Well, I agree that it's unethical to refuse service to someone just for being gay, but I don't understand why it's a bad thing if he wants to offer a discount to gun owners.Not only is a service that has nothing to do with gay marriage at all being denied to gay people but blatant favoritism is being given to gun owners?
Well in itself it's not worth making a fuss about. It only becomes a problem when taken in the context of the whole situation.
but I don't understand why it's a bad thing if he wants to offer a discount to gun owners.
It's possible, maybe to say he likes to serve conservative gun owners since he considers them "on his side". Probably sensationalist hype I would imagine.To me that's two utterly unrelated matters. It seems more like people are trying to escalate the criticism of the refusal to serve gays by stacking the gun owner discount on top of it.
Naturally, my response to this of course is that in this case it isn't. There are rules, both moral and legal, which exist independently of his business that govern what he can and cannot do with it. Blatant discrimination of this sort is not a right in any meaningful sense and this kind of behavior does violate rights and liberties of others. My understanding of American-style Libertarianism was that people had the right to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with another's rights and liberties. Am I correct in this?
it is still within his legal and Constitutional right to do so. His business, his rules.
I hope he does, though he doesn't seem to be budging despite the protests of the local community.
If enough of the community took that stance, he might change his own policies....
Yes, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that anyone has a "right" to patronize a particular business if the owner doesn't want them. Private property is private property. Business owners have rights too.My understanding of American-style Libertarianism was that people had the right to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with another's rights and liberties. Am I correct in this?
Actually, the United States has a Constitutional right of "free association" that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past (I can look up examples later, if you'd like). What this means is that individuals do have a legal, Constitutionally-protected right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason they choose.Naturally, my response to this of course is that in this case it isn't. There are rules, both moral and legal, which exist independently of his business that govern what he can and cannot do with it. Blatant discrimination of this sort is not a right in any meaningful sense and this kind of behavior does violate rights and liberties of others.
it is still within his legal and Constitutional right to do so. His business, his rules.
Correct. So where is this violated here? There is nothing that this man is doing to prevent gay people from visiting other auto shops. In fact, I'd like to see a competing auto shop set up a sign saying "gay people welcome here" - or even go as far as giving same-sex couples a discount - and let the free market ultimately determine who the winner is in this battle.My understanding of American-style Libertarianism was that people had the right to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with another's rights and liberties.
Except, of course, his Constitutional, God-given right to discriminate how he wishes. You know, except for free will, he has to obey the rules.So unfortunately for him, his business has to play by the rules just like everyone else. There is nothing in his line of work that would merit an exemption from this.
Exactly what I'm saying.Yes, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that anyone has a "right" to patronize a particular business if the owner doesn't want them. Private property is private property. Business owners have rights too.
This.I have been fuming over this for the past couple of days. I do believe that that man has every right to serve who he wants when he wants. The thing that kills me is attaching "I'm a Christian" and I live by a higher set of moral values. I think all Christians need pray for this man and get him to realize that by discriminating against a person for their sins is not Christ like at all. I'm sure Jesus would fix their car, I'm sure he would also find time to take a minute to share the good news and Love them just as he loves me.
You beat me to it, although I do have more to add to this. Yes, there are laws and regulations concerning how one can conduct their business. The people don't "own" the business in the same regard that one owns a house. Since businesses are in the realm of commerce, the government, specifically Congress, has the Constitutional power to regulate it. These regulations have to guarantee equal protection for all people under the law, as per the 14th Amendment.Now on the subject of the man running is business the way he wants to it is true to a point but he still must do it with in the confines of the Law. I bet is Yelp reviews are blowing up though. Also if I'm not mistake the state has some control over his business already right taxes, licenses, OSHA or does he get to take a pass on that to.
Well said.What about signs that say no shirt no shoes no service isn't that a form of discrimination. So what about gays people that aren't open about it suddenly it becomes ok to him and how does he. Does he have gay-dar that is so finely tuned that he is never wrong about a persons sexual orientation. Lets get back to this openly part Jesus teaches us "Anyone who hates another brother or sister is really a murderer at heart. And you know that murderers don't have eternal life within them." 1 John 3:15 So if you are Gay in your heart then you are still Gay so openly vs closeted makes no differences to God it's what is in your heart. And unless this dude is Jesus then how does he know what is in another persons heart. Also I wish he would define openly does he mean a butch looking female or an effeminate male maybe it's a public display of affection maybe just put up a sign for everyone no shoes no shirt no smooching while I fix your car. Anyways I've been holding that in for awhile. I still love him though and I still would not get my car fixed as his place of business.
'Cause you can't have freedom without chains, right?Well, a number of Enlightenment thinkers thought otherwise and I agree with them. Humans are more inclined towards self-preservation and advancement over anything else. I think human nature has the capacity for the above things, but its inclination towards sin is what will take over for society at large if there is no governing force to keep it in check. This is part of Hobbes' foundation for his version of the Social Contract. Unlimited liberty to do anything will result in selfishness, barbarism, and basically all around chaos. As part of the Social Contract, the Government must agree to protect important rights of the people and give them equal freedoms. However, the people's part is that they must come together and agree that not all rights are truly "unlimited" and that a truly free society can't have unlimited freedoms for everyone because of the issue mentioned earlier. They must agree to have limitations on various freedoms and liberties, and both sides need to be in agreement as to what those limitations should be. The people then agree to give that over to the Government to arbitrate as an external authority (or as Hobbes put it a "coercive power"). Without said body that can adequately enforce these things and arbitrate disputes on these matters, and if the people do not respect the power that the authority has to do what it is meant to do in its part of the social contract, it all falls apart. Our responsibility is to come to an agreement on how we should limit ourselves and to agree that the government has the authority to act as a mediator and of course a coercive power to ensure that the limitations to liberties that we might simply like to have but are either not fundamental rights or will cause society as a whole to fall apart if we allowed them free reign. Individual liberty tempered by personal responsibility is the end of the bargain the People must hold up. If they do not, it is up to the Government to step in regarding those situations if they would cause too much disruption to society as a whole or violate fundamental rights.
You realize, don't you, that a government not kept in check will do the exact same thing, because the humans who run any government have the same human nature as the governed. This is the reason for preferring limited government... it's to keep it in check precisely because of the human nature being used to justify statism.Humans are more inclined towards self-preservation and advancement over anything else. I think human nature has the capacity for the above things, but its inclination towards sin is what will take over for society at large if there is no governing force to keep it in check
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest