Government to force muslim businesses to sell alcohol and cigarettes

[dismal]

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

I would actually say yes, he has to sell the alcohol to anyone who has a legal standing to purchase it. Why are these hypothetical muslims policing the lawful sellers of the alcohol instead of their own heretic purchasers? And why is the hypothetical government not protecting this law abiding seller of alcohol from these dangerous individuals?

aa

Government is not always perfect at protecting people. Some people here even think police can be dangerous.

But there are other possibilities that would not require a threat of violence to motivate the shopkeeper. Perhaps the islamic shopkeeper consults his Imam and the Imam says it is kosher to sell alcohol and cigarettes to the infidels but he may not sell them to muslims because that makes Muhammad angry.

 

[fromderinside]

Some people here even think police can be dangerous.

Perhaps the Islamic shopkeeper consults his Imam and the Imam says it is kosher to sell alcohol and cigarettes to the infidels but he may not sell them to Muslims because that makes Muhammad angry.

What? Nooo-ah. No wonder ISIS.

 

[dystopian]

Surely one can recognize the fundamental difference between a government not allowing businesses to selectively discriminate against its citizens, and a government forcing a business to sell specific products that run counter to its owners beliefs even though there are already plenty of businesses in the area that sell those exact same products.

These are not equivalent situations.

The government is not forcing them to sell alcohol and cigarettes it is only making this a condition of having a business license.

Is this your attempt to make a false equivalency with not allowing businesses to discriminate?

'Making it a condition' of the license *is* forcing them; especially if the business already exists before the change in licensing law. And yes, making it a condition of the license to not discriminate also constitutes a degree of force (though since non-discrimination has been part of the law in western countries for a considerable portion of time, the number of businesses actually forced to make a change in their practices in order to meet the license requirements will be minimal in comparison)

There are difference, of course. First of all, non-discrimination is part of the law to begin with; indeed, it is part of the constitution of many countries. The same can not be said for requiring businesses to sell certain products in order to exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your OP is a false equivalence.

How's that for a response?

Predictable. Repetitive. Unfortunate.

Oh for lump sakes.

In the China example it is about the Government forcing people to sell a particular product.
In the US example it is about the Government refusing to allow people to restrict who they sell their product to.

A significant difference.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I would actually say yes, he has to sell the alcohol to anyone who has a legal standing to purchase it. Why are these hypothetical muslims policing the lawful sellers of the alcohol instead of their own heretic purchasers? And why is the hypothetical government not protecting this law abiding seller of alcohol from these dangerous individuals?

aa

Government is not always perfect at protecting people. Some people here even think police can be dangerous.

But there are other possibilities that would not require a threat of violence to motivate the shopkeeper. Perhaps the islamic shopkeeper consults his Imam and the Imam says it is kosher to sell alcohol and cigarettes to the infidels but he may not sell them to muslims because that makes Muhammad angry.

Then perhaps he would be more comfortable selling in a community that adopts his Imam's edicts as law. If he prefers to sell his wares in a society whose laws conflict with or otherwise do not resemble his own ideologies, then he should not expect special exemption (or protection) from society at large.

When we move our corporate headquarters to Ireland or Bermuda, we expect the tax law of Ireland and Bermuda to apply, do we not? Why would this individual think that he gets a special exemption from the law because he is from somewhere else?

aa

 

[Jayjay]

Cigarettes and alcohol are just legalized, addictive drugs. In this case the motives of shopkeepers (or the community that is threatening them, if that is the case) are religious, but basically it's still a positive thing from health perspective. I suppose, banning alcohol will mean more money and profits for those who do continue to sell it and might increase criminal activity.

 

[credoconsolans]

Do the Chinese really need to force them?

The Muslims who run the local Stop and Shop franchise in my neighborhood sell dogfood, cigarettes, alcohol and lotto tickets and serve single, unaccompanied and unveiled women and gays.

 

[RavenSky]

What the hell if that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From reading the article it actually makes some sense.

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

The rule strikes me as reasonable as far as supermarkets go--I have never seen a Chinese supermarket that didn't have plenty of alcohol and tobacco for sale so I would figure that if one didn't it was due to pressure. Restaurants, though--perhaps tobacco could be bought from the waitstaff but I've never been aware of it happening and I've never seen tobacco pictured in menus. There certainly aren't any displays in most places. (Exception: I have seen plenty of tobacco for sale in small eateries inside tourist attractions.)

