5 ms·
> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whateve
by msla 9y ago
> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism.
I find it ironic that this is (presumably) precisely the position The Daily Stormer would take on those issues.
- Waterluvian 9y agoI demand you serve me a product to help me not serve your kind here!
- StuntPope 9y agolol. Exactly.
- marchenko 9y agoThe civil rights era argument outlines a pretty solid meta-principle. Certain public accomodations should be open to all. I think this list should be limited, but a public service that effectively acts as a gateway to public speech could be argued to meet the criteria. I think we're seeing an illustration of the point(also made during the civil rights era) that the cost of discriminating against a disliked minority can in fact be very low, so low that the market tolerates this inefficiency. Or perhaps it isn't irrational at all, as the market majority may indeed reward the discriminator for providing this non-monetary good. I hope they find a provider, on principle.
- amluto 9y agoThe cost of discriminating can be negative, for example, if the wealthier group that you allow in prefers your establishment if you keep the group they dislike out.