Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    You're suggesting that a business owner should do just that. Hell, if we all just conformed to what the other perceives as being correct.

    No, Seagypsy, I wouldn't want you any other way.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    So how do you suggest the injustice be handled. If I was not the aggressor or harming anyone, why should I be the one giving up my rights? Wearing a burqa did not infringe on the rights of others or prevent them from having a normal standard of living. My being muslim did not infring on the rights of others, or make daily life difficult for them. Their bigotry did not cause me problems. Their willingness to act on that bigotry did cause me problems. Bigotry is not illegal. Bigoted acts are. You can legally want someone dead. But you cannot kill them. No one is telling people they cannot be bigots. They are simply being told they cannot inflict bigoted behavior on others in matters that impact the rights of peacefully living of others.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Ooh, That was a good reply. Kudos!

    Now Morgan Stanley is under fire--news flash.

    Are all bigoted acts illegal? Honestly, are all bigoted acts illegal? If someone posted bigoted fliers around a Muslim community, would that be a bigoted act that affected others? Could we justify some bigoted acts as a form of expression? People do it every day. As for your personal experience, I can understand your frustration; however, I also believe that a business owner should have control over his establishment.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I personally would have allowed you in my store, but my personal choices should not determine those of others.
     
  8. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    It would depend on the intensity of the bigoted fliers. They would be considered hate speech. If they incited discrimination violent or otherwise, it would likely be illegal. If it did not incite or intend to incite then it would likely just be expression and be protected.

    Edit to add: if even one person said the fliers made them fear fro their life you would be crossing the lines of legality. It is not legal to make someone fear for their life. If it were legal, you would not be allowed to kill someone because you felt your life was threatened by them. I don't mean to say it would be legal for any one to hunt down those who posted the fliers and kill them. But there is an implication that this sort of thing would be seen as terroristic threats and be illegal.
     
  9. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Short of a direct threat, I don't see any legal action, which makes me wonder about speech in a place of business, and whether the same liberties exist there.

    I would have to agree with you there.
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    There are no hate speech laws in the United States. We have protected speech in this country.

    Incorrect. Inciting violence is illegal, but inciting bigotry (I suppose by that you mean something like disparaging a class of people) is not illegal.

    That's also incorrect. Anyone can say they fear for their lives. It would be a matter of whether or not the flier was objectively threatening, and if there was any legitimate reason to fear for their lives. Saying "Kill all blacks" is one thing, but something like "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets," or "If I were president, blacks wouldn't be allowed to breathe," is protected.
     
  11. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    You are probably right, its all very complicated. The laws are worded very specifically. In my case I was threatened by my ex, he said,"If you don't do as I say, I can't be responsible for the safety of the other kids as they walk to school." but because he didn't outright say he was going to inflict harm the police couldn't do anything. Even though they agreed that it sounded like a threat. The law defines threats a bit more specifically because it has to allow for people who just talk shit sometimes.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Publishing or posting things that are racist, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted is entirely legal in this country. Bigotry isn't illegal, what's illegal is infringing on the rights of other citizens, regardless of the reason. In the US, every citizen has the right to access any business that services the public. So if you run a market, or a video store, you can't turn away people based on the color of their skin, their ethnic background, or their religion.
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    That sucks, but in all likelihood he was just being a douche. Arresting people or enforcing restraining orders against everyone who says something like that would be impossible.
     
  14. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Agreed, if you want to discriminate you have to register your business as something other than a public business. Such as a private club. Private clubs can have just about any rules they want for who they allow to join.
     
  15. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    He isn't just a douche, he is far worse, but that is for another thread. Let's just say his family has a history of honor killing.
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Well then I'd say you had a case against him, and this is an instance where the law doesn't do enough to protect you.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Yeah, exactly. Fraggle mentioned it earlier that prostitution in Nevada is treated as a private business and as such has different rules than running, say, an ice cream stand.
     
  18. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Thought there was some controversy concerning men's clubs and the denial of access to women who felt they were missing out on the benefits of mingling with influential people. To be honest, it's not at all quite clear where the line is drawn on private organizations. It seems that in some states this is true. And additionally: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Private+club
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    It's obvious we disagree right from this premise.

    I'm not going to argue whether morals are subjective or objective, but I will note that is a debate that philosophers have made and continue to have. It's not something that can be dismissed out of hand one way or the other. And, it's actually kind of interesting.

    What I do have a problem with is the idea the State supersedes the individual. The ONLY difference between State Institutions and Private Institutions is the State has the legal right to initiate force against the Citizenry. That's it. That is the only difference.

    You said if the business doesn't meet 'societal standards'. OK, think about that for a minute. If a business doesn't meet the standards of society - how the hell are they in business? That's the whole point in free-trade. You offer a product and it's up to the market to determine whether it's valued above other products that can be purchased. If it is, then you must by default meet societal standards. WHY on earth would you ever need or want to bring the government in to determine what the free-market is already determining? It doesn't make any sense at all. Also, our society is diverse and so not all products will be desired by all people. Pork for example, is NOT desired by a minority of people. Meat is not desired. Apple computers is a minority product. So, who is to say what does and does not meet the standards of society? It CAN ONLY be discovered in a free trade. There literally is no other way to know for sure.

    Suppose your business offers a product that's: strawberry scented anal floss. IS your business meeting societal standards? Do you need a governmental employee to form an action committee to determine if you are meeting 'societies standards'? No, you don't. Not only is that very uneconomical, we actually have this other nifty mechanism for determining if your product is of value - it's called voluntary trade. You will go out of business if you're not valued and you will expand your business if you are valued.


