If I owned a cookie shop why should i have to serve blue people if i dont want to? would u be ojay with me raising the price?

... you 100% can choose religion

Of course you CAN choose religion. You CAN choose anything.

But f*** off if you think it’s alright to discriminate based on religion when people are born and often forced into adopting a religion and don’t know any better.

Imagine

i said with protection for children...

If I dont want to serve someone i should have every right not to

ah its u again, the australian saying, systemic racism doesn’t exist

You don’t think that’s problematic lmao

What’s so problematic about it, everyone wins from private discrimination

It’s a slippery slope.

If I create a medicine that can save lives, and I don’t give it to people who look a certain way or a certain gender, that is wrong.

If you ain’t giving it to everyone then you’re going to be out of buisiness soon because of competitors that Would sell it without discrimination

Not if he patents it

You guys are really just pieces of s*** lol theres nothing more to your ideology than that simple fact

That’s his right to do so
I personally wouldn’t do it but it’s his creation.
And alternative will be found if there is demand for it
However if there is none, then yeah. Prohibiting discrimination in this case might be the right thing

Oh you dont say

Lmao right

It’s not just “about this case”

You have to create rules that take these types of situations into consideration

Hence why this whole private discrimination with no bounds patently doesn’t work

Yeah I agree
Some regulation is necessary

man said prohibiting discrimination might be the right thing

What’s funny is that most people that I talk to who say “racism is not profitable” will then proceed to justify discrimination in employment and pay between races by saying s*** like “black people have lower iq scores on average”

this is just racism with extra steps

most interpretations of socialism are just forms of organizing capitalism

How

socialism in a vacuum is not an inherently cultural system by itself, and most facets people attribute to modern capitalism are not economic by nature but rather cultural. while you can argue that these cultural facets exist because of the economics of capitalism, and i wouldn't disagree, that still makes them derivative, not inherent of. capitalism in a broader context is purely an economic system - most of its cultural assets are not "capitalist" but rather "liberal" while "liberal" includes "capitalist" as its preferred economic model.
while socialism often comes with notions aimed at replacing these now embedded cultural facets - or modifying them - these are not inherent to the economic nature of socialism itself. modern socialism is a natural progression of a capitalist world; it's not an "alternative" in the sense that it's a holistic historical replacement; it still follows (and acknowledges) its lineage from capitalism. Modern Socialism can only exist as an extension of a world which at one point was capitalist; same with the further lineage of communism. The modern understanding of Communism would not exist without the precursor of capitalism - there's a reason why it's considered post-capitalist. Take this in comparison to a anarchic barter system; such could exist in any vacuum without the precursor of industry. Alternatively, feudal monarchy could also exist at any given time - pre-capitalist or post-capitalist.
"socialized" is not the same thing as "socialist". hence why pre-marx "socialist" & "communist" models are clearly distinctive from post-marx (and thus post-ML) beliefs. also why all forms of commune are not simply communistic. the simple belief in not having private property does not inherently make something communist (although it does make it comparable of course), because socialism (and further communism) are clear ways of organizing a former capitalist system in a highly specific manner.
while you can argue i'm being pedantic and the distinction here is purely historical or purely textual, because yes, of course, socialist economies are clearly not the same as like, civil libertarian (and that's not the comparison i'm making), it's still an important underlying philosophical distinction in terms of cultural implications (and globalized relations).

Oh. I agree with p much most of this. Dont want to misrepresent ur point but this line of thinking is similar to Marxs progression of history yes?