Discrimination should be 100% Legal

Given that in this kind of forum, those who analyze these debates and arguments know what it is that is in contention, I will not introduce the topic in detail. Rather, I will delve into the topic at hand, mainly that businesses have no right, legal or social, to discriminate those whom seek to enter into contractual agreements with them. While everything included in this post for the purposes of this debate is to be considered, I will not delve deeply by writing a book on the points that can really eviscerate the argument that a business should have the right to discriminate. (1) Businesses exist for many reasons, but amongst the many reasons they exist, they exist to make a PROFIT. And as such, a business that wants the right to discriminate, ought to have included in its budget a legal fund along with "a going out of business fund" because such practices defy sound economic policy. Something which is non controversial amongst economic analysts, economists, and economic historians of all socio-economic and political persuasions. (2) Arguing that the Supreme Court ruling permitting discrimination in terms of admittance to private organizations (i.e Boy Scouts, Religious institutions) cannot be applied to businesses that by their very nature are open to the general public See. Boy Scouts v. James Dale and Roberts v. United States Jaycees Businesses by their very nature seek clientele and favorable economic transactions. And while they may "target" those whom they feel will be more likely to purchase their products through marketing, businesses seek profit; they don"t choose it. Furthermore, Consumers seek products, goods, services. Consumers choose products for many reasons but mainly pick a product because they like that which they seek and is at a price they believe is acceptable. Business between a business and consumer is purely transactional and goes no further than between that of two economic entities conducting a transaction. Laws prohibiting discrimination mostly deal with has concerned "public accommodations," meaning certain businesses holding themselves open to the public. Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses"inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths"to serve any customer who could pay. The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by "holding themselves open to the public," they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it. Business owners, from the moment they conceive the idea of creating a business through the process of licensing and meeting the legal requirements for the operation of the said business know that they are required to abide by laws and regulations if they are to operate their business in legal standing and free of legal sanction. If an individual feels that his engagement in commerce will place him in a position by which his personal religious beliefs will be dishonored either by him or some other individual, the individual should reconsider whether placing themselves in such a situation(owning a business) which will on some occasions offend his views on God or contradict what is believed to be against one"s faith. Those who discriminate should reconsider whether having a business is really worth one"s "spiritual standing with god. Again, a person"s religious person"s beliefs and standing with God appear to be more important to the supporter of this "discriminatory position" than one of a purely economical nature, and as such, the business owner has the freedom to discriminate against himself and preclude himself from making a profit. Finally, I believe that there is a inherent contradiction by conservatives and those who argue that the "right to discriminate should be legal 100%" and their own religious beliefs. A brief examination of the some bible verses will demonstrate that: The bible commands people to obey the laws of the land even when such laws contravene religious beliefs(Bible verses and other sources will be provided) ROMANS 13: 1-7 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. The bible commands one to not judge and leave the judge of judging and passing sentence to GOD himself ROMANS 13: 8-10 8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. ROMANS 14 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another"s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord"s. 9 For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But you who eat vegetables only " why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything " why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God." 12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God. "NET IN ESSENCE, IF A CHRISTIAN BELIEVES THAT BY CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH PERSONS THEY FEEL COMMIT SINS AGAINST GOD IS WRONG AND AS A RESULT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DENY CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH THEM, THEY COULD NOT ENAGAGE IN BUSINESSES BECAUSE NO HUMAN BEING IS FREE OF SIN. FURTHERMORE, IF ONE IS TO CLAIM AN EXEMPTION FROM THE LAW OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A PROTECTION FROM THE LAW, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 100%, NOT WITH THE 2% THEY BELIEVE SHOULD BE PRACTICED. Sources Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Da