But it's not the job of the government to be forcing businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell. If they feel that they would make more money in their local market by not having certain items on their shelves, then that's their concern and no the state's concern. If they won't sell alcohol to Muslims but will sell it to Buddhists then that's the state's concern.

1) You are assuming the issue is economic.

2) Even if a store would make more by not selling those products it will not be hurt by selling them if everyone has to sell them--nobody's going to boycott the store over it because that means they wouldn't be able to eat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, if you completely ignore everything that I said and pretend that I said something else entirely then you can come to any conclusion that you want about what I said.

If you have a product, you can:

A) Sell it to everyone
B) Sell it to no one

Both are valid choices and you can take either choice without their meaning that you chose option C instead.

So if I'm a shopkeeper somewhere in China and muslims keep threatening to behead me or burn my business down for selling alcohol to muslims to the point where I decide to stop selling alcohol to muslims, you would want the government to force me to sell alcohol to muslims?

It seems to me that what the government is saying is that businesses must not kowtow to Muslim demands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The biggest problem with government in China is that all parts of the government try to keep their bosses happy, the government above them. They don't answer to the people that they govern. Most of the serious abuses that you hear about in China are when some local government official in Outbackastan* goes off the rails trying to guess what the officials above him meant rather than what they said. The assumption of ambiguity is a Chinese national trait.



* doesn't actually exist

This is certainly half of it--although some of it is them going off the rails trying to resolve two orders that conflict. (For example, the forced abortion cases. That's not legal--the law permits social pressure an economic sanctions for having extra children but that's all. However, party bosses get better outcomes if the people comply. On occasion they decide to force matters as there is unlikely to be any fallout from going beyond what the law allows.)

The other half is government in the pocket of those with the money and using their power to make it far harder to expose the corruption.

We have millionaires in Congress (but most of them were already millionaires), they have billionaires in their equivalent--all acquired while they served.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If an action is right or wrong, it's right or wrong regardless of the geographic location it takes place in.

Not quite:

If I go to Antarctica and play with a flamethrower nobody will care.

If I play with that same flamethrower in a forest in the western United States in July people most certainly will care.

 

[Ford]

Predictable. Repetitive. Unfortunate.

Oh for lump sakes.

In the China example it is about the Government forcing people to sell a particular product.
In the US example it is about the Government refusing to allow people to restrict who they sell their product to.

A significant difference.

A significant difference indeed, but irrelevant if the point is to launch a broadside against people and their "gay cakes" instead of make an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do the Chinese really need to force them?

The Muslims who run the local Stop and Shop franchise in my neighborhood sell dogfood, cigarettes, alcohol and lotto tickets and serve single, unaccompanied and unveiled women and gays.

What you apparently missed is that they are being pressured not to sell such products by the local troublemakers. (Dog food is another matter, there aren't enough dogs around. It's sold in pet supply stores, not grocery stores.)

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would actually say yes, he has to sell the alcohol to anyone who has a legal standing to purchase it. Why are these hypothetical muslims policing the lawful sellers of the alcohol instead of their own heretic purchasers? And why is the hypothetical government not protecting this law abiding seller of alcohol from these dangerous individuals?

aa

Government is not always perfect at protecting people. Some people here even think police can be dangerous.

But there are other possibilities that would not require a threat of violence to motivate the shopkeeper. Perhaps the islamic shopkeeper consults his Imam and the Imam says it is kosher to sell alcohol and cigarettes to the infidels but he may not sell them to muslims because that makes Muhammad angry.

I think you mean Haram; not Kosher

 

[whichphilosophy]

From reading the article it actually makes some sense.

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

The rule strikes me as reasonable as far as supermarkets go--I have never seen a Chinese supermarket that didn't have plenty of alcohol and tobacco for sale so I would figure that if one didn't it was due to pressure. Restaurants, though--perhaps tobacco could be bought from the waitstaff but I've never been aware of it happening and I've never seen tobacco pictured in menus. There certainly aren't any displays in most places. (Exception: I have seen plenty of tobacco for sale in small eateries inside tourist attractions.)

A business in the USA has to obtain a liquor licence it can sell alcohol. Does this mean that a business can be forced to apply for one and then must sell alcohol.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Just in from Fox News -- a high ranking mandarin, Dim Foo Scalia, has just decreed that the Muslim vendors have the right to remove cigs and booze from their stock.