Fox News poll on civil rights law

[jackschmittusa]

page link - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

"No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether businesses can select their own customers 72% (11,014 votes)"

With so many Fox viewers on the forum, I would guess 7 of 10 might agree with this.

I'd like to hear from any of them that agree.

My opinion is that all businesses receive government support and protections of one sort or another (fire, police, trademark, patent, etc.), so the government is not out of line telling them to serve all comers who are not legally restricted from using their product or service.

Anyone disagree?

 

[Ronstang]

Your first mistake is assuming businesses exist because of government when it is the other way around. Governments do not create wealth they only consume and redistribute it.

 

[OrByte]

Is federal intervention in private business okay if it's to prevent discrimination?

1 Yes, it's fine to intervene to stop companies from refusing services to everyone

2 No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether businesses can select their own customers

3 Maybe, if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped

4 Don't know, it depends on whether service is denied because of discrimination or another explanation

wtf?

I need some of those Arizona teachers that speak perfect english minus the accent to help me understand a couple of those options. #1 doesn't even make sense! Which companies out there are in the business of refusing service to everyone?

 

[spidey07]

Absolutely disagree. This is the failed logic of the liberal. That business is granted operation by the government. That the rulers "allow" you to operate in return for their "protection". Sounds like a criminal mob, doesn't it?

Now tell me about all businesses receive government support and protection? What kind of support are you talking about? Protections however are guaranteed in The Constitution.

Basically, fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

 

[jhu]

Here's where it stands now:

Yes, it's fine to intervene to stop companies from refusing services to everyone 7.8% (1,201 votes)

No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether businesses can select their own customers 71.9% (11,091 votes)

Maybe, if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped 12.8% (1,971 votes)

Don't know, it depends on whether service is denied because of discrimination or another explanation 7.5% (1,160 votes)

I'm surprised that the 3rd option is so far behind. This is the type of mentality people had back in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[spidey07]

Here's where it stands now:



I'm surprised that the 3rd option is so far behind. This is the type of mentality people had back in the first half of the 20th century.

Reading comprehension fail? This is the type of mentality in the second half of the 20th century. After so much erosion of personal and financial liberty we're coming back around to reject an overpowering federal government.

 

[her209]

Now tell me about all businesses receive government support and protection? What kind of support are you talking about? Protections however are guaranteed in The Constitution.

Hmmm... there's these things called contracts that the government has to sort out when there is a dispute. Then businesses are protected from other businesses trying to muscle them out through monopolistic means. Then there's the thing with government creating trade agreements with other countries that allow goods to flow back and forth. Finally, when businesses (and people) run into financial trouble, they can file for bankruptcy protection.

 

[jhu]

Reading comprehension fail? This is the type of mentality in the second half of the 20th century. After so much erosion of personal and financial liberty we're coming back around to reject an overpowering federal government.

History fail.

 

[Kappo]

OP: Do you think businesses being open is a strain on the government? That's pretty much the vibe I get....

 

[spidey07]

Hmmm... there's these things called contracts that the government has to sort out when there is a dispute. Then businesses are protected from other businesses trying to muscle them out through monopolistic means. Then there's the thing with government creating trade agreements with other countries that allow goods to flow back and forth. Finally, when businesses (and people) run into financial trouble, they can file for bankruptcy protection.

Those are protections which I said are guaranteed by The Constitution. I was referring more to the support aspect.

You do know it's called "bankruptcy protection", right?

 

[OrByte]

I'm surprised that the 3rd option is so far behind. This is the type of mentality people had back in the first half of the 20th century.

I think as a society we have come full circle and people have flat out forgotten why things like the Civil Rights Act had to be passed in the first place.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Kinda reminds me of a job my mother applied for while she was in college, but was rejected because the manager said that the working conditions were "too hot for white girls."

 

[spidey07]

History fail.

You're proving my point. The 3rd option was it should be stopped, which is the last half of the 20th century. Are you still failing reading comprehension?

We've moved beyond those times of the first half but apparently you haven't.

 

[charrison]

So for those who think business cannot pick and choose their clients and employees answer me this?

Should curves for women(womens only gym) be shutdown?

Should hooters be shut down for only hiring female waitstaff.



Do you want govt to have that much control?

 

[CallMeJoe]

What the opponents of the Civil Rights Act as it applies to private business fail to acknowledge is that it does not deprive any private business of the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. A private business owner can discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, national origin or any other reason - so long as they remain a strictly private business with a limited clientele.

It is only if they become a Public Accommodation they are required to offer their services to the entire public.

