Comments

1. Posted by: Jynx on 4/19/2010 9:25 PM
   
   A wonderfully succinct article pointing to the core problem of such legislation. While the homosexual couple have every right to be together (freedom of association) they would deny the owners of the bed-and-breadkfast the same right.
   
   Moreover, if individuals do not have the right to control their own property (and who is allowed access to it, etc.) then no other rights can exist in the first place.
   
   All rights come down to property rights.
2. Posted by: TDOM on 4/19/2010 9:48 PM
   
   @ Jynx
   
   While I agree with the basic premise, the example you cite is a poor one. It is one thing to be free to choose to associate on a social level. It is another to choose to discriminate while running a business. The instant the owners of a B&B open their home to doing business they must give up personal liberties and become subject to the laws of doing business. This forbids them to discriminate. Close the business and I would whole-heartedly support their right to choose not to associate with homosexuals.
   
   My opinion is that the primary responsibility of government should be to protect the individual citizen. Government should resolve issues(through legislation) where individual rights are in conflict. But individual rights should take precedence (in most cases) over those of business entities and the role of government should be to protect the individual.
   
   -TDOM
3. Posted by: Jynx on 4/25/2010 3:23 AM
   
   @TDOM
   
   
   You said:
   
   "It is one thing to be free to choose to associate on a social level. It is another to choose to discriminate while running a business. "
   
   Why? What is the difference when, in both instances, the individual is making the decision of how and when to utilize their private property?
   
   You said:
   
   "The instant the owners of a B&B open their home to doing business they must give up personal liberties and become subject to the laws of doing business. "
   
   
   Exactly my point; the legislation in question which forces them to "give up" some of their personal liberties is destructive to liberty and the recognition of the foundation for liberty: property rights.
   
   
   You said:
   
   "While I agree with the basic premise, the example you cite is a poor one."
   
   You have yet to explain why.
4. Posted by: TDOM on 4/25/2010 4:24 PM
   
   @jynx
   I said:
   "It is one thing to be free to choose to associate on a social level. It is another to choose to discriminate while running a business. "
   
   You replied:
   Why? What is the difference when, in both instances, the individual is making the decision of how and when to utilize their private property?
   
   A business simply cannot be permitted to chose its cutomers based upon group characteristics. That's discrimination. Saying to a gay couple that you can't stay here because you are gay isn't any different than telling a Black couple they can't stay there because they are Black. At that point you are imposing upon the individual liberties of the couple to travel freely. Individuals have personal liberties, businesses do not and should not. If an individual choses to turn his home into a business, that is his choice. But at that point the home becomse less personal than public. The rights of a business should not take precedence over the rights of an individual.
   
   That should explain why I said the example is a poor one.
   
   -TDOM
   
   
5. Posted by: Stealthmodeon on 4/28/2010 3:05 PM
   
   @ TDOM.
   
   I think the example is perfect.
   
   We agree on this point - A private individual has the right to discriminated in anyway that person chooses.... "...It is one thing to be free to choose to associate on a social level"
   
   But at what point does one loose the right to choose whom to do business with? In my opinion only once you take government money, or when you are a government entity. As taxes are raised from the whole population, all expenditures must benefit the whole population - this is the point of the "equal protection" clauses in the US constitution.
   
   But as a private buisness I have one mandate - make a profit. All the social good intentions are pointless if the buisness colapses. So the "subject to the laws of doing business. " is make money.
   
   I i choose to limit my customer base by refusing to take the money of groups X and Y, then I choose to reduce my market share. As someone said during the 60's "I might not like the colour of your skin, but I sure do like the colour of your money"...
   
   Private enterprise is the same as any other private entity under a libertarian view - "everyone is free to go to hell in any way they see fit - so long as they do not force anyone to go with them".
6. Posted by: TDOM on 4/29/2010 7:13 PM
   
   @ Stealthmodeon
   
   You said "Private enterprise is the same as any other private entity under a libertarian view - "everyone is free to go to hell in any way they see fit - so long as they do not force anyone to go with them"."
   
