LogFAQs > #927673968

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Anti-Gay Tramps Win Case and are ALLOWED to REFUSE Business to GAY PEOPLE!!!
adjl 09/19/19 6:15:02 PM #78:	Kyuubi4269 posted... It's the entire point. You can't go up to any person and demand they sell you stuff and a business is run by people. They don't owe you, they're giving you an opportunity. But we're not talking about a random person on the street. We're talking about an established business that is offering the service in question. Kyuubi4269 posted... Nobody is entitled to a store nearby, the fact most people have the advantage doesn't mean they're disadvantaged, just that everybody is complacent over their privileged position. It's not about entitlements. It's about necessities. If you don't have a grocery store nearby, things don't run very well. Ergo, a community should have a grocery store, and if the person running the only one is such an asshole that they're going to force some people to go elsewhere, then they're impairing things' ability to run well and should either be forced to amend their assholish ways, or be replaced. Kyuubi4269 posted... I'm not debating morals with you. You certainly seemed pretty interested in painting the formerly-closeted customer as the bad guy. Kyuubi4269 posted... That's the system I actually want. People should act on what demand is and what risks they're willing to take, I don't think it should be legally enforced. It wasn't legally enforced. We're just in a political climate now where people think expecting basic goddamn manners is somehow an affront to their freedom that must be aggressively resisted. Kyuubi4269 posted... 0 is advantaged relative to -1, that's not a useful metric. The term "advantage" is a relative term. It has no absolute value. If you don't think measuring it relatively is a useful metric, then you don't actually understand what we're talking about. Kyuubi4269 posted... Do you also think people selling their home should be forced to give their home to a homeless person? They're very disadvataged, no home or no money! You notice how I keep putting "for no reason" in there? There's a reason for that. I would consider the value of a home to be an excellent reason to not simply give said home away. That's not a trivial amount of money. Kyuubi4269 posted... Why? Can it not be the responsibility of the person moving to check they can use the services? I sincerely hope you don't think it's remotely practical for somebody looking to move to a new area to call all of the local businesses and ask if they'll be willing to serve them after listing a series of their attributes. That's not reasonable (again, a term I used for a reason). --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:927673968] in Anti-Gay T... [t:78019771]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>It's the entire point. You can't go up to any person and demand they sell you stuff and a business is run by people. They don't owe you, they're giving you an opportunity.</quote> But we're not talking about a random person on the street. We're talking about an established business that is offering the service in question. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Nobody is entitled to a store nearby, the fact most people have the advantage doesn't mean they're disadvantaged, just that everybody is complacent over their privileged position.</quote> It's not about entitlements. It's about necessities. If you don't have a grocery store nearby, things don't run very well. Ergo, a community should have a grocery store, and if the person running the only one is such an asshole that they're going to force some people to go elsewhere, then they're impairing things' ability to run well and should either be forced to amend their assholish ways, or be replaced. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not debating morals with you.</quote> You certainly seemed pretty interested in painting the formerly-closeted customer as the bad guy. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>That's the system I actually want. People should act on what demand is and what risks they're willing to take, I don't think it should be legally enforced.</quote> It wasn't legally enforced. We're just in a political climate now where people think expecting basic goddamn manners is somehow an affront to their freedom that must be aggressively resisted. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>0 is advantaged relative to -1, that's not a useful metric.</quote> The term "advantage" is a relative term. It has no absolute value. If you don't think measuring it relatively is a useful metric, then you don't actually understand what we're talking about. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Do you also think people selling their home should be forced to give their home to a homeless person? They're very disadvataged, no home or no money! </quote> You notice how I keep putting "for no reason" in there? There's a reason for that. I would consider the value of a home to be an excellent reason to not simply give said home away. That's not a trivial amount of money. Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Why? Can it not be the responsibility of the person moving to check they can use the services?</quote> I sincerely hope you don't think it's remotely practical for somebody looking to move to a new area to call all of the local businesses and ask if they'll be willing to serve them after listing a series of their attributes. That's not reasonable (again, a term I used for a reason). --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1