CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:52
Arguments:50
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves. (46)

Debate Creator

Iacov(68) pic



A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them. Now let me be clear I do not support this behavior and should IHOP make this decision then I even though I am not Asian will no longer go to IHOP. This is how the free market works once the public learns that a business discriminates against a group of people the public will begin to no longer use said business forcing the discriminatory business to close. I support a businesses right to deny service legally not ethically.
Add New Argument
4 points

If a company, private or otherwise sets up an enterprise it will be required to abide by the laws of country in which it is conducting business.

Whether or not they;- ''SHOULD be able to legally choose who it serves'', is a matter of opinion.

The reality is that the only opinion which counts is that of the law of the land.

If any trader has admitted to willfully and blatantly breaking the law the only discretion the judge will be able to exercise is the severity of the sentence.

Posting signs which contravene the law of the land would, at best, be meaningless, and at worst, an of fence in itself.

2 points

I find myself inclined to agree, completely. Well said. (Pigs are now flying by the blue moon)

1 point

Yes sirree Bob, that's me all over oink, oink, ha.

...............................................................

2 points

It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them.

All legal standpoints? Have you never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Antrim(1298) Clarified
1 point

That doesn't include sexual orientation.

........................................................

sylynn(626) Clarified
1 point

This is true, however 23 states have laws that prohibit discrimination due to sexual orientation; 20 of which include gender identity.

2 points

You will notice how Democrats and Progressives are all for following the law of the land until it comes to things such as sanctuary cities where Liberal cities are protecting criminals from being deported. Then these hypocrites choose to break the laws of our land.

I always laugh when i hear these hypocrites talking about the law of the land. The Left's main goal is to appoint activist judges that will create the political correct types of laws pushing the Left's agendas.

No private business should ever be forced to cater events that go against their faith or beliefs, such as Gay wedding receptions, KKK conventions, Nazi conventions, pro abortion conventions, etc. etc. etc.

Can you imagine forcing an African American owned family business to cater a KKK convention?

These Progressive hypocrites would be the first ones to scream if a Gay owned family business was forced to cater Westboro Church events. The last i heard these same Progressives wanted to deport Westboro Church from this nation. I guess the laws of the land does not matter if it bothers Progressives.

How would a feminist family owned business like being forced to cater a pro life event?

There are many businesses that will gladly cater events if others don't want to. There is no need to force Americans to go against their faith or their feelings towards controversial groups.

Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
0 points

It is not Christian to hate gays. Your hatred of gays doesn't come from your religion.

If a business wants to deter people from the LGBT than I would suggest making the businesses openly christian. Most LGBT avoid the christian restaurants and stores. It is against the law and if the businesses does not want to serve people based on sexuality, gender, race than I guess you should not be a business. Because not only is denying people service a lose of money but if the business does not have a sign saying they hold the right to deny anyone service. Than the govt. can not do anything about it. Because the store has a sign saying they will deny.

Learn the facts please before saying such things. Businesses can deny anyone service but they have to make a visual sign saying they will deny based on such and such.

This is still breaking the law but judges usually do go for the businesses if they have a visual que to who they deny service to.

In case of ideal free markets, yes, that'd be right.

But that isn't how markets work.

1 point

We tried that before. It didn't work out well. A privately owned business should be allowed to choose what services they provide not who they provide them to.

outlaw60(14837) Disputed
1 point

So this sign should not be posted on private businesses right SouthPark !

No Shoes

No Shirt

No Service

You saying Government should step in and make private businesses remove the above sign !

Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
1 point

Are you the kind of idiot who thinks signs are more important than laws?

Mint_tea(3993) Disputed
1 point

While that policy is not strictly mandated by law

"No shoes, no shirt, no service", it is also not discriminatory against a particular set of persons.

The shoes portion of that is to limit liability that the store has, especially those with high foot traffic.

1 point

Incorrect, a privately owned business can choose a) what it sells, b) how it will create what it sells (but which also has to comply with societal rules), c) its process for marketing and selling it, and d) whomever it signs contracts with. But after the finished product is ready for sale then anyone legally qualified to buy it has to have fair opportunity to buy it. Racism, sexism, and all forms of hatred are insufficient reason for an uptight jerk to say no you cannot buy what I'm selling.

outlaw60(14837) Disputed
1 point

"A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves." Who could keep up with that Progressive Spin that you spewed out !

Grenache(6103) Disputed
1 point

Why are you quoting the debate creator and then acting like I said it? ...........................................

1 point

I believe the owner should have free reign over their business within reason. I also think a business owner has the right to choose who he or she wishes to serve. That is my personal belief but I also believe government does play a role in all of it. A minor role, but a role never the less.

1 point

Does

No Shoes

No Shirt

No Service

Address the issue of race ? If it does i would like for all the Progressives out there to tell me how it does !