LogFAQs > #927661844

adjl posted...

In which case they have always been creating disadvantages for no reason.

They were never obligated to start a business in the first place, nobody had the right to buy things from the shopkeeper prior to starting a business. When they started the business, everybody gained the advantage of being able to use his shop. If he does not sell to a person/group, they simply do not get that advantage, they have not been deprived.

adjl posted...

Furthermore, if we're considering homophobia specifically, then it's completely believable that somebody has lived in the area for years without problems, then suddenly found themselves unable to get groceries because they came out as gay.

Then they were using an advantage the shopkeeper was not willing to give to them for years.

adjl posted...

It's also possible that the business changed hands and the new owners were so dickishly discriminatory.

The previous owner offered the service, the new one does not, at no point was anybody owed that service.

adjl posted...

They could also have decided that they're fed up with "political correctness" and that the current political climate means they'll be able to get away with pushing back against it

Sounds like they were forced by circumstance to offer an advantage they weren't happy to offer and when given the opportunity to act freely, they stopped offering the thing they didn't want to give.

adjl posted...

There are plenty of explanations for why it could be a recent problem, but really, your logic of "it's always been this way so it's fine" isn't remotely valid logic at all and I don't need to come up with alternative explanations. If it'll make you feel better, feel free to mentally substitute "maintaining disadvantages" for "creating disadvantages" in my prior statement of the bottom line, and that should cover your entire position.

As I think I've made clear, they were never entitled to that person's business, so they went from +1 advantage to 0, they did not go from 0 to -1 (a disadvantage).

While I don't care for this to be suddenly flipped on, let's imagine it did. A provision could easily be made that previous customers can continue to use services available to them but no new customers could. That would mean that nobody who already put down roots would be effected, but anybody who moves in to rural hickland should be wary of potential restrictions and act accordingly. If they cannot use a service then it's on them to ensure their move would allow them to live how they want to.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...
The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.