• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W:83]

Do we need anti-discrimination laws?


  • Total voters
    38
Please explain.

Article I, Section 8.

Title II of CRA 1964 has no basis within the powers of Congress. You can like the policy all you want; you just can't pretend it was ever within Congress's authority.
 
There is an argument that people who fall into protected classes do not get hired sometimes because of the fear of a lawsuit because they are in a protected class. It cuts both ways, but on balance, I think we still need some of the laws, particularly in housing.
 
There is an argument that people who fall into protected classes do not get hired sometimes because of the fear of a lawsuit because they are in a protected class. It cuts both ways, but on balance, I think we still need some of the laws, particularly in housing.

Particularly in real estate. I agree. It's a small percentage of property owners, but discrimination is definitely out there. One client refused to sign a full price offer on his home because the couple buying it were mixed race: one black/one white. (He eventually signed when I explained to him (via his wife, because he wouldn't speak to me...jerk) that HUD would own his home, his business, his bank accounts and his underwear. Another guy told me he wasn't going to sell his home to a black family because he liked his neighbors too much. Also had a come-to-Jesus conversation with him. Idiots are still among us.
 
Its rather simple, discrimination in the workplace based on race has serious negative consequences to society and the individual that are equal to other illegal activities. The arguments against getting of discrimination laws are completely ridiculous. "The law is working to well and nobody discriminates anymore, lets get rid of it" is absurd considering as the premise is false and the conclusion asinine. A law the sufficiently deters criminal behavior is exactly the kind of law that should be kept around, not eliminated.


exactly and the fact that discrimination is still happening today against all races, genders, religions, sexualities makes it basic common sense to keep the laws/rights. Why anybody wouldnt want themselves and fellow americans protected is beyond me then again, theres many people that simply dont respect the rights, and freedoms of their neighbors.
 
Article I, Section 8.

Title II of CRA 1964 has no basis within the powers of Congress. You can like the policy all you want; you just can't pretend it was ever within Congress's authority.

This crap again? When are you going to stop pretending you know anything at all about the constitution? As I've pionted out to you several times now, your reading of Article 1 Section 8 is strikingly at odds with the judicial history of that clause. Put simply, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about, and every court in the US would agree with me about that fairly obvious fact.
 
The answer to this question is immaterial. It doesn't matter if people will discriminate with their property or not. They have the right to do just that and to strip that ability away from property is essentially stripping away a large part of property rights. I do have the right to control access to property, use of my property, and yes, even sale of my property. If you don't like it, boo ****ing hoo. These laws need repealed as they are a breach of property rights.
 
Last edited:
The answer to this question is immaterial. It doesn't matter if people will discriminate with their property or not. They have the right to do just that and to strip that ability away from property is essentially stripping away a large part of property rights. I do have the right to control access to property, use of my property, and yes, even sale of my property. If you don't like it, boo ****ing hoo. These laws need repealed as they are a breach of property rights.

Oh, brother. You're in the wrong decade.
 
I agree those laws are still needed, and I think gay rights should be thrown into the mix. what should matter is qualifications for the job. Keep that focus, and there is no real minefield.

If I don't want to hire someone I do have that right. Stop stripping rights because you want hired. I don't care what the person is, if someone says NO, they said no. Talk them out of it if you can, change cultural acceptance of the practice so its almost never practiced, but don't dare step on the right.
 
Oh, brother. You're in the wrong decade.

Hardly. Property don't just change because someone comes along and strips away all its meaning. Whoever controls the property is the owner of such property. It's pretty simple really.
 
Last edited:
Oh, brother. You're in the wrong decade.

Decade? hell century, im just glad america is better than that, smarter than that on this issues. And in this case ours country believes in protecting eachother.
 
I think you explained it very well. Maybe in another decade or two, these laws will be unnecessary and obsolete.

For now, they really don't hurt anything. It's shameful that honor and decency had to be legislated but as a young adult during the pre-civil rights era, I saw just how big of an asshole white Americans could be. WHITE and COLORED bathrooms!

I wish Obama were a better leader than he is but I'm happy to see we're diversity-capable. The last integration will be the Gay, and someday this will be a real free country where all are judget by what they do, not what the are ethnically or socially.

I think just getting an entry level job, there is likely to be no discrimination any more. However I do think went it comes to upper management and to some degree middle management, efforts still need to be made to ensure ethnic minorities and women are given fair consideration.

My limited experience is FOR KEY POSITIONS the standard of qualifications and job performance for ethnic minorities has to be off the charts above and beyond non-minorities to be evaluated as doing a good job whereas non-minorities have to do a good job but not perform at the same standards. My observation is this dual standard does not apply to "worker bee" positions, just key roles and often its just one minority who is allowed to advance to a key role seemingly in order to look inclusive/the guy is so freaking amazing its stupid not to put him in a key role.

For women often sadly being eye candy and flirty in a factor in advancing to a key role. Its not the only factor but my observation is its one factor.

