Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

it's your burden to prove that existing law fails to defend religious liberty...

repeating yourself and fabricating imaginary victim scenarios just isn't cutting it.

Since I haven't brought religious liberty into it, that is a pure straw man. And I have no burden to prove anything that I choose not to prove. If you want to discuss existing law and religious liberty start your own thread and go for it. I'm sure many will be interested in discussing it.

This thread is not about that.

Here is the topic again:

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

I don't know. If I lived in that town, I'd go shop for them. Or better yet, open a competing store that did cater to the targeted group. We could also organize a protest and/or a boycott of the business. But it's not necessary to get the police involved.

Do you believe it reflects tolerance to organize a protest and/or boycott of a business purely because the business expresed a point of view with which you disagree? Should the law permit that?

 

[Ravi]

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

I don't know. If I lived in that town, I'd go shop for them. Or better yet, open a competing store that did cater to the targeted group. We could also organize a protest and/or a boycott of the business. But it's not necessary to get the police involved.

Who said anything about getting the police involved?

 

[Valerie]

Since I haven't brought religious liberty into it, that is a pure straw man.

you haven't brought religious liberty into it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Since I haven't brought religious liberty into it, that is a pure straw man.

you haven't brought religious liberty into it?

Not as a topic no. I may at some point have mentioned a person's religious convictions as one of MANY possible reasons a person might choose to not carry a particular product or offer a particular service and/or not participate in an activity or event, but at no point have I made religious liberty a topic for this discussion. The topic can be discussed without any mention of religion whatsoever.

 

[Michelle420]

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

 

[Foxfyre]

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I have reserved the privilege of defining terms as they will be understood in this discussion, I like this one from Wise Geek re what tolerance is--I added the phrases in parentheses:

Tolerance means to tolerate or put up with differences. It means showing respect for the race, religion, age, gender, opinions, and ideologies of other people or groups. This concept means different things to different people, but it is when something is disagreeable that tolerance is expected, and in more politically correct cultures, (sometimes) demanded.

There are many different ways to show tolerance. A person might fully disagree with others on any issue from religion to same sex marriage, while at the same time respecting those with different opinions and treating them with dignity and respect. Disagreement alone does not equal intolerance.

One problem is the fact that this respect is sometimes one-sided. Those who disagree with a particular issue must respect the opinions of those who advocate it, but some advocates feel justified in labeling (or punishing) those who disagree with (certain concepts). People on both sides of an issue must be tolerant of each other (in order for tolerance to be in effect.)

When it comes to controversial issues, tolerance may also represent a “let’s agree to disagree” stance. It does not mean that a person has to accept or embrace words, actions, or ideas that are against his or her values or beliefs. It simply means that each person agrees to respect the other’s right to his or her feelings on the matter. When both parties have expressed their opinions, and it is obvious that neither is likely to change position, agreeing to disagree is often the most amicable outcome.

What is Tolerance with pictures ​

 

[Michelle420]

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

 

[candycorn]

I'm worried now.

Look, I'm pretty crafty and in my spare time, I have made a lot of centerpieces, party favors, and even some flower arrangements for weddings. I don't think they were gay people getting married but there may have been gays at the wedding.

Am I still going to hell for supplying a candle for someone?

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm worried now.

Look, I'm pretty crafty and in my spare time, I have made a lot of centerpieces, party favors, and even some flower arrangements for weddings. I don't think they were gay people getting married but there may have been gays at the wedding.

Am I still going to hell for supplying a candle for someone?

Off topic. Please take this to a separate thread or direct your remarks to the thread topic. Thank you.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[Michelle420]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

 

[Ravi]

I'm worried now.

Look, I'm pretty crafty and in my spare time, I have made a lot of centerpieces, party favors, and even some flower arrangements for weddings. I don't think they were gay people getting married but there may have been gays at the wedding.

Am I still going to hell for supplying a candle for someone?

Well people have the right to say you are, and the right to say you aren't. People will express different point of views that are tolerant, or intolerant.

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Yeah, I think that's called free expression or something.

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

 

[Michelle420]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

 

[Michelle420]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

 

[Ravi]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Absolutely look at people who protest strip clubs near schools, strip club owners may want a certain zone because it's a good area for their business and parents don't want that business near their children's schools. People can protest whatever they want and lobby and business owners can fight for their freedom to have their club wherever they want. But once there is a law they have to follow it.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

You brought up Civil action, so are you wanting people to talk about law or not?

I gave you several examples of "points of view" actions without law as well which explains why it does not violate those in business.

Please read the OP. The topic allows discussion of what the law SHOULD BE. It disallows discussion of what the law is as an argument for the topic.

Now will you answer the question put to you?

I did and answered you according to my interpretation plus you keep mentioning law so can you respond to my points.

This way I can understand what you are wanting out of this discussion better obviously something is getting lost in translation here in this communication.

You have not answered this question:
Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Stating what the law is does not answer the question.