Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

The government has no right to take property? Eminent domain is written into the constitution. So yea, you're wrong with that one.

It's become clear that you hate any interference from the government since you call it "tyranny". For one, speaking in hyperbole doesn't score you any points with halfway intelligent people, and it especially doesn't get me to listen to what you have to say. But if that's how you want to talk, then fine. With no government intervention whatsoever, then you obviously advocate for a tyranny of the majority and powerful over the minority and weak. Without government intervention, the powerful eat up the weak. Protections for the minority and weak are structured into the government itself, as well as illustrated in the federalist papers.

I use logical fallacies? Your comments are rife with straw men arguments and hyperbole. Lets not be hypocritical here.

You seem to be incredibly confused as to exactly what a mutually beneficial relationship is. In fact, you confuse this in TWO major ways

(1) You're comment on 'so long as he gets money' he is mutually benefited

(2) you believe that racism can possibly impede a mutually beneficial agreement.

To come into a mutually beneficial contract, both parties must accept it. Both must believe they are mutually benefiting from the exchange. In the case of racism, the store owner is being oppressed as he is forced to sell his product to somebody he doesn't want to sell it to. Just receiving money does not make it a mutually beneficial exchange, if I were to steal your watch but give you a 20 dollar bill you would hardly consider that mutually beneficial- I coerced you to give me your watch in the first place.

Racism can never impede a mutually beneficial exchange, at least not in this way. If the store owner does not want to exchange goods, but the minority does the minority can not force him to sell it- that would be beneficial to the minority, but not the racist.

You use a surprising amount of fallacies throughout the rest of your post, such as the slippery slope fallacy- if we allow such practices all busniesses will magically become racist and we will be as bad as we are in the 50's. You've no logical reason to assume that all companies will start to be racist, especially given Wal-mart and Target and other such large chains, that would never adopt racist policies.

You also attack me with several ad hominem fallacies, you call me 'sick' for believing in private property rights, and sick and twisted for supporting even more private property rights. You back both of your 'arguments' with nothing. I believe the disabled deserve a fair share at life, equality of opportunity- not of outcome. He still has every right to do anything he wants, so long as his rights to not impede others rights.

When businesses are given regulation to force 'recognizing' him it becomes oppression.

Just because the government actually does step in the way of private businesses, and have tried to make it legitimate though law does not mean that they have the right to do so. People have the ultimate right of property, something that can not be infringed upon by the government without stealing the rights of life, liberty, or property.

You're confused as to exactly what rights are. People have Life, Liberty, and Property- people do not have the right to control others Lives, Liberties, or Property such as in the ADA. You claim that you support 'rights', however, when further explored, you do not support rights- you support the tyranny of special interest groups though the government.

He is mutually benefitted. He gets money, and the black person gets the product. His racism impedes a mutually beneficial relationship. Making him receive money is not theft. How you concocted that is beyond me. Lets keep the arguments rational.

Minorities wouldn't be able to move on because once companies are openly allowed to overtly be racist, others will follow. Racism still exists, and if accepted in any form, it will cause us to eventually regress to the 1950s. Even if it only happens in the south, that still isn't acceptable. Again, its pretty sick that you would be ok with that happening anywhere. Segregation is not equal, it isn't fair, and it would set the country back after all the hard work we put in to get here.

Price controls are often counter productive and are usually a bad idea, but the minimum wage. I illustrated that in our debate earlier, but you just dismissed it without ever really thinking about it.

You're really sick and twisted if you have a problem with the ADA. Seriously, what's wrong with you besides being conservative? Because even most conservatives agree that disabled people deserve a fair shake at life. Again, based on the general welfare clause, the necessary and proper clause and, like I said before, the interstate commerce clause, the government has the right to step in when bigotry creates a public problem through purely private transactions. If you wish to be otherwise, you might want to move to another country.

You ought to know that not all speech is free. You cannot say absolutely everything you want. I'll listen to a KKK rally, and organize all the diverse friends I have to have a one-time make out session with each other just to piss them off. But hate speech isn't far off from inciting violence, so it must be controlled to a certain extent.

I'm the one violating peoples' rights? You're the one perfectly fine with segregation and think the ADA is too much intervention.

Well, while you might not be arguing for government control over a private businesses price of goods in this debate, many people are. People support price floors, and price ceilings, both of which are in effect. People propose that there must be a minimum wage, another example of the government starting to have more and more control over a busniess.

While the government may not have complete control over businesses now, they have more than they should. Businesses can control the very opinions of the busniess workers, can set their wages (to an extent), can set their prices, and can create store policy (for example, handicapped regulation).While the government prevents businesses from discriminating against those they do not approve of, they have no right to do so. Assuming that all businesses, especially major businesses (like wal-mart) will suddenly become racist and refuse to serve specific people is ignorant. In fact, after what has happened over the past decades I suggest that a very small amount of people will discriminate against anybody, perhaps a few small stores in the south that can be avoided- besides that, I see no reason for Wal-mart, Target, ETC ETC to start implementing racicst policies.

