- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should discrimination be allowed?
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:40 pm to Hangit
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:40 pm to Hangit
When you work with the Feds they are all up in your business. And yes it's part of the contract. My personal opinion is that no US government entities should do business with companies that intentionally discriminate.
0
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:40 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
Only religious discrimination is allowed. You don't have to worry about them folks.
Love the persecution complex of basically every religious group.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:42 pm to chinese58
It's bad morally and likely bad for business but the government interest in that decision is pretty week.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:43 pm to MSUbulldogs03
Come on man.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 6:50 pm to MSUbulldogs03
You'd first have to get rid zoning regulations that restrict the freedom to start businesses.
It wouldn't be able to apply to utility companies like Cox or Energy.
What if the business received some kind of tax break or inventives provided via the public?
It logically makes sense to let the free market work, but we don't live in a perfect society, and too many businesses are entrenched in areas. I guess the solution would be for those being discriminated against to move, but that isn't realistic either.
It wouldn't be able to apply to utility companies like Cox or Energy.
What if the business received some kind of tax break or inventives provided via the public?
It logically makes sense to let the free market work, but we don't live in a perfect society, and too many businesses are entrenched in areas. I guess the solution would be for those being discriminated against to move, but that isn't realistic either.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:05 pm to chinese58
quote:
You really think people should not be allowed to eat in a restaurant just because of something like their race or nationality?
100%. However, If the restaurant makes that choice they should have to suffer the consequences. Ideally if there is a whites only restaurant no white people would eat there out of principle.Same for a black only restaurant or whatever race you choose. It's sort of the whole idea behind a free market economy.
Should it be federal law? No.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:07 pm to Barf
quote:
If the restaurant makes that choice they should have to suffer the consequences. Ideally if there is a whites only restaurant no white people would eat there out of principle.Same for a black only restaurant or whatever race you choose. It's sort of the whole idea behind a free market econom
that worked really well in the 1950's.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:10 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
that worked really well in the 1950's.
That's not the point or the question. Just because it didn't work in the 50's doesn't mean it should be a law. You glossed over where I said "ideally." A business would have to gamble on having enough racists in town to support them.
Do it need to be law at the time? Yes, no doubt about it, but it should have been an individual states issue.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:15 pm to WhoDat37
I was really pissed in the 80's when the feds ruled that having one bedroom apartment communities that were "Singles Only" was unconstitutional. Singles only really meant, "No Kids."
It brought an end to part of one of the greatest scenes ever in the good ole USA. The Summer Splash parties ended. There were no more wet tee shirt contests at the community pools and no more kegs of beer in the clubhouse.
I hated it, but I understood it. A lady that worked with me had to live farther away from our office because she had a little girl. The majority of the complexes over that way were singles only.
It brought an end to part of one of the greatest scenes ever in the good ole USA. The Summer Splash parties ended. There were no more wet tee shirt contests at the community pools and no more kegs of beer in the clubhouse.
I hated it, but I understood it. A lady that worked with me had to live farther away from our office because she had a little girl. The majority of the complexes over that way were singles only.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:19 pm to MSUbulldogs03
Yes, it should be allowed by private business owners - 100%. As far as government policy goes? Hell no. There's is a stark contrast between private property and public. If someone wants to run their business in such a way, so be it. As it is today, 99% of the time it will fail in dramatic fashion.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:22 pm to chinese58
quote:
You really think people should not be allowed to eat in a restaurant just because of something like their race or nationality?
Absolutely. The owner of a business, nor anyone else, should not be forced to work for someone he does not want to work for.
Should a person be forced by law to work for someone he does not like due only to their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs?
Why are employers the only ones not allowed to be bigots?
Let's pass a law that would punish LGBT, blacks, or whomever if they refuse to work for someone due to their color/creed/dress etc.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:26 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
If a purple person walks in my store I aint taking his money, I am running the hell away
Aww, I is sad.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:27 pm to Barf
quote:
That's not the point or the question. Just because it didn't work in the 50's doesn't mean it should be a law. You glossed over where I said "ideally." A business would have to gamble on having enough racists in town to support them.
Yes, I know. It was not a law in the 60's.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:27 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
If the restaurant makes that choice they should have to suffer the consequences. Ideally if there is a whites only restaurant no white people would eat there out of principle.Same for a black only restaurant or whatever race you choose. It's sort of the whole idea behind a free market econom
that worked really well in the 1950's.
It actually did. Blacks did MUCH better relative to whites in the 50s than they do today in income/family stability/business creation etc.
Look at the stats before you blast me.
And I'm not talking about legalized segregation, which is clearly morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong.
If some knucklehead wants to serve only whites or blacks, or Asians, or Muslims, that's really none of your or my business ( ha ha, no pun intended)
Posted on 4/28/16 at 7:37 pm to Ole War Skule
The biggest change would be in housing. HOA covenants would reflect this. White flight might stop. Which would change so much, things like school districts and traffic patterns and family time.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:12 pm to MSUbulldogs03
No - but in my opinion, like torture, discrimination has been defined so far down that almost anyone can scream "I have been discriminated against" and have people believe them.
I fear it won't be long and poor people will be claiming discrimination because it costs money to eat somewhere.
I fear it won't be long and poor people will be claiming discrimination because it costs money to eat somewhere.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 8:50 pm to MSUbulldogs03
Yes. It should be allowed. Business will succeed or fail based on the decisions they make in this regard.
If someone is goofy enough to not want someone's money while running a business they should not be forced to take that money.
If someone is goofy enough to not want someone's money while running a business they should not be forced to take that money.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 11:12 pm to Easy
quote:
Sure you are. But maybe it's 3 units not 4.
bullshite! I would love to see how you justify this.Posted on 4/28/16 at 11:17 pm to chinese58
quote:
You really think people should not be allowed to eat in a restaurant just because of something like their race or nationality?
No I think doing that is totally wrong, and I think the vast majority of people realize it is, but I think the government shouldn't be involved and should let the free market decide. If a business had that right and suddenly posted a sign saying "whites only"or something like that the business would most likely go under in no time because most people wouldn't support it and even the ones that would want support it wouldn't go there because they would be worried about being branded a racist. Also, if someone didn't want me in their place of business because of my race I sure as hell would want to know because I wouldn't want to give them a penny of my money. Get it now?
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 4/28/16 at 11:42 pm to MSUbulldogs03
I'm very socially liberal and have been highly disgusted in the past by racist behaviors I've encountered but I am of the opinion that generally speaking people should be free to discriminate so long as it is not with malicious intent to harm others.
I might cave a little and agree that for certain essential services and highly regulated services you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. I'm talking banking, housing, taxi/uber, hospitals, and grocery stores.
I might cave a little and agree that for certain essential services and highly regulated services you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. I'm talking banking, housing, taxi/uber, hospitals, and grocery stores.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News