Lastly, I don't think any of this is deliberately and intentional. I think we all have a mental picture of how a person we envision to fill a certain role to look. I think subconsciously gender and ethnicity plays a part in that mental picture with many people unless there is something that stands out in a powerful way. Being the hardest working, most talented worker and articulate person you've ever seen if that worker is an ethnic minority send that powerful message. Giving every man in the room whiplash every time you walk in the room and then being the sweetest most ego building person he's ever met provided you can also do the job also makes a powerful statement. However, being the subconscious "mental image" of how people in a key role should look is a huge advantage if tall, male, white, well dressed, etc. happens to be that image. I also think the more women and minorities are seen in society serving in key positions, they more the "default" mental image becomes more inclusive.
 
Decade? hell century, im just glad america is better than that, smarter than that on this issues. And in this case ours country believes in protecting eachother.

You mean protect each other from those mean people that want to fire you, don't want to hire you, don't want to sell you their property, don't want you on their property, etc? Yeah, what assholes practicing their right to control access, use and sale of their property. I hate them. Grrrrr..
 
What - is respect for human rights old-fashioned to you?

Not at all. It's all about human rights. If there are those who would take them away from a group of people? We need laws to protect those people.
 
Not at all. It's all about human rights. If there are those who would take them away from a group of people? We need laws to protect those people.

Such as..
 
The answer to this question is immaterial. It doesn't matter if people will discriminate with their property or not. They have the right to do just that and to strip that ability away from property is essentially stripping away a large part of property rights. I do have the right to control access to property, use of my property, and yes, even sale of my property. If you don't like it, boo ****ing hoo. These laws need repealed as they are a breach of property rights.

I'm sure the slave owners whined about how their property rights were being violated as well. Its the time honored cry of bigots who whine about how persecuted they are for being unable to violate the liberty of others. Its the same depraved mentality of domestic abusers who get outraged when they can no longer torment their victims.
 
You mean protect each other from those mean people that want to fire you, don't want to hire you, don't want to sell you their property, don't want you on their property, etc? Yeah, what assholes practicing their right to control access, use and sale of their property. I hate them. Grrrrr..

nope those people dont bother me at all, and they are free to do so :shrug:
not sure where your confusion is
 
No vote
No simple yes or no.
This depends on the type and reason for the discrim..
A business must be able to control things within their environment.
In other words a business must be able to discriminate against the insensitive, the obnoxious regardless of the usual(sex,skin color, etc,etc).
 
nope those people dont bother me at all, and they are free to do so :shrug:
not sure where your confusion is

So I can fire anybody I want for any reason I feel like? That doesn't bother you?
 
I'm sure the slave owners whined about how their property rights were being violated as well. Its the time honored cry of bigots who whine about how persecuted they are for being unable to violate the liberty of others. Its the same depraved mentality of domestic abusers who get outraged when they can no longer torment their victims.

Yes, because owning another person and doing your will with them is entirely the same as this. :roll:

Do you happen to have any other worthless comparisons?
 
I think society has changed a lot since the 1960's.

For one, the law has changed. Government's cannot force businesses to discriminate who they serve anymore. No more Jim Crow.

We never really got to see whether businesses would discriminate if given the freedom to do so, they were told they had to and then told they can't. Both dictates are harmful I would argue, the first being obviously much worse than the second.

Both profit motive and business image are good reasons why a business wouldn't discriminate. Any discrimination would likely be a statistical anomaly. A low percentage of people are truly racist in this country, an even fewer percentage of racist business owners, and even a fewer percentage of racist business owners who would take the risk to discriminate. And society continues to progress every day.

The problem with anti discrimination laws is that they actually lead to minorities being treated differently. That only delays progress for equality in society. Another problem is that anti discrimination lawsuits are hard to defend against, and morally bankrupt our legal system.

Do we really need laws against discrimination by businesses in 2013?

Do we need to get rid of them? Not really. It's a stupid thing to spend political effort on with so many clear injustices.
 
Not at all. It's all about human rights. If there are those who would take them away from a group of people? We need laws to protect those people.

Indeed. In this case Congress took away rights from a group of people using a law, a law that could not be justified given the limits on their authority. Nothing protects our rights against our government but explicit limits on that government.

Or, instead, were you suggesting that compelling someone to sell me a cheeseburger is a "human right?" Hopefully not.
 
In this case Congress took away rights from a group of people using a law, a law that could not be justified given the limits on their authority.


Again: bull****. The law was justified under a series of cases and is fully supported by the Constitutional authority of the legislative branch. You just don't like that fairly straightforward fact, so you chose to lie about it to yourself and others.
 
Yes, because owning another person and doing your will with them is entirely the same as this. :roll:

Do you happen to have any other worthless comparisons?

Its an entirely accurate comparison. Property rights are not sufficient justification to use racism to violate the liberty of an individual.
 
Indeed. In this case Congress took away rights from a group of people using a law, a law that could not be justified given the limits on their authority. Nothing protects our rights against our government but explicit limits on that government.

Or, instead, were you suggesting that compelling someone to sell me a cheeseburger is a "human right?" Hopefully not.

Oh, yes. If you own a restaurant and refuse to serve blacks (sell them cheeseburgers), you're violating their right not to be discriminated upon based on the color of their skin. You can piss and moan about it all you'd like, but I'm glad there are more "me's" in the world than "you's."

Edit: Or do you believe, as some few do, that "all men are created equal" as long as they're white?
 
Back
Top Bottom