Should businesses legally have to provide goods/services to everyone? (2 Viewers)

[Will Shakespear]

Court sides with lesbian couple in wedding photo case New Mexico Independent

District Court Judge ruled this week that an Albuquerque photo studio violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act in 2006, when the owner refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony—simply because they’re lesbians, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

So should a business be legally obligated to provide services to the entire public without any kind of discrimination

OR

Should it be their choice who they do or don't enter into contracts with?

Another lolbertarian thread, lol

If you go for #2, what if this leads to something like segregation again?

 

[jb_nc]

fuck bigots

 

[Planck]

Bring the crackpots out into the open

 

[Iron]

lol we should reflect that the lesbians decided to drag this guy through the courts because he wouldnt take their pictures
+penis

 

[badquinton304]

lol dildos

 

[jb_nc]

lol we should reflect that the lesbians decided to drag this guy through the courts because he wouldnt take their pictures
+penis

hmm yes m8 you certainly read the article there

 

[Riet]

A business is free to refuse service to someone and the consumer is free to go somewhere else.

Would a business be forced to take pictures of someone murdering a white baby?

 

[aussie-boy]

I think so.

Nightclubs certainly don't atm

 

[SylviaB]

obviously not

as for segregation, there are enough crazy fervently anti-racist left wingers in the world for open discrimination against a race to be not commercially viable

 

[Slidey]

obviously not

as for segregation, there are enough crazy fervently anti-racist left wingers in the world for open discrimination against a race to be not commercially viable

Actually, it could easily be commercially viable in the same way an electoral party like Family First is politically viable; it attracts and caters to extremist nutjobs - a niche market.

You have a poor grasp of the free market for a lolbertarian.

 

[0bs3n3]

No they shouldn't, should you legally have to let anyone into your home for the night?

 

[Will Shakespear]

Yeah but the freedom of business isn't the same thing as the freedom of an individual

If someone can create a business that gives them certain privileges in society, and they're also bound by certain regulations, e.g. OH&S laws, tax laws etc., so what's wrong with those regulations including anti-discrimination?

 

[0bs3n3]

Yeah but the freedom of business isn't the same thing as the freedom of an individual

If someone can create a business that gives them certain privileges in society, and they're also bound by certain regulations, e.g. OH&S laws, tax laws etc., so what's wrong with those regulations including anti-discrimination?

Because it's their property?

 

[BlackDragon]

Hmm.. In the same way that it is not right to force someone to sell to only a certain section of the population, I think that it is wrong to force someone to sell to the entire population. I mean it seems fine that a person should not have to sell to someone if they earnestly disagree or are offended by the views of someone. On top of this, who are we to decide whether someones' views about who they like as people are right or wrong? To do so is to imply some sort of national moralism. Therefore, people should be able to sell to whoever they want. But this doesn't mean if there is a shop owner that is being terrible to certain people that we can't react to him as a person and choose not to shop there. Peoples' views about the world are a personal thing and we can't legislate about who they sell to as to restrict that.

 

[Name_Taken]

Buisnesses should have discretion over who they serve. However it should be done on an individual customer basis, and not be based on descriminating against an entire demographic, e.g. refusing to serve anyone of a certain race etc.

A bank for example, should have the ability to selectively choose who they provide loans and other financial services to.

If a person enters a store and starts acting inappropriatly, the store owners should have the ability not only to not serve them, but also expell them from the store.

Buisnesses have an incentive to serve as many customers as possible to maximise profits. Obviously then, should a buisness choose to reject customers, they run the risk of losing potential profit. If a buisness, say Coles refused to sell products to too large a number of people, then they risk losing market share to cometitors, i.e. Woolies.

 

[BlackDragon]

I agree that businesses should not discriminate on whole sections of the population, but I think they should have the right to do so. They should just be subject to the consequences of their actions; if they accept people without discrimination they will have an increased ability to make money. But we shouldn't force them to do this.

Buisnesses have an incentive to serve as many customers as possible to maximise profits. Obviously then, should a buisness choose to reject customers, they run the risk of losing potential profit. If a buisness, say Coles refused to sell products to too large a number of people, then they risk losing market share to cometitors, i.e. Woolies.

 

[SashatheMan]

Buisnesses should have discretion over who they serve. However it should be done on an individual customer basis, and not be based on descriminating against an entire demographic, e.g. refusing to serve anyone of a certain race etc.

A bank for example, should have the ability to selectively choose who they provide loans and other financial services to.

If a person enters a store and starts acting inappropriatly, the store owners should have the ability not only to not serve them, but also expell them from the store.

Buisnesses have an incentive to serve as many customers as possible to maximise profits. Obviously then, should a buisness choose to reject customers, they run the risk of losing potential profit. If a buisness, say Coles refused to sell products to too large a number of people, then they risk losing market share to cometitors, i.e. Woolies.

Sounds about right.

 

[jb_nc]

Yeah but the freedom of business isn't the same thing as the freedom of an individual

[...] modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person.

The Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Amerikkka

 

[SylviaB]

Actually, it could easily be commercially viable in the same way an electoral party like Family First is politically viable; it attracts and caters to extremist nutjobs - a niche market.

You have a poor grasp of the free market for a lolbertarian.

one business is NOT going to be responsible for segregation

 

[Enteebee]

It depends how far you're going to push discrimination (which imo, will often end up being too far). For instance, I do believe there should be womens only gyms, male-only clubs etc but at the same time I don't think there should white-only swimming pools. I guess to me it depends on whether the act of 'discrimination' leads to an equitable result.... However that test is far too arbitrary, so I'd just say there should be no discrimination.