My argument isn't that it can't happen, my argument is that when a large enough people disapprove of it then it takes a bold business to exclude any section of the population and that however bold a business might be it's still ultimately their choice who to serve.
But as Artemis97 pointed out, what brought about that change in attitude was a change in the law. Many people in the south did treat blacks as if they weren't fully American (or even fully human in some cases), and without a change in the law that brought about a change in attitude, it probably would still be occurring today. That many want to further this discrimination toward homosexuals proves the point.
You keep repeating this mantra but saying it often enough doesn't make it true.
My saying it doesn't make it true; it
being true, however, does.
Calling it a "mantra" doesn't change the reality of it.
Why should every single person have the right to enter a business just because the business exists?
If the business is open
to the public, being a member
of the public gives them that right.
Put another way, why shouldn't a business be able to open a shop front but only allow certain groups of people to enter it? Or put yet another way, why is the automatic assumption that a business that provides a service must provide it to anyone?
Again, if you're open to the public, you have to accept the public into your store.
If you want to open a private club or limit your trade to only certain clients, that's something else. Then you wouldn't be open to the public, but only to your own clients.
Granted, that might limit the amount of money you make, but that's the price you pay for not wanting to accept public trade.
Of course, but if we could just get past this "business open to the public" mantra perhaps we could see the concept of a "business open to a selected portion of the public".
The law doesn't see it that way. If your business is open to the public, then you can't discriminate against things like race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I've never been explicitly told that I wasn't wanted but have been to several places (only once) and found that they didn't cater to people like me. I've been in clothing stores only to find I was wasting my time because they didn't stock anything in my size and didn't even offer a product by special order, I've been to pubs (before the smoking ban) where the smoke was so intense I had to leave before I was physically sick, and so on. So although I haven't been directly discriminated against in the way that black people were in the past, it's been very clear to me that "people like me" were people the business owners didn't particularly care about in their businesses. So I took my business elsewhere, and at times that meant a degree of social exclusion when groups of people particularly liked the venues that I found unacceptable/undesirable/unbearable.
Which is not the same thing.
... and so the mantra endlessly repeats.
Because it's true.
So perhaps the answer is a private business, one that may have a shop front but which is only open to members, and that gets to choose its members based on whatever criteria it chooses.
Sure. Many states have ordinances that allow for such things.
But let me guess, any club that said "whites only" or "gays only" would come under fire for it despite being a private club, right?
It might...but many private clubs have been able to continue discriminatory practices anyway. The Boy Scouts come to mind, but I'm sure there are other examples.
... so the mantra repeats.
Because it's still true.
Once it's been repeated a certain number of times it becomes clear the question is never going to actually be answered other than with another repetition.
Why should it, when it's the right answer?
Kinda like you're asking me what two plus two is, and complaining about the mantra of "four" being repeated.
I covered this already - even though the "prevention" was due to a total lack of supply or finding the atmosphere unbearable it's certainly something similar. Ultimately if a business doesn't want my money I'd rather not give them my money - if some aspect of who and what I am is so undesirable to a company I'll look elsewhere or do without.
Then consider yourself lucky to have the choice. Many throughout history haven't; and even to this day, some still don't.
The key thing here is that the government can't change what people think and shouldn't even be in the business of even trying to change people by force.
Depends on what the thought is. For those people who think a certain person deserves to be killed, for example, the government is perfectly justified in forcing them to not do that...or to be punished for having done it.
Same goes for anyone else who breaks the law.
If a retail establishment is hostile to the gay community, open an alternative outlet that caters to the gay community. Maybe make it an exclusively gay establishment where heterosexuals aren't welcome. Do whatever you want to do to cater for whoever you want based on whatever criteria you want. It's not as if blacks/gays/women/whoever are somehow inferior and incapable of running businesses.
That's very true....now. But there was a time when it wasn't, and it was largely because of laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 this change came about. When the law changed, and only when the law changed, did hearts follow. Some reluctantly.
I disagree with discrimination but still don't see why a privately run business had to be obliged to cater to anyone.
Depends on the business. If it's open to the public, then they must cater to the public without discrimination. If not, they don't.
Call that a "mantra" if you like, but it remains true nevertheless.
There's a big difference between "equal protection under the law" and "shopping wherever I please".
One includes the other. It's within the scope of "promoting the general welfare" that all members of the public be treated equally under the law, including the right to frequent any business that is open to the public, and that is the basis for laws that protect this right for the public.
We're not talking about the police not taking a crime report because the victim was gay, or the fire service standing around laughing and pointing because the occupants of the burning building were black. These things are funded through taxation where people don't get the choice whether or not to pay, so have to be available to everyone.
As they should be. However, we both know, it isn't always as true as we'd like it to be. Many crimes aren't treated with the same degree of vigor as others, especially if they occur in "certain neighborhoods". The same sometimes goes for the speed to which fire departments respond.
It shouldn't happen, but it does.
Which goes to show that some members of "the public" aren't always treated the same as others. If we didn't have laws to enforce that they should be, it could be far more rampant than it already is.
That it happened before the laws were enacted shows it did; that it still happens today proves it still does, despite the laws.
Where people have the choice to pay (as is the case with a private business) based on whatever criteria they choose, so there should be a comparable choice the other way to take the money or not, likewise based on whatever criteria the business owner chooses.
Sure. Many business don't cater to the public: wholesalers, for example, often only sell to retailers and many firms, like law firms, only cater to specific clients.
-- A2SG, not every business is open to the public. But for those who are, the law applies....
