Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '18 00:06
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sd-state-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color/ar-AAygx1w?ocid=ientp2

    "SD [South Dakota] state lawmaker: Businesses should be allowed to 'turn away people of color'"

    "A South Dakota state lawmaker argued in a Facebook comment that businesses
    should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin.
    The comment from state Rep. Michael Clark (R) came shortly after the
    Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker, who refused to make
    a wedding cake for a gay couple, because of his religious beliefs."

    "He said that it would ultimately be up to the consumers to decide whether
    they want to patronize a business or not."

    After receiving criticism, Michael Clark hastily deleted his comment,
    apologized (sincerely or not), and denied that he's ever been racist.

    Nonetheless, I suspect that many Americans share his initial sentiment
    and hope that recent Supreme Court decision will grant enough leeway
    for private businesses or perhaps employers to discriminate more overtly.
  2. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    06 Jun '18 02:12
    it is not an uncommon sentiment among Libertarian types.

    The logic is not that racism is good, but rather that we all have a right to do with our own property (e.g., our businesses) as we please.
  3. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    06 Jun '18 02:16
    By "people of color" I assume he meant whites. Oh, I mean "white people" -- don't want to offend anyone. So anyway, can't we all agree that businesses should be allowed to turn down business from white people? If not, why not? They've had thousands of years of privilege and it's time the tables were turned against them.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '18 02:39
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    By "people of color" I assume he meant whites. Oh, I mean "white people" -- don't want to offend anyone. So anyway, can't we all agree that businesses should be allowed to turn down business from white people? If not, why not? They've had thousands of years of privilege and it's time the tables were turned against them.
    By "people of color" I assume he meant whites."
    --Tom Wolsey

    Tom Wolsey's lies are unconvincing.
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    06 Jun '18 02:40
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    By "people of color" I assume he meant whites. Oh, I mean "white people" -- don't want to offend anyone. So anyway, can't we all agree that businesses should be allowed to turn down business from white people? If not, why not? They've had thousands of years of privilege and it's time the tables were turned against them.
    How about just white people who wear big hats?
  6. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    06 Jun '18 02:49
    His quote says "based on the color of their skin." Duchess turned it into "people of color." Either way, there was no mention by him or her, who exactly would be the target. Since black is the absence of color, I'm assuming both he and she meant white-skinned people.
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    06 Jun '18 02:50
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    How about just white people who wear big hats?
    That's f ine, too.

    Tom's point is obvious:

    People have a right to deny white people service with their own property.

    Because, it is their own property.

    What do you think of the idea that you have a right to do whatever you want with your own property? What limitations and qualifications would you like to put on it, and how do you justify them?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Jun '18 03:30
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    His quote says "based on the color of their skin." Duchess turned it into "people of color." Either way, there was no mention by him or her, who exactly would be the target. Since black is the absence of color, I'm assuming both he and she meant white-skinned people.
    The headline (which I quoted) refers to "people of color".
    Everyone knows that a right-wing white American politician's not
    referring to discrimination against white people.

    The racist troll Tom Wolsey's shameless lies are unconvincing.
  9. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    06 Jun '18 03:32
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The headline (which I quoted) refers to "people of color".
    Everyone knows that a right-wing white American politician's not
    referring to discrimination against white people.

    The racist troll Tom Wolsey's shameless lies are unconvincing.
    I'm a racist troll? I'm sitting here agreeing with you that white-skinned people deserve to be discriminated against. Reparations. Social justice. If agreeing with you makes me a racist troll, then.... 🙁
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    06 Jun '18 12:571 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    it is not an uncommon sentiment among Libertarian types.

    The logic is not that racism is good, but rather that we all have a right to do with our own property (e.g., our businesses) as we please.
    Not if it violates the civil rights of others. You can't have a sign advocating the death of the president on your front lawn.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    06 Jun '18 18:04
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    it is not an uncommon sentiment among Libertarian types.

    The logic is not that racism is good, but rather that we all have a right to do with our own property (e.g., our businesses) as we please.
    Property is theft.
  12. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    06 Jun '18 20:48
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Property is theft.
    Sounds about right coming from you.
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 Jun '18 20:51
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    That's f ine, too.

    Tom's point is obvious:

    [b]People have a right to deny white people service with their own property.


    Because, it is their own property.

    What do you think of the idea that you have a right to do whatever you want with your own property? What limitations and qualifications would you like to put on it, and how do you justify them?[/b]
    First of all I would differentiate between personal and private property.
Back to Top