P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #361
When it comes to services; I think the conservatives have a point; when it comes to goods, they have no point. What if every pharmacy decided they wouldn't sell heart medicine to blacks? This is what the hateful conservatives see as a "tough shit" proposition.
However, when you are talking about services such as photography for a wedding or a sitting or someone to do write resumes or what have you, unless you have a contract and THEN decide you don't want to work with blacks, you should have a right to simply refuse to do business in my view. I mean, I may want Taylor Swift to play at my graduation party. If I came up with her asking price, would she be bound to play? I hope not.
![]()
![]()
![]()
And an exceptional point on Taylor Swift. In JoeB's view, Taylor Swift has a "contract with the public" and thus should be forced to play at your graduation party.
Easy...
Fortunately in this country (thus far anyway), necessary professions have sought to remove the moronic political points idiots like you try to make. Lawyers widely recognize that every accused person has the right to a defense and Doctors almost universally recognize that all sick persons deserve their greatest efforts. Taylor Swift's contributions of a happy graduation would be great but entertainers have no such agency of elevated (i.e. liberal) thinking.
At the end of the day, services are treated differently than goods when this question is posed. I'm not sure legally such distinctions should or could be made.
First of all, you just called me an "idiot" for agreeing with you....
![eusa_doh :eusa_doh: :eusa_doh:](/styles/smilies/eusa_doh.gif)
Second, both of your examples are completely absurd and do not apply. The Constitution (specifically the 6th Amendment) guarantees you the right to an attorney. And a public defender enters into their employment agreement understanding that they must provide legal defense for the accused. Also, they work for the government (ie public). A baker who owns their own private bakery enters into no such employment agreement as the public defender and does not work for the government. So you just made an absurd apples-to-oranges comparison which simply does not apply.
Now, as far as your second absurd apples-to-oranges comparison regarding the physician, it's essentially the same situation as the public defender. As part of their board certification, they knowingly and freely enter into an agreement requiring them to treat anyone in need. They do not have to enter into that agreement, therefore they have no legal grounds for which to deny service.