private business to a superhero.
>>5914873
>>5914881
The Ayn Rand libertarianism kind, then ? It's even worse than I thought. Atlas Shrugged is a bad fanfiction that tries to be profound, it relies on Mary Sues and basically advocates feudalism.
>You're dangerously close to 'muh roads' level of reasoning.
Funny. I have never seen any real argument against "Who will builds the roads ?" that wasn't "The free market will fix it."
As always, waffletarians think that THEIR ideal branch of liberty and capitalism will be the only true form of utopic freedom.
>>5914903
You make a lot of assumptions and strawman attacks.
Libertarianism is a minarchy m8. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Anything that doesn't break the NAP would be legal pretty much.
>>5914903
>The Ayn Rand libertarianism kind
your projecting and memeing isn't an argument.
>>5914931
A minarchy is, I will admit, a beautiful project.
Still, what about the poor, what about the commons, what about the infrastructures, what about employment regulations (is forcing a employee to suck your dick to continue working breaking the NAP ?) ?
There are simply too many questions and, from my point of view, too many inconsistencies in a minarchist worldview to function. At least AnCaps are honest to themselves.
>>5914947
But she's the one who theorised libertariansim. My arguments are in my previous posts :
>>5914865
>>5914750
How exactly can a small government not mutate into feudalism ? Society needs a safety net for the people stuck at the bottom, and most of time governments are more effective than charities.
>>5914965
>Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand, who condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism
.
Mate, this shit is on wikipedia even.
Please, stop posting
>>5914953
Taxing is theft, however you look at it. Taxation would be phased out. As the bullshit regulations were done away with, more competition would enter the market creating more and better jobs. And as taxation is phased out, people will have more money to spend making it easier on them and stimulating the economy.
And no, a private business requiring any sexuak acts to work there does not break the NAP. You do not have the right to work there. And public jobs however would not get away with that.
As for infrastructure, we do not know. There are plenty of different options like more tolls to fund the upkeep, or even having people pay so much annually to fund it and not allowing the people who chose not to pay use the roads. But we do not have a final solution to everything, nor do we claim to. Libertarianism has never been implemented before, things like that can be further handled when we actually get to them.
>>5914981
>>taxing is theft
you're right. taxing is a way to thieve from greedy humans who wont give up their enormous advantages while everyone else lives in their own actual shit. (see 1860s england). and thats why its going to stay, because anyone who calls taxation thievery is exactly the kind of person who has a problem with a system of government that forces you to check your own greed so it doesn't murder people and make anyone left live in squalor.
>>5914990
Stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong.
>>5911837
money is money
If i were black and worked in a bakery i would
>>5914965
>But she's the one who theorised libertariansim
>Who is Robert Nozick
>Who is Jan Narveson
>Who is Walter Block
>Who is Michael Huemer
Etc. etc. I'm a libertarian and I fucking hate Ayn Rand.
>>5915008
And letting people die of starvation is morally right ?
>And no, a private business requiring any sexuak acts to work there does not break the NAP
Colour all kinds of not surprised. So, as long as the contract holds, the boss can freely owns his employees. What a morally praisable system.
>>5915027
>>5914980
Same shit, different name. You're still not answering why a minarchy is different from feudalism.
as a christfag those people that protest with those god hates fags signs are wrong and are technically sinning.
But feel free to tear into me.
>>5915053
>And letting people die of starvation is morally right ?
We can't help people without hurting people? I don't accept that.
We have a moral obligation to help those in need. We also have a moral obligation not to point guns at people. I don't think the two are in conflict as often as statists claim...
>>5915058
Where we won't be in agreement is whether or not taxation is theft.
It's a practical system. It helps ensure that most people (sadly there are still starving and homeless) live a decent live and can fulfil their potential.
It doesn't hurt the rich that much. You can live the same life with 10 millions a year or 1 million a year, or even 300 000 euros a year.
(I support maximum revenue.)
It doesn't hurt the big companies because of all the tax cuts and tax evasion.
It actually helps small business in the form of social safety nets.
>>5915053
Two wrongs does not a right make.