It is contradictory to say that free speech is great and you support it, yet you do not support free speech that is contrary to your views. Free speech laws are not necessary for 'nice' free speech that is agreeable, free speech laws are necessary for controversial views- such as racism. Private racism or prejudice can never violate a citizens rights, in fact, you yourself are the one pressing to violate a citizens rights! Citizens are born with three natural rights, those being Life, Liberty, and Property- you are violating their rights of Life, Liberty and Property by not allowing them to make their own decisions on what to do in their own property.

There is no such right as the right to enter somebody else's property. One can only have free economic rights if all of the economic interactions are mutually beneficial to both members, that is, if both of the people find the interaction mutually beneficial. If the racist is not mutually benefited (Which is impossible if he does not wish to interact with this person) then he has no freedom. He is in fact being coerced into this arrangement, almost as if it were government instituted theft.

I never said that the oppression of private property owners were legal or moral- I said that interference in PUBLICLY racist policies were legal and moral. I don't understand why you don't think somebody being discriminated against can't simply move to a place which does. If a restaurant bans you, you might be able to find another restaurant- if all of them ban you you eat somewhere else, like buying your own food from a grocery store. Contrary to your argument, even during the 60's, black people were still able to buy things. While some places didn't allow them, others took them in.

No one is arguing that government is or should take over control of private business. That's you making the issue much larger than it really is. No one is coming in, telling business owners how to price their goods, just who they will sell to. They cannot discriminate against different races, genders, people of different ages, sexual orientations (should be added if it isn't in a locality), etc. Landlords can deny someone based on their credit, but not assume they have bad credit because of their race. Looking at historical evidence, saying that people will just go to another business that does serve them is simplistic and wishful thinking since every business will be able to discriminate. What choice do blacks, or gays, or whoever have if every business starts discriminating? Its the same as collusion now. What choice do people have if every business is doing the same thing? Saying there will always be a business that serves them ignores precedent, and is wishful and baseless.

Sure, free speech is great, but racism and prejudice are disgusting and harmful. Unchecked, they violate citizens' basic rights and undermine our moral authority in the world. Rightfully, this was one of the main claims of the civil rights movement. Frankly, its sad and ignorant to say that prejudice and racism are, in any way, beneficial to the country. The main legal avenue the government used to break down segregation was its use of the interstate commerce clause in the constitution. The government used it to force privately owned hotels in the south to accept blacks. These hotels weren't publicly owned. They were private establishments. Yet you say this was legal and moral action by the government, which you seem ok with. Your understanding of the government's relationship with business, therefore, seems overly simplistic and a tad bit ignorant.

It's quite simple, does a private busniess owner controlling his own busniess hit somebody else's face? IS the private busniess owner going on somebody else's property and telling them how to run it? Of course not, that would be you.

It is very unlikely major airlines would even consider discriminating against people, in fact, most large businesses would remain non-discriminatory. No large busniess will be incredibly successful if they were to discrimination, and they know that. If an airline, or real estate agency were to have discriminatory policies people would simply move to another busniess, another airline, another agency, another bank.

The government has no right to step in on private affairs of it's people, it has no right to dictate what I do on my private property, so long as I am not violating anybody else's liberties (Being the rights to Life, Liberty, or Property).

While some segregation may have happened back in the 50's, black people could still eat, they could still do what they wanted, they just moved over to other businesses- perhaps those run by other black people.

Different views and opinions, including prejudice and racism are what make this country great, to be more precise, the fact that you can have them without fear of oppression. This has changed lately, as you will be oppressed if you have views that aren't politically correct.

The government intervening to desegregate the schools and allowing black people to vote would be examples of moral and legal government action, these are publicly owned by all of the people. The government taking control over private businesses is not, private individuals own those.

They deny you alcohol because the powers that be feel as though they have to draw a line somewhere because usually, the younger the person, the less able they are to enjoy alcohol responsibly. That isn't discrimination. That's public safety, especially since DUI rates jumped after the drinking age was dropped to 18 during the Vietnam war.

Sure, different opinions and view are great, but not when it comes to prejudice and racism. Sure, too much government intervention is a bad thing, but it was government intervention that integrated schools and forced the south to allow blacks to vote. There is a time and a place for government intervention. That's the problem with conservatives is that they hold up ALL government intervention as being bad, even when a lot of historical and contemporary evidence suggests otherwise.

Private businesses have private reasons for doing what they do, but being allowed to discriminate based on their personal reasons causes societal problems that government must address, lest we backtrack to the 1950s. We as a country as already been there and done that. Why should we choose policies that would bring us back there and make us go through it all again?

Decent point on airlines and stuff but you must think what you are saying. These private companies like banks or airlines probably employ anyone that they could possibly deny services too. What makes our country great is different views and opinions. Sure it hurts peoples feeling but that is life. Private businesses have private reasons for denying services, so deal with it. This kid is absolutely right about socialism. More government involvement equals less freedom. I am 19 and gas stations refuse to sell me liquor. Are they not discriminating against my age? I know that is ridiculous so where do we draw the line of making laws to protect "people from being offended."