They own shares in the company - good luck stopping them from selling a property interest.
1 Like
Progressives are always intolerant; there are no “live and let live” Progressives.
1 Like
Since the word progressives has become synonymous with the far left, there are NO real progressives in national politics. Just a few who cosplay, like the fraud squad, for example. They might talk and sometimes ask a few good questions but do just about nothing. They may not take corporate money but bend the knee to those who . So really what is the difference?
The other members are the owners and depending on the structure of the co-op, must approve the sale. You assume they will or must.
They aren’t IMO.
I don’t have to argue it. The examples are there for all to see.
It hasn’t. And there are: almost all politicians are Progressives.
“ Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action. As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization.”
You want a whole-ass country to run this way? You’re joking right?
I’m one. Most progressives are live and let live. Just like most conservatives aren’t racist and don’t want to hang LGBT people in the public square.
The internet makes it seem like most Americans are crazy extremists, but real life has shown me the opposite. I feel this the most because I’m on both right-leaning and left-leaning sites regularly. On right-leaning sites (like MMA forums), they believe every progressive is an intolerant authoritarian who wants to eradicate Western culture. And on left-leaning sites, they believe every conservative is a literal fascist who wants to genocide LGBTs and minorities.
I often end up being the person defending both sides, which is why everyone hates me haha.
1 Like
I don’t see how that is possible. Progressivism is literally the belief that it’s possible to improve society through political(that is, via force) action. I’m not saying you believe that; I’m just saying you may not be the Progressive you believe you are.
1 Like
I’m not saying you believe that; I’m just saying you may not be the Progressive you believe you are
People who are part of a political movement often don’t follow the dictionary definition of that movement. So I tend not to care for dictionary definitions for most movements.
Progressivism is literally the belief that it’s possible to improve society through political(that is, via force) action.
That said, I would say this describes me at times. For example, I 100% support forcing a gay-hating store owner to serve a gay customer. This would definitely count as improving society through political action.
At the same time, I’d also force a hardcore athiest store owner to serve a religious Christian customer. There are certain aspects where you can’t be live and let live. However, 90% of the time “live and let live” describes me and the vast majority of progressives. Let people run their own lives and households how they want to, as long as it doesn’t take away rights from others.
The thing is, both of your examples involve taking away rights from one party who was NOT taking away the right/s of another.
2 Likes
Umm most structures of member owned or shareholders might have a lockout period, but usually they can be forced to sell by the majority but not stopped from selling.
Most have a right of first refusal clause to the members or other shareholders.
This is literally what I do, so maybe argue about something else with me.
2 Likes
Forcing anyone to act against their beliefs and free will when they are not actively hurting anyone or seeking out “victims” by force of government is authoritarian to the T.
That is literally what free people should kill people over and overthrow that system.
3 Likes
It is especially egregious when leftist activists target people they know are devout Christians and then unleash the legal system upon them.
It says a lot more about the people insisting that they desperately need a gay or trans cake from a very specific baker than it does the baker who refuses to use his talents to create the cake due to religious beliefs.
2 Likes
The issue with letting store owners refuse customers because of their race/gender/religion/etc is that it’ll get abused to the max. We already saw this with segregation.
An example I always give is a Muslim-majority town in the U.S. refusing all services to Christians in their area. If you’re Christian and live there, you won’t be allowed to buy food at the supermarket since it’s owned by an extremist Muslim (in this example). This isn’t that far-fetched given I know certain store owners who’d literally do this now if they could.
If you provide necessary goods/services, then you are taking away people’s rights by not serving them because of what they happen to be born as or their religion. Honestly, based on demographic changes in the U.S., my position will defend white Christians in the future more than it will minorities.
FWIW, I wouldn’t purposely buy anything from a racist store owner. But the issue is if people can refuse needed goods/services based on the customer’s identity, it’ll inevitably cause a shitshow.
Black guy walks into a supermarket owned by a racist white: Not allowed to buy food
Jew walks into a private doctor’s office owned by a Muslim: Refused health care
Rich athiest buys up all the supermarkets in an area and then makes a rule that all religious people are banned: Utter shitshow
Edit: Parts of rural India do this still, so I’m speaking from experience. Let’s not follow the 3rd world
But that violates no rights. No one has a right to the labor and/or property of another.
So, if you provide services to some, then you are taking rights from others by not servicing them…but you are not taking anyone’s rights by not servicing anyone?
2 Likes
The difference is you aren’t going into a supermarket as Jew demanding certain goods or foods based on their religion.
Gays or trans aren’t going into supermarkets for general goods telling the world they are gay / trans and demanding service particular to their beliefs.
HUGE difference in demanding customized preferences particular to your belief on someone else that doesn’t share it.
1 Like
I don’t think your prediction of widespread refusal of service, let alone unavailability of service, would come to pass at all. I don’t think your scenarios are based in any present reality most people are dealing with. I highly doubt the supply of weirdo sex stuff will suddenly dry up just because an Amish family refuses to create a home-made transgender cake, a genderqueer quilt with every pronoun known to man on it and forty five corn cob dildos for the local trans activist.
Your comparison is also off. Segregation was not a policy chosen by most businesses. Businesses tend to like people giving them money, after all. Segregation was a public policy concocted by Democrats and enforced by the law.
Allowing people to refuse service is extremely unlikely to result in no services available to any group in the USA in 2023 and beyond.
The policies you advocate for are on the totalitarian end of the spectrum, which I don’t vibe with.
2 Likes
Yes, also a huge difference between allowing private business to do what they want and government enforcing things at the tip of the sword.