Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Talligurl]

58 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

It's only a stupid choice from a business perspective if more of the market than not would prefer that they don't discriminate. If a business owner decides not to serve 10% of the population in order to avoid losing the business of 20% of the population than it's a perfectly logical decision. Of course, that means that 10% of the population can go pound sand, doesn't it?

No I means that there is an opportunity for members of the 10% to provide the service others are refusing to provide. Why we assume that the oppressed group is incapable of producing thier own businesspeople is beyond me.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Talligurl said:

No I means that there is an opportunity for members of the 10% to provide the service others are refusing to provide. Why we assume that the oppressed group is incapable of producing thier own businesspeople is beyond me.

How about because they can't buy real estate in favorable areas or get bank loans? It takes money to make money.

[Klytyna]

8 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

My understanding, from historical readings, is that Britain came up with ways of getting money from the colonists, because it was only fair, and one of those measures, perhaps a tax on tea, was the straw that broke the camel's back, and sparked the rebellion.

Ummm... NO.

In the mid 1770's Tea was a MONOPOLY of the British East India Company.

The deal was that The Government granted the company a Legal Monopoly, AND the right to recruit, and deploy it's own PRIVATE Military, in exchange for a nice fat slice of Tax.

The two parties had just agreed a revision of the deal, the Government would take less tax from the company, on the proviso that the company would pass ALL of the savings on to it's customers, both sides agreeing to a smaller slice of the pie, in the hopes of making it a MUCH bigger pie.

As a result, when the Indiaman ships arrived in Boston on their regular schedule, the price of Tea, on the docks had NEVER been cheaper.

Some people were upset by this, namely Captain Hank B Yank of the SS Happy Dohnut, a somewhat piratical schooner, out of the port of Butttucket.

Captain Yank and his 2 dozen raggedy crew, had sailed half way round the world, to pick up black market tea at some midnight assignation on a deserted beach, sailed back, half way round the world, dodging other pirates, arab slavers, corsairs, East India Company warships, Royal Navy warships, storms, sea monsters, etc.

When they reached their secret pirate smuggler cove near Boston, they then discovered to their horror that an Indiaman had just pulled in and was loaded with hundreds of tons of Tea, at prices so low, there was no possibility of selling their 20 tons of blackmarket smuggled Tea at a price high enough to cover the food, repairs, cannon balls, gunpowder, wooden peg leg wax, parrot feed, cutlass sharpening, or the wear and tear on their eye-patches.

Legal Tea... 2 shillings a pound, tax paid... Illegal tea, 2 shillings 1 penny a pound, tax, what's tax? (yes the actual average prices at the time...)

So Captain Yank and his boys, waited till the crew of the Indiaman were in the pub getting hammered, and swarmed aboard wearing masks, overpowered the two night watchmen, and dumped the legal tea into the harbour, so there'd be a market amongst Boston's tea drinkers for the smuggled goods.

Then they sold their tea, and buggered off to the Bahamas where a smuggler could still make a decent living trading in coffee, molasses, tobacco and spiced rum.

...

The whole claim that this was the action of the Freedom Loving People of Boston, was some BS claim made by opportunistic traitors turned fraudulent propaganda hacks, such as a silversmith called Paul Revere. 

Yes... THAT Paul Revere...

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Klytyna

[Callum Meriman]

6 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Some people were upset by this, namely Captain Hank B Yank of the SS Happy Dohnut, a somewhat piratical schooner, out of the port of Butttucket.

Yay! Now I must name my next Gay club sim as "Butttucket".

[Theresa Tennyson]

18 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Oh the family doesn't hold a grudge about the death of a many times great uncle at the hands of an insurrgant with a sniper rifle, at Kings's Mountain, or over the rebels refusing to contribute to the military pension of another kinsman who lost a leg at Quebec...

We hold that a many times great grandfather evened the score in August 1814, when he sat in the "Redcoat Congress" and helped burn the Whitehouse to the ground, after making Jimmy "Warmonger" Madison, and his Incontinent Army run with their tails between their legs like whipped dogs, at Bladensburg...