    Why on Earth would you desire to have the State "put the smackdown" on a person who offers a product? The State does so through the DIRECT INITIATION of force against to so-called "free" Citizen. That is a horrible way to run a so-called 'free' society. AND we have another way. The free-market will "put the smackdown" on a product of insufficient value through the INDIRECT VOLUNTARY refusal of trade.


    It's really that simple.


    Why are you choosing to use force when you needn't? Maybe we just can't come to an agreement on this issue. The use of force against a free citizen cuts against the very fabric of voluntary free-markets which is what differentiates use from other authoritarian societies. Not only is it immoral, its economically unsound and from MPOV goes against our very nature.
     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No, that is most certainly not what I mean. Let me make myself very clear. I am against rulers. Not rules. That little 'r' makes a world of difference.

    Slavery used to be legal. It was immoral. I would not have supported that Law. If it became legal again today - I would not support it. But why? What argument could I make? Only one based on Ethics. I would say, it's not moral to initiate force against this person. Therefor, the law is immoral.

    Would you?

    I don't think so. The reason why I say this is because you do support income tax. Which is no different. But, when you're raised to think it's normal, then, like most people - you come up with ways to justify it. Which is why Slavery was legal in America. In America, of all places. It's mindbogglingly that Slavery could be legal in America when you read the literature of the time. Yet people came up with ways to justify it.
    - Who'd pick the food?
    - Who'd build the roads?
    - Who'd make the clothes?

    Someone who talked against Slavery in the 1700s would have been considered a nutbag by the most learned of people. Why is that?
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I do agree there probably is some survival advantage hardwired to want to help people that look similar because we probably share more genes with them. But, I really don't think it's really that influential. I mean, do people with blond hair REALLY have a natural bias against people with red hair? Or blue eyes versus brown? Or fair skin versus dark? Why are people biased against homosexuals when they look the exact same? I mean, homosexuals are probably an advantage to a heterosexual as they can protect and fight and you don't have to worry about the sexual competition.

    I'm not convinced we are hardwired to be biased - maybe, but, maybe not.


    Where I do disagree is that we need to make a law. Here I actually think the opposite is true. We need to NOT have a law. We need to let the free market work. That way people learn to change their behavior. See, I think bias is learned. And it can only be through not being taught that such biases vanish - and do so naturally.


    Again, from WIKI: Markets punish the discriminator
    Free markets are our natural bias. This Nobel winning work says that when given a free market, human will naturally NOT be discriminatory. We don't need force. Just a couple years of slowly losing business will change behavior. When you're about to go under, as a business, that's when you actually greatly value and cherish customers - black, white, green, whatever.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Think about this: Why are we inclined to be so distrustful of one another? Isn't that odd? That we as a society are so fearful of the free market? Why? I mean, the free market is us. We ARE the market. So why the fear? Could it be that the constant demagoguery is actually beginning to change society? Just listen to the god damn debates. It's all about fear. Fear fear and more fear. You have to be made to feel afraid. Vote for me or else your life will be much much worse.

    Just something to think about.
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'm not dismissing it out of hand. My opinion is that they are subjective, and I've never heard a reasonable argument otherwise.

    As usual, yours is an absurdly and incorrectly reductionist viewpoint. First, there are many differences in power between the state and the individual. Hell, there are many differences in power between states and the federal government. States can't form treaties with other nations, for example. Secondly, private individuals as well as institutions have the right to initiate force. If you are under threat of physical violence, you can physically remove the threat. And what about private security firms? Hell, what about bouncers? Ever been thrown out of a club or bar?

    This is so much ranting from another "revolutionary" without an education.

    Aside from yet another overly-simplistic viewpoint, you're completely missing the point. Laws that enforce said standards provide protection for the public. Suppose restaurants didn't have to abide by health code standards. Okay, so people start getting sick, and they start to lose business. There's no guarantee that they go out of business, as there will probably be plenty of people who think "You know, I really love that place, and I've never been sick..." and continue to patronize the establishment. Or there will be newcomers to the town or city who don't know anything about the place's history, or people who don't watch the news. Without some mechanism to guarantee that once a problem is noted, said establishment is unable to operate at least until the problem is fixed, the public will have little protection against it.

    To simply assume that bad businesses simply go out of business is to ignore reality. Consider the Draconian DRM used by many of the giants in the gaming industry. Customers absolutely loathe it, but they really don't have any alternative. Because of the semi-cooperative effort within the industry to employ these tactics, gamers don't really have anywhere else to go.

    Straw man. We're talking about protecting the public from injury, illness, and oppression. Of course, there are regulations regarding the kind of stuff you can put in that anal floss, thankfully.


    As has been explained to you, the free-market won't necessarily do that. Also explained to you is that it isn't about letting the free market decide such things. There's every chance a market that discriminates against blacks will survive and perhaps even thrive. We have decided as a society that we're not going to allow that.

    You are so paranoid of this concept of force, but I can't understand it. Wouldn't you want force applied to someone who was attacking you, or trying to kill you or your family? Don't you want the courts levvying restraining orders against stalkers, and the poilce enforcing them?

    Because we do need to in order to eliminate it entirely. We have decided that these kinds of operations are prohibited. It's about ideals, which you must understand since you're basically proselytizing your own here and now. This ideal happens to differ from yours, that's all. Also, this ideal is based on real-world experience, rather than naivete.

    It's not immoral. Not enforcing such mandates would immoral, because we'd be allowing the oppression of individuals based on criteria that we, as a society, have deemed to be protected from such discrimination.
     

Share This Page