CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, they can, again because what a person is wearing or not wearing is not protected under the Civil Rights Act; but this does not allow a private business to put up a signing that refuses services to someone of a particular race.
I am not at all confused. I agree with you. A private business may put up sign refusing service to people not wearing shoes or a shirt, but to apply this to the debate itself (A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.), a private business cannot put up a sign refusing service to a particular race.
So as to not confuse you, let me summarize:
"No shoes, no shirt, no service" - perfectly legal
I apologize if English isn't your first language, but you are clearly the one confused. No one said your sign applied to Asians and Latinos. As I plainly stated. the premise of the debate is, "A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves", and my point is no, a business cannot make that decision. The example you give is permissible for a business to do, my example is not permissible. THESE ARE TWO DISTINCT EXAMPLES OF SEPARATE SIGNS. This really shouldn't be difficult to grasp what's being said here.
Do you suggest that private businesses aren't subjected to governmental law?
And I'm not sure what part you don't get about businesses wanting to reduce their legal liability. High foot traffic means they get more people in and out of the store, so it tends to be more difficult to keep clean. They would want people wearing shoes as a form of protection. If someone steps on something in their aisle, a store has the potential to be legally liable for that person's injury and footwear reduces the risk of injury.
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.
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.
What does this really wild spin you wrote have to do with the title of the debate ?
Because it explains why you don't get to pick and choose whom you sell to and whom you don't. You can choose many other aspects of your business but you can't choose that last part - in the USA anyway.
Seriously, I'm starting to conclude you aren't very bright.
Incorrect. That sign means public hygiene requirements allow them to reject people who do not comply. If a Black man walks in without shoes and shirt they can turn him away saying it's because he has no shoes and shirt. They can't say it's because he is Black. And likewise if both a Black and a White walk in with the same circumstances they can't choose to only send away the Black man and not the White.
What level of education are you? Despite the voracity of some of your opinions once we scratch past the surface there are doubts about how deeply you understand these things.
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.