A woman says she’s interested in motorcycles. No problem. A man says he’s interested in babies. Someone calls the cops.
Had an argument over a libtard who was overjoyed that a private company was sued for refusing to sell some product to gays. Because discrimination.
First of all
On discrimination in general:
A market economy wouldn’t work without discrimination. After all, choosing any one company over another is an act of discrimination. For example, it’s not discrimination against non organic farmers if I only buy from organic farmers ?
On discrimination in company hiring or service:
Businesses don’t discriminate in either service or hiring unless they are economically retarded(in which case they will soon cease to be an extant business, all on their own) or the high costs of discrimination are subsidized by the government thru policies like minimum wage, price floors or ceilings.
But discrimination is still a bad and dangerous thing!
So into the next point, it’s fine for a customer to discriminate and boycott gay or even non-organic products, but it’s not fine for a company to boycott, or refuse to sell to gays or hippies?
Maybe we could force everyone to purchase a monthly quota of progressive products
Even if you think it’s not okay for individuals to personally boycott gay companies, how could you ever enforce that? Force people to purchase a monthly quota of gay products? Actually, It’s perfectly easy to control who consumers buy from. With a big enough government It could conceivably be done. So why wouldn’t a libtard support doing that?
So again, as an individual you are allowed to boycott anti progressive companies, but individual say religious company owners aren’t allowed to boycott you?
An argument for fully free and legal economic discrimination
My argument is simple. If free individuals are freely allowed to participate in trade between eachother, then individuals should be allowed to refuse to buy from whomever they want, and individuals should be allowed to refuse to sell to whoever they want. The burden is on you to make a reasonable argument for why only buyers but not sellers ought to be free in their enterprise.
When I made this argument the libtard argued that there are in fact times when there are valid reasons for companies should be allowed to refuse service or boycott customers….Based on arbitrary opinions of what libtards think are valid reasons for refusing service. Like Im sure they would say it’s okay for companies to boycott homophobic customers for being homophobic, but it’s not okay to boycott gay or pro-gay customers for being homophilic(or homophalic?(hawhaw)).
And besides, ‘Valid reason‘ is completely subjective. For a person with a religious life view, their valid reasons may be different than yours. What gives you the right to force your life view and it’s implicit valid reasons on them, moreso than they have the right to force their life views and their implicit valid reasons, on you?
In other words, according to libtards, it should be a criminal offense to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. Unless said religious beliefs are those of the religion called progressivism. In which case, you are actively encouraged to discriminate.
Progressives walk around with an attitude Ike they are so morally superior and idependent thinking when in fact they hold nearly the exact same set of memes as almost every other progressive. Like sock puppets you can predict all of their opinions. Republicans bad, democrats good. Global warming real. Socialism good, capitalism evil. Gmos bad. Affirmative action good.
The sham of democracy involves electing individuals purportedly to represent the ‘public will’. Government is by and large naively believed to be an extension of the public’s interests or their ‘will’ rather than an institution of numerous individuals each vying for their own conflicting personal interests.
Ask yourself why and how politicians are elected. It is assumed that an elected official will act upon moralistic incentives rather than personal economic incentives, on behalf of society. That is why only very seemingly kind and trusting individuals make it in politics. If they can convince enough people that they will be constrained by moralistic rather than economic incentives, they can go as far as becoming the president. But the thing is, politicians or presidents are those who in fact have the MOST to gain from personal financial incentives aka corruption and yet are trusted far more by progressives, than are private citizens or businessmen, who in fact have the least conflicting economic and moralistic incentives, and have the least to gain from corruption.
Now, economic incentives work great with private individuals constrained by the free market, and not just shamelessly using stolen tax payers’ money. For example, an oil company has an economic incentive to avoid environmental damage as much as possible, so as to avoid costly legal proceedings due to public outcry etc. A logging company has an economic incentive to efficiently reforest an area, or else their business will be run to the ground in under a decade. A big game hunting company has an economic incentive to preserve the habitat and population of local wild life. A third world businessman has an economic incentive to travel days and nights across the desert in order to meet the demand for grain by starving people during a famine.
But alas, as is often the case, progressives are more concerned by motives and incentives than the material consequences themselves. So what if hunters are the most effective environmentalists? They save wildlife for the wrong reasons, and therefore they are simply to be disregarded. So what if a third world businessman saves dozens of times more lives than a foreign aid worker? He saved those lives for the wrong reason, and therefore should be simply disregarded.
I’ve been informed that dressing up as princess jasmine is ‘cultural appropriation’ ..whatever that means…sounds like yet another meaningless and elusive physics-envy word invented by bored progressive ‘Women’s Studies’ community college professors.
No, some businessman can’t be trusted to give to charity so he must be forced to…but some beurocrat dealing with all the collected tax money can be absolutely trusted to redistribute it and not selfishly dip his hands.
Socialist atheists scoff at religiously inspired acts of goodness, claiming that the fact that these acts are religiously-inspired undermines the their goodness since they were only performed out of coercion by God.
Yet at the same time, their very socialist ideology is at it’s core coercive altruism. They simply replace God with Government.
Anti-Israel activists are some of the most racist people I know of. They excuse and rationalize murderous barbaric acts of terror on behalf of Arabs, such as suicide bombings, murder of children and babies, beheadings and rocket fire at civilian targets, yet hold Jews up to the highest moral standard and condemn them for building houses.