Well gosh dang it, it seems i've just posted the Civil Rights Division of North Carolina's phone number 9194313036
>>5914817
>Yeah, no. That's not how contracts work. When selling something, you get to choose who to sell it too. It'd be different if they signed a contract vowing to sell it to anyone, or to a specific person, but they didn't. Offering services and putting a price tag on something is not making a contract with anyone.
The price tag is an implicit contract with the public. You'd have to add some kind of qualifier like (white people only) or something otherwise.
>
Extreme example, pet stores have price tags on animals the same as any other store. Let's a an animal abuser came in looking to buy a dog for a fight, should the store be sued if they refuse to sell? In your delusional world they are breaking a contract, I guess they better sell that dog to the animal abuser.
That would be in the same category as special legal licensing requirements, like a minimum age for alcohol or cigarettes.
>Regulations are what's creating monopolies. If you would give us our free market like we want, more competition would enter the market. The big corporations push for the regulations because they stomp compete to on and prevent small businesses. It's nearly impossible to just up and start a new business currently.
Without regulations, it would still be possible for de facto monopolies to form by gaining ownership of enough of the resources in a region that no one can compete with them.
>>5914881
>You realize that there is still a government in a Libertarian setting, right?
Aren't libertarians opposed to taxes on principle? How would such a government function? Where would it get its funding from?
>>5914981
How would you stop non-payers from using the roads? Wouldn't any enforcement ultimately rely on violence or threats of violence?
>>5915008
Not if stealing does more good than harm.
>>5915058
>>5915058
If you're given a choice between slightly harming one person or letting many others come to severe harm, we're morally obligated to choose the former. You can tax the rich at a rate that will barely make a difference to them, but that money could use to provide food or medical care for those in poverty. It basically gets more utility from the same amount of money.
>>5915146
>How would you stop non-payers from using roads?
Police
>wouldn't Amy enforcement ultimately rely on violence or threats of violence?
Your point is?
>>5915081
>>5915261
Society needs government - unless we're trying to do a collectivist anarchy. Without rules this is just survival of the fittest or worse, a collusion between government and money.
History has shown that capitalists have always looked up to infiltrate governments to reduce protections of the workers. Without popular representation, the capitalists don't even need to lobby the gov't.
>>5915525
We've stated multiple times that libertarianism is not anarchy, and you have acknowledged this. We repeatedly said there would still be a government.
Argument dismissed.
>>5915573
We can't seem to understand each other. Or you ideology is self-contradicting. A weak government can't assure vitals functions in society, such as schools, health, fire or infrastructure.
History shows that free-market alternative to these issues only works for the rich.
>>5915599
No, you are wilfully being ignorant. Libertarianism is a minarchy. Anarchy is completely different. You really seem to not know anything about either.
And no, history shows nothing because historically we have never had a proper libertarian societies.
>>5915634
Rousseau was against US libertarianism and for a generalised social contract. Libertarianism in Europe means collectivist anarchist.
Socialist libertarian are fine by me, if they exist. Myself I really like small business, who I find need to be protected by government.
>>5915621
Define "Minarchy". If it's a small government then my points about how is it going to function still stands. The closet thing I've read about it is Rand, who don't explain it except for "voluntary taxes".
The closet thing to libertarian paradise was the Industrial Revolution - innovation everywhere, Adam Smith worship, actually fairly easy to start a business and virtually no labour laws. It leads to the birth of communism and all small business owners were swallowed by bigger competitors, not to mention child labour and the rise of rich business owners in politics.
As an utopy, libertarisim makes a nice place. It can't function in real life. Not everyone can pull up their bootstraps.
>>5915662
Not everyone can pull up their bootstraps because they are lazy. A lot of poor people are a drain on society and honestly should not be helped. This is coming from a poor person, who grew up and lives in the ghetto and was raised in a lower class family. Everyone worked their asses off to support the family, and I am currently working a minimum wage job to earn enough money to go to college. We don't accept help from the guberment, lazing around for our stolen money to get here like I see so many people in this neighborhood doing. There are plenty of jobs to go around, only the lazy leeches are the ones that can't pull up their bootstraps. I'll take being poor and earning what I have over being dependant any day, and we should not be supporting those who would rather be dependant.
