Tennessee Store Puts Up "No Gays Allowed" Sign - and It Is Perfectly Legal

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's a reason it was called "The Enlightenment", you know.

Yes, regardless, assumptions were made that have not been substantiated by experience; and as such the concept of inalienable rights, or rights we all deserve, is/was premature.

We have opportunities, paths, ability to construct or destroy; but certainly not rights that can never be taken away.

Call it what you will, I'm sure Lenin thought he was onto something but it didn't take long for him to resort to the maxim: "the people must be forced to be free, at the end of a gun if need be" - and, therein lies your problem.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm talking about the customer's right not to be discriminated against.

But there's no such right, Gareth. There may be a legal right - depending on what the law is at the time. But if we ask whether or not such a law is a good one, then I can only answer that it is not, because it impinges on the freedom of the individual.

But the customer is also an individual, Rob. For the shopkeeper to deny him service on purely prejudicial grounds is an affront to humanity.

Have we learned nothing from the Nuremberg Laws?

[Sam Flynn]

Call it what you will, I'm sure Lenin thought he was onto something but it didn't take long for him to resort to the maxim: "the people must be forced to be free, at the end of a gun if need be" - and, therein lies your problem.

It's not "my" problem, and I'm not holding guns to anyone's head. Besides, the ones using the guns are mostly the perpetrators and upholders of prejudice, not those against whom it was aimed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But the customer is also an individual, Rob. For the shopkeeper to deny him service on purely prejudicial grounds is an affront to humanity.

Have we learned nothing from the Nuremberg Laws?

Robert certainly has paid attention to history, but you haven't Sam.

You are attempting to shut down someone, a private individual, because you don't agree with him; and you will do it with the backing of a mob.

It is you who has more in common with the Nazis.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's not "my" problem, and I'm not holding guns to anyone's head. In point of fact, the ones using the guns are invariably the perpetrators and upholders of prejudice, not those against whom they discriminated.

Metaphorically speaking you are holding a gun to someone's head. You can't do it physically because it's not acceptable in the modern day and probably hasn't been for a long old time in England; but you're just the sort of person who would think that in the event they won't agree with us then they're going to have to be forced. In another society, a different place at a different time, you'd have been right there with Lenin and Trotsky bulldozing people into agreeing with you at the end of barrel.

If you can't see that a person should be entitled to his/her opinions, and to sell to whomever he/she wishes, providing that person does not extend to damaging property or person, then you have a blind spot better known as Liberal Interventionism; firmly placing you in the company of Lenin, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and a few more - and you know what these people do? They kill people because they know best.

[Sam Flynn]

Robert certainly has paid attention to history, but you haven't Sam.

Wrong again, Mac.

You are attempting to shut down someone, a private individual, because you don't agree with him; and you will do it with the backing of a mob.

Science, not mob. And I'm not shouting anybody down - if anyone is, it's you with your constant ad hominem snipes.

It is you who has more in common with the Nazis.

That is an utterly disgraceful comment, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I knew there was a reason why I didn't come back to Casebook that often, and you've just reminded me of it.

Goodbye.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Wrong again, Mac.Science, not mob. And I'm not shouting anybody down.That is an utterly disgraceful comment, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I knew there was a reason why I didn't come back to Casebook that often, and you've just reminded me of it.

Goodbye.

You brought up the Nuremburg Laws Sam, and judging by your last post it seems to have been a passive aggressive stance. When someone calls you on it and says: "well, actually, Robert is speaking up for freedom of expression, but you're not and that is exactly what the Nazis did", you call foul. Seen it so many times, Sam, and never fails to bore me to death.

Yes, goodbye, mate.

[Robert]

Hi Gareth

You have said it - the Nuremberg Laws. The law has no business getting involved.

And to be consistent, suppose some customer says "I'm not going in that store to get my shopping because it's owned by ..." (insert group of your choice). Should the customer be arrested?

[Fleetwood Mac]

But the customer is also an individual, Rob.

Just seen this, Sam, and this is clearly where your blind spot is.

Say I'm gay and I walk into your shop asking for a cream egg and you refuse to serve me because I'm gay. That's not an affront to humanity, man, nor have you denied my 'rights' as an individual - I can go next door and get served. I'd probably hoy a cream egg off your bonce before leaving, but regardless you have simply expressed your wish on your property: you haven't denied me the opportunity to buy a cream egg next door. I don't like it, then I don't visit your shop. Simple and we're all adults so no need to appeal to a higher authority.

What you are proposing is altogether different. You are suggesting that a shop keeper should be banned from expressing his/her wish on his/her property and you want to appeal to a higher authority to enact it - that really is denying freedom of expression/choice.

You must see the difference?

[Limehouse]

Refusing someone service on the grounds that they are gay is backward thinking. It's completely illogical and might well drive away heterosexual customers who are offended by the prejudice aimed at gay people. Any such business deserves to fail.

[Limehouse]

There's a reason it was called "The Enlightenment", you know.

Quite so, and obviously lost on some unenlightened souls!

[Robert]

Any such business deserves to fail.

And if it fails, the owner will have to take the loss.

[GUT]

Refusing someone service on the grounds that they are gay is backward thinking. It's completely illogical and might well drive away heterosexual customers who are offended by the prejudice aimed at gay people. Any such business deserves to fail.

That s the very real risk he takes.

[Limehouse]

Any such business deserves to fail.

And if it fails, the owner will have to take the loss.

Indeed Robert, and people might well argue that someone operating a business has the right to turn away customers on any grounds. However, let's look at what the results of that policy might be.

People in business often become councillors, members of parliament and so on. They are often influential or they know influential people. They lobby for laws and regulations that favour them. They become powerful and sometimes that power results in laws that alienate people they don't approve of. Eventually, they not only have the right to refuse service to certain people, but they have the power to banish those people to a completely secondary and separate life altogether. The result is apartheid.

[Robert]

Julie, democracy is democracy. You either trust the people, or else you say 'Those plebs can't be relied upon to make the right choice. Fortunately we know best, and we will make the choice for them.'