post the other important world events then if you hate gay threads so much
funny how people think that there's some kind of agenda with the gay community lmao

if ur only viewpoint of the world was tf.tv you'd think the majority of all women were trans

white kids who never left the suburbs have ignorant opinions episode 37

but islam preaches killing gays :thinking:

it's almost as if segregation was enforced by the state and created by the state
In a truly free society discrimination based on sexual orientation or race or sex do not matter to people who are trying to make a profit. The only way that business who do can exist is if they have a product so good people will look past it (chick fil) and they're isn't a alternative (if kfc wasn't so shit chick fil would be getting fucked right now).
If a NBA team said hey no black guys they probably wouldn't do very well, it's the same principal here if they're a really good hardworking smart young black man who will work for less money and I hire this lazy white dude because I hate blacks the company who hired the black guy is going to out compete and force me out of business.

Not necessarily if the customer base you're going for is also prejudiced.

Being a racist company gets you the business of racists, so that's something I guess?

Really? the whole "the issue with segregation/poverty/sexism isn't too little regulation, its too much!"?

no lunch counter was forced to be segregated. business owners CHOSE to be segregated. Reading your post your stance seems to be that you're fine with the laws passed barring segregation in the classroom (public classroom that is), public transit, judicial system, military, all public institutions basically, but disagree with laws prohibiting discrimination in any private enterprise.

you provide your opinion on how untenable bigoted businesses are except in outlier cases with chick fil a as a shining example of such an outlier. chick fil a has tons of competitors. if the price of a chick fil a sandwich increased by a dollar customers would desert, getting their fried chicken fix elsewhere or not at all. the fact that chick fil a was barely impacted by its CEO's bigoted donations is not an example of how strong its market hold is; it's a sign of how weak a market signal bigoted donations are.

then you say that all bigoted practices create drag for a company in the form of worse employees or fewer customers since they are alienating a subset of the population by excluding certain races/genders/sexualities. But imagine if you're opening a pool in Alabama in 1950. You can choose to include or exclude blacks. Is it more profitable to include them because your consumer base is larger as a result? well, is your consumer base larger? remember, in this hypothetical "no-holds-barred" private enterprise arena you're competing with segregated pools, and there are two customer populations at stake: racist whites who don't want to mix with blacks and blacks who don't have the choice. Which side its profitable to appeal to depends on which side is spending more money, and this applies to restaurants, clubs, movie theatres, etc.

This applies to hiring as well. If you hire whites and blacks, you gain access to black workers, but lose the ability to hire and retain racist whites. if you hire exclusively whites you aren't able to hire blacks, but you can hire and retain racist whites. so which is more profitable or successful is determined by which population is more desirable.

And think about selling a house, a totally private enterprise, but one in which "profit" or utility is fuzzy. What if you set up a neighborhood which doesn't sell to blacks? sure, fewer buyers means theoretically lower house prices, but what of the racist whites willing to pay a premium for an exclusive neighborhood.

its important to understand that private desegregation is important precisely because racism CAN be profitable, and a society which allows segregated and de-segregated businesses creates two mutually exclusive factions in the racist privileged class and the discriminated-upon class. when you give racists the ability to economically signal their racism, you give racism economic power; desegregation is a way of removing that ability.

i live ~5 miles from where "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" was written 50 years ago (read it if you haven't, MLK is a lot different than you probably think he is)

Birmingham is a city that has two interstates running parallel through it with a third bisecting them. These highways create very clear barriers between neighborhoods in the city. These neighborhoods are ~100 years old in some cases and have been legally desegregated for half a century.

here's the population by race in 2013
(i live just south of the few red dots)
here's where the city declared black people should live in 1933
the only significant difference is the bottom of the gray (negro constructions) is where UAB is and all us gentrified white kids live here now

feel free to compare

my question to you:
why hasn't the free market fixed this yet?

(the answer is all the white people live to the south off the map in the suburbs and ultimately the free market doesn't correct for racism in a meaningful way. white businesses just moved to Hoover so they wouldn't have to serve black customers. the free market only works as a force if black people have enough economic power outside the innercity to effect the greater economy. when you confine people to ghettos you also localize their economy. black people shop at the black grocery store and white people shop at the white people one and no one is driving 30 minutes to the other side of the city to buy bread so boycotting isn't gonna do shit)

white people stopped listening to mlk when he started talking about economic issues

I think the answer is pretty simple. There's a difference between creating content for a customer and creating a customer's content.

You should be required to serve to a black/gay person anything you would serve to a white/straight person. You should not be required to serve something you would not serve anyone else.

Discriminating based on the specific service you're being requested to perform is understandable. Discriminating based on the people you are being requested to provide a service to is morally reprehensible.

Sometimes these things overlap, prostitute for example.

we can get into that when prostitution becomes legalized and regulated (which is should be but won't be in the u.s. for a long, long time)

Being a stripper and giving private dances, same idea. Getawhale's example of creating a wedding ring follows a similar train of thought too. Also, these were points made about morality, not legality.

well since I never gave my opinion on the main discussion here:

I am a believer in the constitution (as a living document, with interpretations), but here we have a case where two amendments potentially conflict with one another- the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth

in that case, it becomes a matter of setting reasonable standards for when one might overtake the other, something which is far from clear cut

I think at the very least, anti-discrimination trumps religious liberty in certain essential areas (employment, housing, marriage when it comes to government clerks like kim davis, health care, publically traded companies, etc.)

it's a more complicated question when a small business is involved, but my mom (who has been a civil rights lawyer and has dealt with many discrimination cases) makes the argument that, when someone is involved in commerce, there is a certain level of public interest that may override individual liberties

it's far from clear-cut, and I do not have the requisite legal training to articulate it perfectly, but that would be the argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc