Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
Does/should the government have a right to force a business to provide customers unrelated services?
For our example, suppose you run a business that provides a service for “Whatsets”. In our hypothetical situation “Whatsets” are used by over 70% of the population. And legally accepted in most locations.
One day a user of “Whosets” claims that users of “Whosets” are being discriminated against by your company because your company does not provide any services for them.
For our example “Whosets” users only make up 10%-15% on the population. Plus, In many locations around the world considered illegal. However "Whosets" are starting being accepted and legalized in some locations.
Even after explaining that your business is not set up for handling “Whosets”. Also explaining that is it not a cost effective venture for your company. As well as explaining that there are other companies which are currently in operation, and readily available, to handle the needs of “Whoset” users (companies which you have no interest in competing against), The local decimation review board still decides to take the case to court.
My question, in your opinion, should the government be able force a company to provide services to customers that are not in the scope of the company’s primary business structure?
Believe it or not, the question has nothing to do with The President elect of the United States.
It is however related to a company in the United States I was reading about recently that was being taken to court for “discrimination”. Basically all I have done is remove the company name and the services they provide. To see what others think about the actions taken by the state.
dis_orient_ed – I am not meaning to single you out. However, based on your answer I can see where some people could be confused by my question.
I agree with what you are saying IF the company was not providing services to make a necessary/helpful product usable people with special needs.
In this case, using your example, of telephones. It would be as if “your company” makes landline telephones. But the “discrimination” charge is saying that because you do not sell or provide services for ship-to-shore radiophones you are discriminating against ship-to-shore users. Thus, according to the legal proceedings you must manufacture set up your own complete operation to be able to produce and sell ship-to-shore radiophones. You cannot simply redirect people to companies that already provide the service (which was one of the suggestion the company offered); instead the state says you must setup everything to provide the service from within your company.
(more)
Of course the actual case has nothing to do with phones or ship-to-shore radios but it is perhaps a more understandable analogy.
Also, keep in mind in the actual case the “forced” service/products are questionably legal and questionably moral to be used in many areas.
I hope this helps make the question easier for everyone to understand.
My opinion . . . before I select best answer.
While I can see the potential issues with discrimination with real the case. Should the government force a company to provide services that sponsor activities which the owners find objectionable, immoral, not to mention still illegal in many areas (though often not enforced).
If any country that claims to be free is truly free, then shouldn’t they let the people have more say in what everyone truly wants? For instance, with this issue, if enough people truly wanted the services that the government is forcing this company to offer, other companies which already provide the service would be thriving, and thus, taking from the “discriminating” company’s profit and thus affecting the company’s income. If that were the case, the company would change it’s business strategy on it’s own. Or if it did not change, it would go under from the loss of revenue.
(More)
Granted there are some things that the government should do, but there comes a point where, in my personal opinion, where the government goes to far. But it is not fair to blame the government totally, for we as a society have often become complacent, wanting someone else to fix all our problems or have the government do something for us. Rather than standing up, taking responsibility and making a stand ourselves.
There was a comment made that we are just individuals, and no one listens to us. Basically that we cannot change anything. Well Guess what? That is exactly how ALL changes start. ONE person has an idea and keeps pushing it. The problem comes when no one challenges the bad ideas or allows twisted/faulty logic to keep the truth silent. Usually by making the people that want to be rational/logical/reasonable appear to be the “bad guys”, by using half truth questions or phrasing questions in such a way that there is no answer other than the one the group wants.
(more)
No one ever said, “Change is easy”. But one individual can make a huge difference. Don’t be afraid to speak up, write letters/email to your elected officials even if you did not vote for them. Believe it or not if enough, individuals that think they can not make any difference, simply take a chance, and challenge the lie we have been taught all our lives is a waste of time; speaking up by talking to people, emailing government, or get really involved and actually attend the government meetings voicing your opinion. Change may not happen quickly but it will happen.
Most people that answered this question agree that the government should not be involved in many of the processes that they currently dictate to us. Change is slow and “the battle” is frustrating but it can and does happen when enough people get involved and keep voicing objections to the problems.
(More)
Especially when people fight for what is truly right, not just for ourselves, but everyone. Not motivated out of profit, greed or power, but simply for doing what is right. For by doing that everyone profits and everyone wins.
The World is at a turning point, even if you believe you can not make a difference, I challenge you no matter where you are on the planet to make even the simplest stand against the things that are wrong. If nothing else simply by asking the people doing the actions, “Why are you doing that?”
Just something to think about,
May Our Creator watch over you and your family.
8 Antworten
- Anonymvor 1 JahrzehntBeste Antwort
No, it's a business, trying to make money the best way they can.
They shouldn'd be forced to provide other "5h1t" that people randomly ask for.
- Anonymvor 5 Jahren
Here is your answer and a short civics lesson. Socialism a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government. Communism a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. There are no candidates that even come close to those two models. Currently, in the USA, we are a federal republic with democratic principles under a capitalistic economic system and socialism for needed services. Those needed services are things such as: Military Police Public Education State, federal and city infrastructures are a mixture of socialism and capitalism working together. Welfare etc. The only area where we are lacking socialism with needed services is our medical system for the average American. Yet the ones who pass the laws, our federally elected officials, enjoy a socialistic medical system. We have to put up with the BS from insurance companies. Most people have no idea what we are, what kind of government we really have, how that all breaks down in the most simple terms, which would make it blatantly easy to see the contradictions. I really wish the nay sayers about universal health care would, at the very least, demand that our elected representative stop giving themselves a free ride, or come to the realization that socialism for needed services can be a very good thing for the welfare of our country. Plus, universal health care is guaranteed in our constitution in the preamble. ======== We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. =============== Anyone who says the preamble doesn't count doesn't realize, if that is ignored, then we must ignore the whole constitution. Every word counts. =============== =============== Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated Confucius 551 - 479 BC =============== Peace Jim .
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
Yes. In order to sell your product within the United States you would have to contract with another company to provide you the other product. For example, telephone companies must provide communication equipment of hearing impaired persons at a loss.
- robertspraguejrLv 4vor 1 Jahrzehnt
No, but these days the government thinks it should be able to force businesses into doing whatever might serve the public good in the government's eyes. I think the government shouldn't, but the government does anyway, and the government won't listen to my opinion, so what are you going to do?
- Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
Jes@s!
Have you ever read the constitution.
This is why so many of the older citizens of the US didn't want Obama.
He wants to make these very type of changes. He's a dem!
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
let's put it this way, come the end of January you'll be in business with the federal government and will not be able to make any decisions
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
nope
I don't think so
john