Anda di halaman 1dari 1

People can demand a service surely, but the business is under no obligation to p

rovide it. You cannot force a business into services. It is unethical. Now, in m
any measures it could impact overal growth and revenue, but that is a business d
ecision. Consumer rights and consumer protection law provides a way for individu
als to fight back against abusive business practices. These laws are designed to
hold sellers of goods and services accountable when they seek to profit by taki
ng advantage of a consumer s lack of information or bargaining power...NOT withhol
ding services. This happens on a daily basis mind you. We can demand gas at a pu
mp, but if it is all out or they are doing renovations or have a sale going on f
or only specific number of customers, they can be denied. A proof of concept is
readily available anywhere. In cases where the business is classified as a sole
proprietor, it may all hinge on the business owner's wishes and religious status
. The whole point, is that America has strayed away from the free market / and f
reedom of choices, soon to be corralled into a PC world consumed with special in
terest groups who similarily seek out those who intolerate their beliefs in an e
ffort to cause harm or recontribute to the intolerance. All I can commit to repe
ating is my forestatement of: "It might cause hurt feelings, but a freedom-based
society is not built on using the force of government to get what we want. Forc
ing others into involuntary business dealings is the behavior of tyrants." Quite
simply, all this could me mitigated by taking your business elsewhere and your
money.
Similarily it can be simply reduced to a simple summary: a business can and shou
ld sell to those...whether gay, obese, albino, what have you...but if it specifi
cally contributes to a violation of their rules, religion, or ethics, then they
have every right to decline service or to further a cause that their product wou
ld contribute to. We see it happening on the flip side, where people are removin
g their facilities, and their jobs, and their sponsorship for people who commit
to specific moral choices or news worthy ideals, and they deny them services or
monetary support as a form of protest. How could this be considered any differen
t? Religion conviction is just one of many (ethical, peer, criminal, monetary lo
ss, public perception) that offer a basis of rejecting services.
A free person has the right and the ability to freely associate with -- and disa
ssociate from -- other people, based upon any criteria he chooses. A free person
can be as partial, biased, superficial, and exclusive as he pleases. He can tak
e on any level of philosophical purity, religious conviction, and/or political i
ncorrectness, in all of his affairs.
All associations between free citizens are voluntary and performed with the cons
ent of all parties involved. No other person has a right to walk into someone el
se's private property (such as a house or business) and demand to be served. Nob
ody is owed the time and property of someone else without their consent.
It might cause hurt feelings, but a freedom-based society is not built on using
the force of government to get what we want. Forcing others into involuntary bus
iness dealings is the behavior of tyrants.