by exploited » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:16 pm
I just wanted to be sure that, in your mind, liberty means being able to deny service to blacks, jews, homosexuals, the mentally disabled and women, but it does not mean being able to expect service just because you can pay for it and you meet all legal requirements.
This, my friends, is a prime example of theoretical versus substantive freedom.
Medius states that it would be very hard to find a store that would deny service on those grounds, as if this indicates a reason to abolish the very laws that make them so rare. Of course you'll have a hard time finding businesses and business owners willing to act upon their prejudices - it has become morally as well as legally impermissible to do so.
Your opinions only make the least bit of sense if you assume that racism, one of the most virile, base hatreds out there, a belief that has damaged our culture for three hundred years has somehow magically disappeared. And now that it has seemingly disappeared, the very laws and social stigmas responsible for that change are irrelevant.
Not only that, but you guys have argued that a very tiny minority of people would discriminate - and then say that protecting the much bigger group of people who would face discrimination is less important than protecting the liberty of a tiny minority, a liberty whose only purpose is racial or sexual discrimination.
Finally, fstar makes a ridiculous analogy comparing a medical procedure with being able to go to a restaurant or get your hair cut. If a man wants boobs, and he is capable of paying, and you have no reason to believe he is not of sound mind, and you have obtained informed consent, you should be obligated to serve him. If there is a good reason for you not too, then give it. Businesses have the right to refuse service for all sorts of good reasons... race and sexuality are not good reasons.
- These users thanked the author exploited for the post:
- The Comrade