Show how. I don’t see anything in your discussion.It is completely inconsistent.
This is a pathetic semantic game on your part. Most of the corporations in the United States of any size recognize the phrase “Customer Service”.Businesses are not in the business of serving the public.
Your typing so does not make it so.The reason I dismiss such arguments is because they are contrary to the truth, reality, and fact.
It is not an ignorant statement. Once again, your typing so does not make it so.They are arguments that are based off of ignorant statements, like this one.
By serving the public, the business makes money. If the public was not served, the business would not make money (or, at least, not as much money ). Students of business with even marginal acumen know this.How can you possibly believe businesses hold themselves out to serve the public? They are out to serve themselves.
This is totally backward. As an INTENDED benefit of serving the public, businesses that serve the public well, make money.As a side effect of them making money, other people benefit.
Businesses also sell services (the root word would be, I think “serve”). I believe it’s fair to say that businesses would rather sell services, they make more money that way. Companies that are able to bundle their goods WITH services do so because the margins (properly managed) are better, so they make more money.Business sells a good and earns a profit,
If the business doesn’t do it for the customer, who is paying the business? If the business has no customers, there is no business....but don't assume that the business is doing it for the customer,...
You can make that argument, but I wouldn’t have any part of it. It’s retarded (that means I think it’s not at all equivalent). But just to be a good sport, here’s an example for you, close to home.In any case, if the area in question is private property, it matters not what they do with it. A private piece of property that has a business on top of it is no different from a private piece of property with a house on top of it (as far as the issue of rights is concerned). Arguing otherwise would be equivalent, in principle, to arguing that we are all humans with rights, but humans with a different skin color have less rights.
Reprinted in part (with thanks; italics added) from http://Democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/news/a272005040.htm
There, I’ve found you an example. Most state and local governments have them. Now you find me a law that says that I have to allow anyone to sit in my back yard.January 5, 2006
By Zak Szymanski
Nondiscrimination laws help individuals and groups navigate what is and is not permitted when it comes to making selective choices about people, and California's Unruh Act – the nondiscrimination code as it applies to businesses serving the public – has for decades been the tool that outlines how establishments and services can and cannot set their criteria when it comes to their clientele.
For years the Unruh Act has expressly prohibited discrimination in public accommodation based upon sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition. The California Supreme Court, however, has consistently ruled that the law also includes arbitrary discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs, and in many cases has interpreted that LGBT people are protected by this law as well.
Still, to make clear that LGBT people should be included in that list, Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) introduced and successfully pushed through AB1400, the Civil Rights Act of 2005. The bill was passed by the California Legislature last year and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September. AB1400 takes effect this month.
The Civil Rights Act of 2005 adds sexual orientation, gender, and marital status to the Unruh Act, explicitly strengthening nondiscrimination protections to clarify that businesses that provide services, goods or accommodations to the public cannot discriminate against LGBT people. The law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments" covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners' associations.
BTW, that you label yourself a Libertarian is of no import to the discussion.
1x2