Minarchy is a small government that is only there to represent the people and uphold laws. It really is not hard to figure that out. And as pointed out previously, what Ayn Rand believes isn't anywhere close to libertarianism. Government funds would indeed be voluntary though.
And how exactly did the industrial revolution start communism? Pretty sure you can blame Karl Marx for communism. And what exactly is wrong with child labour? As long as it's voluntary and the children aren't being harmed, what exactly is wrong with kids having a job? I'd say it's a good thing for kids to have jobs, it teaches them responsibility and teaches them to work for what they want. That's the problem with kids today, they're spoiled and don't have to do anything but sit there on there phones.
If smaller businesses get bought out, oh well that's how the market works. Got a problem with it? Open your own business and be more competitive. In a libertarian society it would be really easy to open a business, no way big corporations could afford to but them all out. And if they do, oh well.
>>5915662
>socialist libertarian are fine by me
Social libertarianism is socialism without government force. It would still be a minarchy, just a minarchy without capitalism. Did you not just say a society can't survive with a weak government? You contradict yourself too much.
>>5911837
Fucking this.
Hell, I'd rather know before patronizing a business that I'm not welcome there, that it's run by bigots.
>>5911707
seeing how the word "bathroom" dominated the whole making process I just gotta say :
ayyy lmao murricans are scared of trannies
>>5913922
This
"Fucking someone up" is already illegal.
>>5914642
I've seen signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone" and "No shirt, no shoes, no service." According to your view, these are illicit or immoral or illogical. Except it's not so, because there is no implicit contract with the public in toto.
>>5915782
>ayyy lmao murricans are scared of trannies
It's not scared, it the new way of hiding discrimination.
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
http://strawpoll.me/7174230
Lets also make a law where people can deny service to Muslims or black people because they're racist
>>5914032
I mean normally I'd agree with this but the bakery that refused to serve those gay people was given a small donation of a million dollars and still exists today.
>>5911837
So it's okay for a store to charge black customers 75% more than?
>>5911707
And that is why i have my condo in whatever hell you see fit
>>5916527
Yes.
>>5916643
Then your ideology allows racists assholes to prosper. But of course, The Free Market will fix it.
>>5916708
Why would you want to give those people your business anyway?
As a gay man, I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay, and wish they would. Let me know who you are so I can know not to give you my money. And fuck any gay piece of shit that would use force to prevent them from discriminating. No self respecting gay man would want to do business with them, let alone force them to do business with them.
>>5916780
It doesn't work like that in practise, it can be very hard to find a real service provider. It's also humiliating to potential customers. It can finally enable other shitty stores/company to do the same thing for monies.
In real life, more often than not the free market does not magically fix it. If you allow them to discriminate, you also allow them to fire you if you're gay.
Finally, on a strict ethical sense it's an awful behaviour that shouldn't exist. It makes sense to forbid it.
>>5916810
That would never happen though. Every store would not magically stop serving gays, they wouldn't pass up on that money. And if they did, gays could start their own business.
No on has the right to be hired.
Gonna post what I said in the other thread
"I live in North Carolina, and I practice law here.
I figured out how to btfo out of this bill and challenge it constitutionally
>Need new employees in my workplace
>In charge of hiring since solo/small firm practice area
>Just put out job listing saying that I am specifically seeking LGBT individuals, and straight people need not apply
What they don't realize is the Bill says, on its face, that sexual orientation is not under the protected categories. I can refuse to hire or to serve you if you are a straight person.
I highly recommend that every LGBT person I know with the ability to put out job listings or hire individuals do something similar.
Watch Pat McCrory and the rest of the NC legislature realize how badly they fucked up."
>>5916823
>No on has the right to be hired.
Hiring should be a strictly regulated procedure. You can't hire children, you don't own your employees. You can't force your employees to have sex or do humiliating things for you, and you can't turn down.fire an employee because you don't like him.
Those are basic non-negotiable ethical principles. Without them you might as well redefine work as paid slavery.
> Every store would not magically stop serving gays, they wouldn't pass up on that money. And if they did, gays could start their own business.
SOCIALLY LIBERAL.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/02/indianas-memories-pizza-wouldnt-cater-gay-wedding-gets-40k-in-crowdfunding/
Turning gay away IS a business. And your logical is flawed ; try to apply it to black people and you will remember why there were riots.
