I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but if someone doesn't wish to take someone else's money for a service I don't see how or why the government should force them to. Do you really want something from someone that's being forced to giv it to you? That alone is enough reason for me today go elsewhere.

 

You clearly have paid no attention to anything I have posted in the past. I am a libertarian, I would daresay that I support individual liberty more than you in most ways.

 

From a purely ideological standpoint I support the idea of allowing people to serve whom they choose. That said your assertion that it would cost them business is somewhat inaccurate. Remember the reaction when the Chil-Fil-A was shown to donate to organizations that opposed same-sex marriage? Lines were wrapped around the building. This sort of thing would make some businesses across the state more popular than ever before.

 

The thought of people doing that disgusts me.

Hopefully it will die in the House. Kudos to those on the R side of the aisle that voted against the bill.

 

:thumb:

 

I was glad (but not surprised) to see R Wil Schroder vote against the bill. Wil is relatively young but polished. He has voted across party lines times several times already in his short career.

You clearly have paid no attention to anything I have posted in the past. I am a libertarian, I would daresay that I support individual liberty more than you in most ways.

 

From a purely ideological standpoint I support the idea of allowing people to serve whom they choose. That said your assertion that it would cost them business is somewhat inaccurate. Remember the reaction when the Chil-Fil-A was shown to donate to organizations that opposed same-sex marriage? Lines were wrapped around the building. This sort of thing would make some businesses across the state more popular than ever before.

 

The thought of people doing that disgusts me.

 

You're example isn't even remotely the same as the topic at hand.

 

When did chick filet say they wouldn't serve people that were gay/lesbian? No company, including chick filet is going to refuse service. The businesses we are talking about are small time not even a chain.

 

You're example isn't even remotely the same as the topic at hand.

 

When did chick filet say they wouldn't serve people that were gay/lesbian? No company, including chick filet is going to refuse service. The businesses we are talking about are small time not even a chain.

 

My point is that bigotry is still popular in some circles. I was comparing the reaction of a large segment of the population to a revelation that they support causes that are somewhat antagonistic to equal rights.

 

They received a huge bump in popularity in some circles by that simply coming to light. Now you are right in the sense that they wouldn't refuse anyone service and any national chain worth its salt wouldn't be so stupid.

 

However I have no doubt that there are parts of KY and the south in general that the ability to say no to homosexuals or people of other colors would make some mom and pop-type establishments quite popular. Can you imagine how some places would react to a no hijab policy? Considering how popular the "ban Muslim immigration and/or refugee" talk is with a certain segment of the citizenry I have no doubt that there are places that would do that.

My point is that bigotry is still popular in some circles. I was comparing the reaction of a large segment of the population to a revelation that they support causes that are somewhat antagonistic to equal rights.

 

They received a huge bump in popularity in some circles by that simply coming to light. Now you are right in the sense that they wouldn't refuse anyone service and any national chain worth its salt wouldn't be so stupid.

 

However I have no doubt that there are parts of KY and the south in general that the ability to say no to homosexuals or people of other colors would make some mom and pop-type establishments quite popular. Can you imagine how some places would react to a no hijab policy? Considering how popular the "ban Muslim immigration and/or refugee" talk is with a certain segment of the citizenry I have no doubt that there are places that would do that.

 

Agree to disagree. I don't see anything about Chick Filet as bigotry. They have their beliefs and convictions and stand by them.

 

Agree to disagree. I don't see anything about Chick Filet as bigotry. They have their beliefs and convictions and stand by them.

 

In which case there is a county clerk in who thanks you for your tacit support.

I'm of the belief that a private business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't like the government saying you have to do something because it's the right thing to my to do.

 

Let the jerks that want to discriminate take the hit where it counts and that's in their wallet. This day and age I can't imagine too many companies doing well If they refuse to serve a Hispanic or gay couple etc. I feel they should absolutely have the right to make themselves look bad by doing so.

 

I would be more likely to see things your way except this hasn't worked out in the past. Where were the enterprising businesses popping up to serve black customers in the South before the Civil Rights Act 1964? From all accounts it was painstakingly difficult to impossible to get basic services there.

 

I know you qualify your post with "this day and age" as though discrimination is a milder issue, but what you're saying is the market won't allow a business to discriminate and survive or will demand new businesses emerge. There's not a lot of evidence that will happen.

I would be more likely to see things your way except this hasn't worked out in the past. Where were the enterprising businesses popping up to serve black customers in the South before the Civil Rights Act 1964? From all accounts it was painstakingly difficult to impossible to get basic services there.

 

I know you qualify your post with "this day and age" as though discrimination is a milder issue, but what you're saying is the market won't allow a business to discriminate and survive or will demand new businesses emerge. There's not a lot of evidence that will happen.

 

No by this day and age in referring to social media and the fact that if you refuse service to someone based on their religion or sex or gender preferences everyone can know about it rather easily.

 

60 years ago Toms grease kitchen could've refused to serve Asian Americans and Peter from the next county over never would've known anything about it. Now, if Tom refuses to serve someone because of they're Asian everyone is likely to know about it within a day because it's gone viral on social media and folks think Toms a jerk.

 

Regardless I don't think the government should force a business to serve anyone. Again what kind of service do you expect to get in that scenario?

No by this day and age in referring to social media and the fact that if you refuse service to someone based on their religion or sex or gender preferences everyone can know about it rather easily.

 

60 years ago Toms grease kitchen could've refused to serve Asian Americans and Peter from the next county over never would've known anything about it. Now, if Tom refuses to serve someone because of they're Asian everyone is likely to know about it within a day because it's gone viral on social media and folks think Toms a jerk.

 

Regardless I don't think the government should force a business to serve anyone. Again what kind of service do you expect to get in that scenario?

 

Probably about the same as now.

 

At any rate I don't think lack of publicity was what had prevented discrimination in the past. I imagine it was quite popular and well accepted (after all, we are discussing this in terms of majorities v minorities). I think this is what peprock is getting to, even if it's not an apples to apples comparison. The idea of "standing up for your beliefs" can be very popular even if it is at the expense of someone else's.

 

Probably about the same as now.

 

At any rate I don't think lack of publicity was what had prevented discrimination in the past. I imagine it was quite popular and well accepted (after all, we are discussing this in terms of majorities v minorities). I think this is what peprock is getting to, even if it's not an apples to apples comparison. The idea of "standing up for your beliefs" can be very popular even if it is at the expense of someone else's.

 

More or less yes.