 

 

Remind me to send you a postcard from  Baltimore; your family seems to have trouble getting there.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

9 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Yes, but not Julius Ceasar. Ceaser only made a short, exploratory visit before he and his men went back.

It was a later Roman leader (not sure if he was an emporer or a consul) who conquered much of England, and they were here for a few hundred years.

I doubt that London was founded by the Romans. They called it Lundinium (or Londinium) but I doubt that they built it all. It's much more likely that they expanded what was already there - a large village, or something like that.

ROMAN LONDON

 

The Romans founded London about 50 AD. Its name is derived from the Celtic word Londinios, which means the place of the bold one. After they invaded Britain in 43 AD the Romans built a bridge across the Thames. They later decided it was an excellent place to build a port. The water was deep enough for ocean going ships but it was far enough inland to be safe from Germanic raiders. Around 50 AD Roman merchants built a town by the bridge. So London was born.

http://www.localhistories.org/london.html

[BilliJo Aldrin]

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

So your concern in all this is to have the Lincoln memorial removed?

Actually  I have no problem with The Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln did what he set out to do, which was to preserve the Union, and a grateful nation chose to honor him.

 

Did You know  that  before the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, Lincoln made one last offer to the South to get them to return to the Union. He proposed a Constitutional Amendment permitting slavery to exist until 1900, with a gradual release of the slaves and compensation to the owners for loss of property.

Douglass had good reason to mistrust Lincoln. On December 1, 1862, one month before the scheduled issuing of an Emancipation Proclamation, the president offered the Confederacy another chance to return to the union and preserve slavery for the foreseeable future. In his annual message to congress, Lincoln recommended a constitutional amendment, which if it had passed, would have been the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment proposed gradual emancipation that would not be completed for another thirty-seven years, taking slavery in the United States into the twentieth century; compensation, not for the enslaved, but for the slaveholder; and the expulsion, supposedly voluntary but essentially a new Trail of Tears, of formerly enslaved Africans to the Caribbean, Central America, and Africa.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153860

 

[Callum Meriman]

12 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The Romans founded London about 50 AD.

Recent discoveries indicate there were likely far earlier settlements and use of this area, some stretching back to 4000BCE.

It's quite probable that the invading Romans removed the existing settlements and created their own. It is quite plausible that the conquering invaders simply didn't document the vanquished.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yep, there is a nasty tendency to use "socialist" and "communist" as a pejorative, if one is on the other side.

Just as, "the US is not really a Democracy but is a Republic". 

and of course us on the "other side" (non leftist) are called nazi,  fascist, racist, supremacist,  just to name a few examples.

But of course, they aren't perjoratives are they?

*oh and alt-right*

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

As the right goes further to the right and the left goes further to the left to counter that, there may be enough room to drive something up the middle. That interests me.

Actually, I'm a Libertarian, a Nationalist Libertarian to be specific, because I detest Libertarian open border policies.

*Don't look it up, I'm the only one*

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, Nalytha said:

I find people who use words like socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs, bleeding hearts, etc weaken their argument significantly. If you can't defend your argument without denigrating the other side, then your argument is really flimsy. 

Just my two cents. 

of course socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs,and bleeding hearts have their own words for their opponents don't they?

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Because businesses provide needed services to everyone in the community, some so necessary that they are a matter of life and death or can at the very least cause suffering to those denied access (the only hospital in town denying services to someone they hate, or a hospital denying partner visitation for a dying patient because the partner is 'gay' and so deemed as 'not family'). While it's perhaps not of much consequence if the 'unapproved of' person or object of discrimination has other choices, in many cases they do not, or at the very least the alternate choices are substandard (back of the bus).
There's no reason why we can't deem these 'unapproved of' persons a protected class and make provisions for them so they can live freely like every other person in society.

Sure, it would be better if we did not have to regulate stupidity, but the reality is that there's a lot of stupid people out there who lack empathy and think they have a right to label others as bad and make them suffer.

Yes yes yes essential services... but when was it a basic human right to be able to force someone to cut your hair or bake you a cake?

[Nalytha]

4 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

of course socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs,and bleeding hearts have their own words for their opponents don't they?

 

You have a valid point, and my apologies for not giving more diverse examples. 