   This is why I don't consider myself to be a libertatrian, though I hold many libertarian views.
   
   You said "But at what point does one loose the right to choose whom to do business with? In my opinion only once you take government money, or when you are a government entity. As taxes are raised from the whole population, all expenditures must benefit the whole population - this is the point of the "equal protection" clauses in the US constitution."
   
   To answer your question, it is at the point when one chooses to do business. I do not believe a business should be permitted to discriminate against specific groups or classes of people. consider the American south about 50-60 years ago. Businesses refused to serve Black people based on the color of their skin. Such practices effectively denied an entire group of people the ability to exercise their indiviual freedoms and liberties. I believe that this kind of discrimination is wrong. So did the US government. It did not matter that these businesses did not take government funds.
   
   On the other hand, I believe a business may make decisions based on its ability to conduct business with particular individuals. Getting back to the example, if the gay couple were loud, rude, obnoxious, and disturbing other guests with their behavior, the business has a right to refuse them. But this is different than refusing them because they are gay.
   
   It is my belief that individual rights almost always take precedence over the rights of businesses, governments, or other entities. I say almost becauseI can think of a couple of exceptions. Religions, for example. should gay marriage be legalized, no particular religion should be forced to perform the ceremonies. Also, I believe a government has a limited right to eminent domain and therefore may seize (with adequate compensation) private property when such seizure will benefit the greater good of its people. I'm very cautious about this, however. government also hasthe right to enact laws restricting personal freedoms and liberties, but only to the extent that all of its citizens may exercise their freedoms and liberties with the least amount of infringement upon each other. In other words, governments may define where my rights end and yours begin.
   
   Abusiness may have mandate to make a profit, but I would argue that this is a privilege, and not an absolute right. As such, a business must be subject to restrictions that are not placed on individuals.
   
   -TDOM
7. Posted by: Pankaj on 5/20/2010 3:06 PM
   
   TDOM,
   
   Did you read the article?
   
   "A business simply cannot be permitted to chose its customers based upon group characteristics. That's discrimination."
   
   So what? Everyday people discriminate and buy and sell based on their particular preference. Indeed the quality of buyer/seller often becomes a parameter for business - For example, you would not buy girl scout cookies from a middleaged man - but when a cute little scout girl begs you to buy them - you do or at least are tempted to do so.
   
   "In other words, governments may define where my rights end and yours begin."
   Did you ever read Thomas Paine? Richard Cobden, John Bright and such? Seriously.. I suggest you first understand what the term liberal (as opposed to contemporary "liberal" ) actually means.
8. Posted by: Pankaj on 5/20/2010 3:11 PM
   
   TDOM,
   
   To put it quite simply..
   
   If its not X's property = its none of X's business to impose what happens there. That includes, you, me, the British govt, the UN or Angelina Jolie. The only choice the rest of us have is to suggest a better way and otherwise mind our own businesses - or if you really want to change things - buy their B&B house out and run it your way.
   
   If you really want to claim goodness/moral standing, Try to avoid the temptation of imposing your version of "morality" with a government gun, when there already exist totally peaceful ways of solving the "problem".
9. Posted by: Pankaj on 5/20/2010 3:22 PM
   
   TDOM,
   
   Your post consists of a lot of "Must be"s without adequate reasoning as to why.
   
   My favorite is "a business must be subject to restrictions that are not placed on individuals." Why? Because it makes profit? If that is so, every individual earns income (unless he lives on dole/charity), all his savings are individual profit. Makes me wonder why profit of individuals makes them any different than businesses.
   
   Any chance you sympathize with socialist thought and classify "businesses" as different only because they hold capital/property?
10. Posted by: rolex watch on 2/22/2011 7:30 PM
    
    oh my!! i love you so much!!
    
    Thank you so much.
    
    
11. Posted by: Hermes Massai on 4/11/2011 6:23 PM
    
    To put it quite simply..