 

[Infohawk]

Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Not because they receive government benefits, but because if we cannot engage in commerce with each other we really have absolutely nothing that binds us together as countrymen.

 

[Infohawk]

So for those who think business cannot pick and choose their clients and employees answer me this?

Should curves for women(womens only gym) be shutdown?

Should hooters be shut down for only hiring female waitstaff.

Do you want govt to have that much control?

The point is businesses can't choose their customers based on race. That is not a valid reason.

 

[jhu]

You're proving my point. The 3rd option was it should be stopped, which is the last half of the 20th century. Are you still failing reading comprehension?

We've moved beyond those times of the first half but apparently you haven't.

You're the one proving to have reading comprehension issues.

Poll question:
Is federal intervention in private business okay if it's to prevent discrimination?

Most popular answer:
No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether businesses can select their own customers.

Not so popular answer:
Maybe, if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped

This discrepancy is the attitude of the first half of the 20th century. Or are you trying to tell me that there are no longer any businesses that discriminate based on sex, race, or ethnicity?

 

[spidey07]

So for those who think business cannot pick and choose their clients and employees answer me this?

Should curves for women(womens only gym) be shutdown?

Should hooters be shut down for only hiring female waitstaff.



Do you want govt to have that much control?

Those are not protected classes, so you're good to go!

Oh, but smokers! Yeah, still not a protected class, so you're good to discriminate! Discrimination is all well and good, as long as it's not a protected class. This in essence is institutionalized racism/sexism/fatism/*ism and discrimination.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Hmmm... there's these things called contracts that the government has to sort out when there is a dispute. Then businesses are protected from other businesses trying to muscle them out through monopolistic means. Then there's the thing with government creating trade agreements with other countries that allow goods to flow back and forth. Finally, when businesses (and people) run into financial trouble, they can file for bankruptcy protection.

In Spidey's world, there is no room for facts and apparently blacks.

As for the poll results...they are just downright sad. Since Fox news is considered the main source of news for the average Teabagger, I think its safe to say they are the ones participating in the poll. Even more evidence that the average Teabagger would want nothing more than to bring back the "good ol' days" displayed in the photos above.

 

[charrison]

The point is businesses can't choose their customers based on race. That is not a valid reason.

But that was not the question asked.

And if you want to regulate that, there are lots of slippery slopes you probalby dont wish to get into.

 

[jackschmittusa]

spidey07

So, I should be able to open my own Wendy's without any franchise fees? Sell Big Macs without paying McDonalds anything? Make and sell my own Winchesters?

How about selling computers and saying Dell is run by child molesters and buying a Dell is supporting molesters? Claim Dell computers have Chinese parts that will give you cancer?

Would you allow a major service station chain to sell gas for a loss locally to drive a small competitor out of business?

Can I grind up stray cats and dogs and call it hamburger and undercut Kroger's prices?

Can I produce and market an exact replica of an iPad?

Should China be able to market a cheap car that rolls over, catches fire, and has faulty brakes to undercut GM and Ford?

Businesses receive a lot of protections from the government not spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[charrison]

You're the one proving to have reading comprehension issues.

Poll question:
Is federal intervention in private business okay if it's to prevent discrimination?

Most popular answer:
No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether businesses can select their own customers.

Not so popular answer:
Maybe, if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped

This discrepancy is the attitude of the first half of the 20th century. Or are you trying to tell me that there are no longer any businesses that discriminate based on sex, race, or ethnicity?

I think most people are missing the bigger picture. There are valid reasons to discriminate.

Women only gyms are very popular, but they do discriminate. Women like them, I dont have a problem with them, but they are choosing who they pick to do business with. And according to you, that is wrong.

 

[spidey07]

This discrepancy is the attitude of the first half of the 20th century. Or are you trying to tell me that there are no longer any businesses that discriminate based on sex, race, or ethnicity?

That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. If there are, they won't get as much business. I fully supported Augusta National for standing behind their right to allow only men just as I fully support Hooters for only having hot women waitresses. Just as much as I would support a Blacks Only club or business.

That's the point of liberty. You have to take the good with the bad. That whole personal responsibility thing and I don't really see anything bad about my Augusta, Hooters, etc. example.

 

[Infohawk]

But that was not the question asked.

And if you want to regulate that, there are lots of slippery slopes you probalby dont wish to get into.

There really isn't a slippery slope. The general rule is that you cannot discriminate against people based on things they cannot change or should not have to change. I actually disagree on the "should not have to change" thing but really it's a pretty safe rule.