(August 13, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Dystopia Wrote:All Americans do not hate or resent the fact that they pay taxes. They understand that tax revenues are necessary in funding resources that all Americans benefit from, including privately owned businesses. I do NOT believe that as a taxpaying citizen, I should be able do determine what kinds of goods and services a business provides. That is left to the free market. I DO believe that I , as a citizen who pays into the system, should not be denied access to services by businesses who benefit from services that are funded by everyone's tax dollars, including mine.........based soley on a business owner's personal prejudices. Especially, if being singled out for a factor over which one have absolutely no control over.(August 13, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But that is not the law in that state.
Yes, Dura Lex Sed Lex - It's just my opinion
Quote:A percentage of my tax dollars are used for the local, state and federal services that businesses utilize and benefit from, same as yours.
Your proposal could only be acceptable if a business did not use any taxpayer funded resources of any kind, whatsoever.
Btw, If a fire were to occur at this hypothetical business, they would need to have a private engine company at their disposal to to tame the flames. No using municipal water, either.
I didn't know America, the land of the free where public services are supposedly hated had the government funding privately owned businesses, I've never heard of such a thing in my entire life - Even if that's true, why is your personal preference relevant? Most people would not want to pay taxes anyway, you're saying specifically that you do not wish to fund businesses that refuse to serve gays, but anti-gay Christians will, most likely, want to fund those businesses - If I'm transgender and genderqueer, can I refuse to fund a shop that segregates items by male/female because I think that's wrong? If not, why is your opinion any more relevant? You never know where your tax money goes, never - You just pay and you know it's going somewhere, no one knows certainly where it goes.
Yes, if someone is fired without proper cause, I don't see why the government is needed. In my country, if you're fired without compelling reason you have the right to both the employer's compensation and the government's pension, but both are separate rights that don't intersect with each other. Unemployment benefits are government provided and compensations are given by the employer in a court of Law when you're fired without a legally admissible reason.
Your personal preference about where you want your taxpayer money to go is not relevant because we all have them - Most of us don't even enjoy paying taxes, it's a coercive institution by its very nature. The fact people running businesses have preferences doesn't invalidate state funding.
Quote:The problem with an idea like this is it allows for oppression by the majority. Imagine you are a gay person living in a city dominated by Christian business owners with no anti discrimination laws, suddenly you cant buy groceries, get a job, or rent an apartment. We might as well go back to segregated society at that point, large majority groups could essentially force out minority groups.
The problem with imagining is that it leads to unrealistic scenarios, and I said specifically that essential rights shouldn't be taken away like survival, food, clothing and healthcare. I'm talking about privately owned businesses, government officials should follow the law no matter what. Baking a cake doesn't sound like an activity that is essential to your survival (unless you're arguing you only eat cakes) and it's an activity that can be provided by anyone else who specializes in bakery. Private businesses opened to the public are still private, and subjecting the market to government regulation decide by a small number of politicians who claim to be wise is just not a very good idea. What is the criterion to decide who's a protected class? And why? Rest assured, my country protects minorities as well, though there isn't a legal equivalent to protected class, but there are laws that create analogous situations - Still I find a lot of incongruences such as requirements being arbitrarily applied to some groups but not to others.
It is not simply a flight of fancy to suggest that the the scenario you think would be no big deal, could easily become a living hell for many Americans. First of all, what qualifies you or anyone for that matter, to determine what is crucial to any person at a given point in time? Also, you seem to think that it's somehow far-fetched to suggest that multiple business owners in a specific geographic area would adopt this open discrimination policy if it were allowed. I can tell you with as a resident of The Old Dominion (VA), it's not a far-fetched notion at all. Do honestly believe that it's alright for a person, who's done nothing other than be the wrong color, gender, sexual-orientation etc. to have to drive 40, 50, 75, 100, or even as little 10 extra miles out of their way, at their own time, risk and expense......because enough local business owners simply refuse to serve them? Would you just consider this to be a minor inconvenience?
How much would this cost families over a couple weeks? How about over a year? Do you think it would be alright to tell a kid the reason why he can't buy a bicycle helmet, a backpack, some Pokemon cards, or even a pack of gum where everyone else does, is because he's black? Or gay......or just seems to be kinda gay? Or an atheist? You don't think that would have an devastating emotional impact on people, especially children? You think that somehow all of this would decrease resentment? Do you not see how detrimental this would be to society at large?
I just don't understand how any decent human being would think that allowing businesses to ignore anti-discrimination laws is cool idea. I'm not implying that you're not a decent person, but I will suggest that you may not have thought the matter through.
,