I contend that anyone who resorts to denigration of the other side in order to prove their own point, only proves that they have no point.  

[Aethelwine]

9 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

of course socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs,and bleeding hearts have their own words for their opponents don't they?

 

The point is whether those words are justified or not. Where they are used simply as a meaningless pejorative it is an indication of a weak argument. On the other hand just because Richard Spencer prefers to be called alt-right or an identitarian it doesn't stop him also being a racist, anti-semitic or a white supremacist.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Aethelwine

[BilliJo Aldrin]

9 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

You have a valid point, and my apologies for not giving more diverse examples. 

I contend that anyone who resorts to denigration of the other side in order to prove their own point, only proves that they have no point.  

So, are you saying that you can't call a person promoting communist ideas a communist? 

That like saying you can't call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists.

Oh and did you know that in the Peoples Islamic State of Canada, its illegal to say Islamic terrorist, because the term casts Islam in a negative light, and that has been forbidden in law.

*its not denigration if its true*

Edited January 3, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Aethelwine]

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Yes yes yes essential services... but when was it a basic human right to be able to force someone to cut your hair or bake you a cake?

That fight was won in the 60s when it became illegal to refuse to serve blacks.

[Aethelwine]

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So, are you saying that you can't call a person promoting communist ideas a communist? 

That like saying you can't call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists.

*its not denigration if its true*

Quite clearly they are specifically not saying that as they are making the same point it is not denigration if it is true

Edited January 3, 2018 by Aethelwine

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

That fight was won in the 60s when it became illegal to refuse to serve blacks.

Then it goes back to my original contention that anyone that operates a business should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

And to be fair, it can go both ways. A Black could put up a sign,  that says no Whites allowed. The difference is, I'd just say whatever and go spend my money someplace else.  

Edited January 3, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Nalytha]

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So, are you saying that you can't call a person promoting communist ideas a communist? 

Most people with common sense understand when someone is using a word correctly because that is the word that is called for and when they are using it simply as a knife. 

[Innula Zenovka]

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Yes yes yes essential services... but when was it a basic human right to be able to force someone to cut your hair or bake you a cake?

If you have in mind the woman who had a dispute with the Muslim barber, as I understand it, her reason for using the Human Rights Commission there rather than the courts was that the Human Rights Commission offer a mediation and arbitration service, with an emphasis on negotiating an agreement both sides can live with that then awarding damages in a confrontational environment.

I wouldn't regard it as a human rights issue, myself.   I think, however, there is nothing wrong with governments passing legislation to ban discrimination on the grounds of gender (or ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation and so forth) and if the legislation says that something called a Human Rights Commission is charged with administering that law, then that's what people are going to use.

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So, are you saying that you can't call a person promoting communist ideas a communist? 

You wrote that as I was typing.   Rather depends on what those ideas are, to my mind.   If you mean specifically communist ideas like dialectical materialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on, then  I would agree.   If you mean things like socialised medicine that communists certainly agree with, then no, because --- with the obvious exception of the USA -- conservatives in most places think that's a good idea, too.

 

[Aethelwine]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Then it goes back to my original contention that anyone that operates a business should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

Then you are prepared to facilitate racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination against people with disabilities. Are you sure that is your point?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Then you are prepared to facilitate racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination against people with disabilities. Are you sure that is your point?

My point is that a private business owner should be able to choose who his clientele will be. I'm sure there are 10 other business owners that will be more than happy to serve those people  he chooses not to serve.

[Nalytha]

4 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

My point is that a private business owner should be able to choose who his clientele will be. I'm sure there are 10 other business owners that will be more than happy to serve those people  he chooses not to serve.

Explain to your child why the shop keeper told her to find some place else to shop because her kind isn’t wanted. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Nalytha

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Explain to your child why the shop keeper told her to find some place else to shop because her kind isn’t wanted. 

Oh Of course, the old "we must do it for the children"

When nothing else works, say it's for the kids.

[Nalytha]

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Oh Of course, the old "we must do it for the children"

When nothing else works, say it's for the kids.

I apologize for caring about a group of people who aren’t me.