It's supposed to be a free country, and if they want to lose customers and money and perhaps go out of business as a result, then so be it. That's why I oppose the nanny-state "no smoking allowed in restaurants or bars" regulations. I don't smoke and I don't like to be around it. So if a restaurant allows smoking and doesn't have a good ventilation scheme that isolate the smoking area from everywhere else, then my wife and I just don't go. There are other places that want my business more. Just like we won't go to restaurants that allow ill-mannered children to run wild. I'm not so self-centered to demand that every place cater to my whims.
Businesses that make bad business decisions such as alienating or disallowing most of their customers will suffer the natural consequences.
It is indeed a free country but businesses should never be allowed to discriminate. Should pharmacists be allowed to not dispense birth control pills to single or divorced women? What if its the only pharmacy in town? In the rural communities, it's not as easy as simply going to another place if they only have one place.
And that business won't suffer if they are the only game in town. In some ways, this is an issue of economics. Monopolies erode consumer surplus and market efficiency.
Well, I do have a problem with refusing service in a public store based on race, gender, age, etc., I'm all for allowing business to bar people because of how they "look". No 'gangstas' or 'gansta-wannabes' allowed, no rough bikers that look like they want to start something with somebody but aren't quite sure with whom yet, etc. Is it okay to discriminate against likely troublemakers? Of course, the troublemaking sort will claim they're being discriminated against for something other reason and that they're just innocent little angels out on a lark. I know the one time shortly after a move I went into a black barbershop, not knowing it was a 'black' barbershop, just that the one barber on duty was black, that I was made to feel more and more unwelcome as more people came in, and the haircut I received was melancholy to say the least. I wasn't told to stay out, but the message was clear that I wasn't welcome. Whether it was because the barber didn't have much experience cutting non-Afro hair or not, I'd have rather been told up front that they'd rather I looked elsewhere.
I don't think "the only pharmacy in town" holds much power given all the mail-order pharmacies offering such deals. I don't think people should discriminate based on race, sex, gender, religion, etc., but I don't like the idea of getting service wherever I demand it that I demand that "there ought to be a law!". And certainly not a Federal case made about it. It's more acceptable than the Jim Crow laws that required unequal service, but ideally, I'd like to see the replacements to Jim Crow also go by the side over time. As you are constantly crowing, the main people who want to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation are dying away.
It's still worth remembering that the Indiana pizza parlor that had to be hunted to be found, said outright that they would serve gays without any problems. They just wouldn't cater a gay wedding (as if pizza parlors are constantly being asked to cater weddings of any sort). It was much ado about nothing.
3 comments:
It's supposed to be a free country, and if they want to lose customers and money and perhaps go out of business as a result, then so be it. That's why I oppose the nanny-state "no smoking allowed in restaurants or bars" regulations. I don't smoke and I don't like to be around it. So if a restaurant allows smoking and doesn't have a good ventilation scheme that isolate the smoking area from everywhere else, then my wife and I just don't go. There are other places that want my business more. Just like we won't go to restaurants that allow ill-mannered children to run wild. I'm not so self-centered to demand that every place cater to my whims.
Businesses that make bad business decisions such as alienating or disallowing most of their customers will suffer the natural consequences.
It is indeed a free country but businesses should never be allowed to discriminate. Should pharmacists be allowed to not dispense birth control pills to single or divorced women? What if its the only pharmacy in town? In the rural communities, it's not as easy as simply going to another place if they only have one place.
And that business won't suffer if they are the only game in town. In some ways, this is an issue of economics. Monopolies erode consumer surplus and market efficiency.
Well, I do have a problem with refusing service in a public store based on race, gender, age, etc., I'm all for allowing business to bar people because of how they "look". No 'gangstas' or 'gansta-wannabes' allowed, no rough bikers that look like they want to start something with somebody but aren't quite sure with whom yet, etc. Is it okay to discriminate against likely troublemakers? Of course, the troublemaking sort will claim they're being discriminated against for something other reason and that they're just innocent little angels out on a lark. I know the one time shortly after a move I went into a black barbershop, not knowing it was a 'black' barbershop, just that the one barber on duty was black, that I was made to feel more and more unwelcome as more people came in, and the haircut I received was melancholy to say the least. I wasn't told to stay out, but the message was clear that I wasn't welcome. Whether it was because the barber didn't have much experience cutting non-Afro hair or not, I'd have rather been told up front that they'd rather I looked elsewhere.
I don't think "the only pharmacy in town" holds much power given all the mail-order pharmacies offering such deals. I don't think people should discriminate based on race, sex, gender, religion, etc., but I don't like the idea of getting service wherever I demand it that I demand that "there ought to be a law!". And certainly not a Federal case made about it. It's more acceptable than the Jim Crow laws that required unequal service, but ideally, I'd like to see the replacements to Jim Crow also go by the side over time. As you are constantly crowing, the main people who want to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation are dying away.
It's still worth remembering that the Indiana pizza parlor that had to be hunted to be found, said outright that they would serve gays without any problems. They just wouldn't cater a gay wedding (as if pizza parlors are constantly being asked to cater weddings of any sort). It was much ado about nothing.
Post a Comment