By the way, on an ethical level turning gay away is wrong, hurts society and allow homophobia to prosper. There really shouldn't be arguments against this.
>>5916875
they didn't turn gays away, retard.
they didn't want to cater a gay WEDDING. it is very different. they would have catered a gay poz party gangbang, but not a wedding due to their religious convictions.
there's nothing wrong with that. it's no different than the muslims that got away with not delivering alcohol because of their own religious convictions.
>>5916875
Low quality bait. No way someone could be this retarded and unaware. You had us going but you fucked up OP
>>5916951
You're posting in a troll thread
Anyone that posts below here is responding to a bait thread. Sage and don't reply
>>5916951
You didn't address the body of the argument : businesses can still be in business and discriminate.
I don't care about convictions. I would serve anyone myself regardless of who they are.
Refusing to deliver alchool is not discriminating. Turning away people is.
Religion should be a private matter and not interfer in public life at all anyways. The ethical argument of how such actions are wrong, and how they enable hate speech and homophobia, is still valid.
>>5916973
>providing philosophical and ethical arguments against waffletarianism is bait
>>5915185
Aren't libertarians opposed to that sort of thing? Isn't violence a violation of the NAP?
>>5915721
>Not everyone can pull up their bootstraps because they are lazy.
And some also lack opportunity, having neither employable skills nor being able to afford and education.
>A lot of poor people are a drain on society and honestly should not be helped.
They're going to be more of a drain on society if allowed to continue to be poor.
>And what exactly is wrong with child labour? As long as it's voluntary and the children aren't being harmed, what exactly is wrong with kids having a job?
It's almost never actually voluntary. It occurs when a family has literally no other options. It's like saying armed robbery is a consensual transaction, since you know you're going to get shot if you don't hand over your money.
>>5915747
So you admit that in a minarchy, whether socialist or capitalist, there is no government force? Because even if a government exists, without force it is meaningless.
>>5916951
So then you agree that businesses should not have a right to turn gays away?
>>5911869
Yes we should be thankful that we aren't thrown off building
>>5911832
but that's exactly why people hate gays, faggot
i bet you wear nothing but spandex, a leather boa and a strap-on in pride parades, don't you?
i bet you attend pride parades, don't you?
you make me sick, fucking die already so the rest of us at least have a chance to appear normal to society.
>>5911908
>you are not allowed to complain about bad thing because i named a worse thing.
meanwhile in your world, legislators weigh up whether or not they can justify tackling child abuse because terrorism is a thing.
>>5917259
The person trespassing on the roads is the one breaking the NAP.
You need to work harder then. That's what I'm doing. If I can do it, I expect the same of everyone else. Where I live all I see is people lazing around complain they are so poor, yet there are plenty of job openings and no one's even tries for them. I see people out on the street all day begging, yet they don't even bother to stop in a store and put in an application. Laziness is all it is.
Ignore it. Force them to work. Even if you say in order to receive welfare you need to do community work or something.
Child labor isn't against forced labour though, it's against children working period. If the children are forced into work, whether it's violence or coercion, it breaks the NAP and will not be allowed.
No, I said social libertarianism is socialism without the government forcing it. Socialism by definition must be forced by government because every single person must willingly participate. Social libertarianism is socialism without people being forced into it. It's a step above democratic socialism (which, yes is socialism. Berniefags like to claim it isn't, but that is not true. Democratic socialism is socialism that has been voted into power through democracy).
This last one was not me. I believe private businesses should be allowed to turn anyone away.
>>5911707
How the fuck they gonna know though? Like I just have to not have a dick in my mouth when I walk in. You can't prove I'm gay otherwise.
They tried to keep gays from prom in my high school. Couldn't enforce shit for it though. Student council selling tickets didn't give a single fuck to enforce it and really some dude comes up and says "hey give me two tickets" and if they say "but is one for a girl!?" and he just lies and says "yeah sure" what can they do? And then at prom everyone just filters in in groups and takes pictures however and dances with friends of the same sex along with dates and just groups and shit. Like you can't even stop grinding from happening how the fuck you gonna stop same sex.
Americans sure are scared of their government
Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Ultimately it will only work to their detriment anyway.
