are you saying its impossible that I may not like something but at the same time believe people should have the right to do it? because thats exactly what he said

Leave us census takers be. We only work once every ten years.

take it up with mcnasty

Are you OK with hate speech?

I mean this is a loaded question, DUCY?

In some circumstances, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. For example, if a third party is going to be harmed by that action. Like, you know, segregation laws and stuff.

How is one harmed? Go back to the OP.

I'm not saying there's NOT harm, BTW. I want you to be explicit about what KIND of harm you're talking about. It's not all equal.

Of course. That's why I'm asking.

I seriously do wonder sometimes, though. If you were an old-timey, small town mayor with real power, would you force the town's only chemist to sell medicine to all residents, even if he didn't want to? I hope you would.

If the town's only chemist wanted to retire should I force him to stay in business?

Why is the OP limiting the distinction between residential and commercial to only transactions?

Maybe. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

BTW, if I were "the boss" you wouldn't need a prescription to get drugs from a gatekeeper pharmacist, so the whole question is moot to begin with.

Screw him. Are you saying he should be able to discriminate, else he retire? fine. The next chemist in line, and their would be many, would likely be more than willing to comply with the ordinance.

b

sounds like there's not much of a problem then

I have the right to have an orgy on my property. And since I can't seem to provide the hot models for this on my own, the government must provide them or my rights will go unfulfilled.

People used to be able to do whatever they want in their own business. Now they cant. OP seems happy not learning lessons from history which will cause him to repeat them.

lol

Thanks for the tip, phill, I think there were people confused about the current state of the laws in this regard.

Let's not tard up a potentially interesting discussion

As expected, we have the "History, ergo all these laws" crowd without any kind of moral theory. I can play that game too!

Cattle rustling should be punished more heavily than other forms of theft, because you guys have obviously never taken 10th grade history in which you would have learned that cattle rustling caused serious harm in the American Old West. While there's less of it today, some of you guys seem to think it doesn't happen it all.

Oh, you're going to criticise my argument? I'm not doing a STRICT LOGICAL PROOF, you know. I know you guys like to think everything can be derived from first principles, but I mean, come on. I suggest you read a history book.

Completely in character

Liberal theoreticians will solve this. Just because you can't think of a solution doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Let time work it out. qed.

The regulate business guys need to answer these points imo

I allow certain people into my house based on subjective criteria. I allow certain people into my shop based on subjective criteria. What is it about the nature of commerce that changes the moral nature of these actions so much that one should be regulated and one not?

If you define not allowing someone to trade with you as harming them, to a degree that the government should be involved in preventing that harm what is in that definition that negates the need for the government to interfere when I am harming a million people everyday in my personal life by not giving them my money.

It is way easier to cause your local politician to institute racist policies (see arizona) than it is your local wal-mart. Firstly the latter wants to profit maximise and generally artificially narrowing your potential customer base (beyond ability to pay for etc) is not a god way to go, and secondly the latter has to deal with national and international reputation in how they conduct their business. Giving the politicians the power to enforce racial harmony gives them the power to enforce racial segregation should the political tide turn.

You guys are looking for some sort of over-arching moral/ethical/whatever theorem to guide human use of property. I hate to break it to you, but you aren't going to find one.

If you want to throw out specific examples, I'd be happy to throw my opinions at them. Individually, I like to think my opinions will be at least somewhat defensible, but if you gather a whole bunch of them together they're going to be an incomprehensible mess of contradiction.

If, after millenia of failure, some philosopher comes along one day and manages to solve this nagging problem of humanity, let me know.

I don't want To speak for OP but I kinda think this was his point. There no principle at work here once we actually start examining it. It's just a bunch of the same old "we're gonna tell ya what to do" wrapped up in a slightly different veil of righteousness.

Oh, I fully expect to not find one. What the "mess of contradiction" suggests is that you don't really believe your justifications. Like if you say "I support Policy A because of Moral Theory X" and you can't give me a sensible answer to "why don't you support Policy B which is also implied by Moral Theory X?", that suggests you don't really support Moral Theory X, instead you have some other reason for supporting Policy A which you need to cover up with a rationalisation.