The only other option is to government-mandate that, right? Not saying there aren't other unfortunate consequences of allowing a business owner to choose who they serve, but I'd say the larger problem is just that people can be... well... humans aren't great. However, putting the power in the hands of the law probably doesn't fix that.
Ultimately, why would you want to support someone who doesn't want you to be there?
Regardless, you've given me a new thing to think about. It's a complex issue for sure.
It surely helped to change how black people are treated in America, no government-mandate would mean "no blacks allowed" signs still hanging somewhere to this day...
Yet we don't allow random traveler to vote in local elections.
Modern travel is big specifically because the world is diverse place. If all societies would try to include anyone from anywhere, they'd become similar and traveling wouldn't be as great.
By that logic you'd have to argue that children, inmates, mentally ill and those that for whatever reason didn't register to vote in states where it's required are not the part of society.
Including outsiders in the society doesn't make societies less diverse. If anything it's making them more diverse because otherwise similar societies might include different outsiders and differ more because of that.
Not every argument is supposed to be double-sided.
Mix-mashing all societies just get them to lowest common denominator. Similar societies usually receive similar outsiders. Sometimes even outsiders from same place. Which just makes them even more similar. For example, north Germany and Bavaria are quite different places and have different culture. Yet same set of immigrants come to both. Local food is different, but kebabs are the same.
If each society can choose who they want to accept and who they don't want... Then we can agree that each society can judge for itself.
> Like the hoteliers who don't allow gay people to stay ?
Even that is OK in my opinion. The market will sort it out. There are clubs where gay people can have a good time. If gay accomodation becomes a niche market, there will be people seizing that opportunity. The law shall not discriminate people, but telling people what to think and forcing them doing stuff they don't agree with is dictatorship.
I've never understood that argument; if you invite unkown customers you are inviting the public. I mean if you really want to keep it private you would have to have a guest list imho. Which is fine, but you can't have a guest list that says "not that kind of people". Private is for things like Sento imperial palace, where you guide people through your property, but when you let people in freely it is my belief that at some point that will have to be interpreted as public space (like trademarks).
If you have a book that gives more nuance to this "a private buisness is not a public space" I would be glad to read it.
How so? Just because it has word "private" in its customary english name? If you translate it to other languages word private often disappears. And if it remains it serves to separate state owned buisnesses and privately own buisnesses. Both participate in public market, have random customers from the public and are regulated so that they need to display prices and not refuse service to some people based on owners stupidity.
But nevertheless in intrudes on the public sphere, to simply deny its effect on the culture surrounding it and the society which uses it is naive. The idea that businesses exist apart from everyone and everything is a pernicious one.
I also don't like junkies. Is that also wrong? Why do you tell me what i should like, and based on what ethics do you tell me what is morally right?
What if I tell you that liking foreigners is morally wrong where I live? We don't hurt them, but we don't like them because they keep telling us what we should do, and keep trying to conquer us for a millennia? Still we live in peace since a long time, we treat our guests well, but we don't categorically like them. Each and every guest can become an individually liked person, and even unliked ones are treated fairly (given a fair trial before execution ;) Hint for autists: It was a joke)
It's morally wrong to hate something for an attribute they have no control over.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone who chooses to drink? Not really.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone born addicted to opioids, or born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Of course.
Being born "foreign" is no different, especially if you, as this chef does, live in a country where "nationality" is coterminous with "ethnicity" to the point multi-generational immigrant groups (ethnically Korean Japanese, for example) are considered "Not Japanese" by many Japanese people.
I thought we were talking about this comment. You created a strawman, and now use derogatory comment toward me. This makes me end this discussion here.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
We've banned this account for taking this thread into a wretched flamewar, as well as for violating the site guidelines repeatedly and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Indeed. Were this statement made in the USA, there wouldn’t even be this attempt to rationalize it. Torches and pitchforks would be at the ready almost immediately.
