well maybe you hadnt considered it but without cases like brown v.

board of
education and plessy v. ferguson, racial integration wouldnt have happen on all
accounts.
Well, this simply isnt true, because we wouldnt have needed those cases if it were
not for the government mandated segregation that happened in the first place.
Trying to say that government solved a problem that it created so its needed isnt a
sound argument, because we would then have to accept that a person who wrecks
his car into another driver and pays for the damages is in a higher position morally
than someone who has never wrecked before. That simply isnt true.
idk if you know this but a restaurant cant deny a person service because of their
race, same with housing and employment. which an indirect result of these supreme
court rulings. they paved the way for the federal civil rights act which guarantees all
people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or
national origin." so even if a store owner doesnt like black people, he cant deny
them service because of that. and this is absolutely parallel to the LGBT nondiscrimination law, which if you think about it, is forcing people not to discriminate
based on how they think somebody is. at least with discrimination based on race, its
black and white. but you cant even tell if someone is gay by looking at them, which
makes this even more ridiculous.

This whole thing right here isnt an argument. Its simply a statement, and, even
worse, its attempting to assert that legality = morality. Just because the
government says I cant drive my car without paying them for it first (property
taxes), doesnt mean that by not doing so I am acting immorally. Its the same thing
here. Just because the Government says that they cant choose demographics,
doesnt mean that the act itself becomes immoral. It doesnt. There is no document,
ritual, legislation or act that can change the morality of an act without changing the
act itself. Ergo, choosing who I let use my service arbitrarily is not an immoral act.
When it comes to morality, there is only one absolute: That the initiation of force is
inherently immoral. Otherwise known as the Non-aggression Principle, that it is not
okay to rob, attack, or enslave other people. This is something taught since
kindergarten, and accepted by almost everyone. The problem in this scenario being
the hallucination of the state to bypass this, but, as previously stated, there is no
document, procedure, ritual, or act that can ever change the morality of an act
without changing the act itself. Accepting that, we must also accept that the state is
initiating force on the business owners, by making a claim on their property that is
higher than the owners, and forcing them into doing business thats involuntary.
The other issue with this paragraph, is its implication of a consequentialist appeal.
Even if we were to accept the fact that without the governments use of initiatory
force on these small business owners then places would not allow gays, blacks,
Latinos, Asians or whoever else in, so what? The truth value, or morality, of a

proposition cannot be determined simply by an appeal to consequence, because the

Asia
Africa
Europe
North America
South America
Australia/Oceania

4,307,107,875
1,037,524,058
816,426,346
544,620,340
400,067,694
35,426,995

60%
15%
11.4%
7.6%
5.6%
0.5%

consequence has no bearing on the ethics of using force to impose our will. Saying
otherwise is saying that the end justifies the means, a Machiavellian principle that
has been the cause of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin and Kim Jong Un. Otherwise
cloaked as saying that it is justifiable and even noble to give up the rights of the
individual for the greater good. Which comes to my next point
Below is a graph with all the different races of EVERYONE in the entire world. Those
are some gigantic numbers, yes? So, the minority in any given area is not absolute,
as a gay community has a lower number of straight people, even though straight is
considered the majority. One thing thats failed to be looked over is best quoted
from the mind of Ayn Rand herself, The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those

who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

So, in an attempt to turn this against me in an appeal to protecting minorities we

are faced with two issues. The first being the fact that the individual is the smallest
minority on earth, and the fact that democracy CANNOT protect the rights of the
few, as democracy is a mob rule where 50.01% of the population can dictate what
the other 49.99% can and cant do. To force an individual to do business with
someone they do not want do for the good of a demographic with more numbers is,
morally, the same as taking away the rights of the blacks in a white dominated area
so that white people can have more prosperity, or vice versa.
You seem to make appeals to peoples emotions by calling this a basic human
rights issue, when, at its very core, it is very much an issue of property rights.