• 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
That is an unfair blanket statement about as diverse group of people. It sounds as stupid as people saying "the left."

And yet time after time some hardcore right wingers flings out blanket statements in which you offer no reproach... please come back down off your high horse for a bit.

Now blatant racism such as 'whites only' signs are gone but as another poster mentioned hiring bias still occurs. many HR types when tested claim they are not racist, and they probably are not, but they are bias to their own and can often exclude other types without thinking it bad or wrong.

it won't be in your face racism, bigots have gotten trickier over the years, heads pivot before telling 'THAT' joke, etc. More than once I have heard the N word used to describe how a white man worked, "Man I get all the N work around here!" "They worked me like an N today!" and the old chestnut, "Who is the head N here?"

We have seen where banks and lenders have discriminated against minorities in loans WITH the current laws on the books, i don't see it being 'better' if those laws were to be revoked. I don't see the marketplace as a good determiner of 'fair'. Quite simply many towns in the South had very successful dual economies, the whites only stores and the 'darkie' businesses. In many small towns around here if the Walmart did something draconian there would be little recourse. I imagine in a town with a 12% black population if their Walmart decided all blacks would be followed by a sales associate and/or strictly monitored by cameras and they put signs up to that affect. What would the 12% do? Drive 20+ miles to the nearest non-discriminatory store? Shop only at the far more limited Dollar General? Have other blacks mount boycotts and protests in front of stores in more diverse towns?

We went through a very trying and violent time to stop just such practices many years ago, got it made law of the land so that every time some store manager comes up with a 'bright' idea like that it doesn't take huge protests and violence to correct stinkin' thinkin'.

I'd be against ending the law, I'm more for allowing it to fade into cultural obsolescence, like no leaving your horse in the street after midnight.
 
Its an entirely accurate comparison.

No, its not. Owning slaves was about owning a person and in the process not respecting any of their rights or liberties. Owning a house for example and controlling access, use and sale of the house does not detail any of that. The people that do not own the house have no right to it while the owners have it.

Property rights are not sufficient justification to use racism to violate the liberty of an individual.

Yes, it is. Just because someone is black doesn't mean I can't tell them no if they desire to use my property.
 
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?

So this right to not be discriminated against you admit is a positive right? Do you realize that makes it violation of rights to begin with? Nothing like a bit of coercion in our right declarations.
 
Can someone offer some legal definitions for Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity? I think many people have different views of what they mean and we end up debating each other based on incorrect notions. To be honest, I don't know the real definitions myself.

I for one don't think a less qualified minority should be hired and/or promoted by force of law over a more qualified people of the majority. I also question it when very large employers have nearly all of their key people made up almost exclusively of non-minorities and just males. At the same time I also realize there are various forms of favoritism in various work places where decision makers voluntarily hire, promote and give raises to the less qualified person. Sometimes less qualified friends are hired and promoted over more qualified applicants who might be of a different race. Sometimes less qualified female employees who are in office romances with decision makers are hired, promoted and given raises over the more qualified person who might be a minority male. What then is the recourse and should there be other than if you don't like it, find another job?
 
So I can fire anybody I want for any reason I feel like? That doesn't bother you?
Weird thats not what you described at all, guess thats what happens when one tries to paint a dishonest made up picture.
of course not for any reason because your rights end at violating others, and thats the way it should be and im glad it is.

I dont want laws ended that empower bigots, racist and misogynist and allow me and my fellow americans rights to be violated.

You are free to feel how you like.
 
Weird thats not what you described at all, guess thats what happens when one tries to paint a dishonest made up picture.
of course not for any reason because your rights end at violating others, and thats the way it should be and im glad it is.

So the act of stopping the firing process is not violating my rights? How very interesting. I like how this right you guys have declared works. A bit nonsensical though.
 
Last edited:
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?

I get that government intrusion because the restaurant selling the burgers is a public place. What I don't get is the intrusion you mention on private property sales. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it one bit that folks will refuse others solely based upon the color of their skin or whom they're married with. But I also don't like government intrusion on private property.

If you've got a bit of land you should be able to sell it to who you wish, and that includes not selling it to someone for whatever your reason. The government doesn't constitutionally and shouldn't, have that reach.
 
And yet time after time some hardcore right wingers flings out blanket statements in which you offer no reproach... please come back down off your high horse for a bit.

You have been here what? 9 months? And you have the nerve to act like you know every post I have made in 4 years? That you have gone through the over 13,000 posts I have made?

When it is a debate I am in, yes I do rebuke blanket statements. Forgive me for not going throughout the forum and rebuking all for their blanket statements.

You are the one that needs to get of a damn horse.

****ing moronic.

Back to our regularly scheduled debate...
 
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.

So you do believe we have the right to compel others to sell us a cheeseburger. Sorry, but no such right exists.

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

Absolutely ridiculous behavior on your part. Shame on you.
 
I get that government intrusion because the restaurant selling the burgers is a public place.What I don't get is the intrusion you mention on private property sales. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it one bit that folks will refuse others solely based upon the color of their skin or whom they're married with. But I also don't like government intrusion on private property.

A business open to the public is still private property.
 
Yes, it is. Just because someone is black doesn't mean I can't tell them no if they desire to use my property.

You are sort of right but sort of wrong. If you are offering your property for rent, it would be illegal to refuse to rent to them because they are black; or if you were a place of public accommodation (restaurants, hotels, etc) you cannot refuse them business legally because they are black, but if you want to refuse to allow any black people to step onto your property otherwise outside a work/business setting, you are generally ok if you for instance, did not allow blacks onto the property where your home is or your other property. You'd be an ass, but it is situational.
 
You are sort of right but sort of wrong. If you are offering your property for rent, it would be illegal to refuse to rent to them because they are black; or if you were a place of public accommodation (restaurants, hotels, etc) you cannot refuse them business legally because they are black, but if you want to refuse to allow any black people to step onto your property otherwise outside a work/business setting, you are generally ok if you for instance, did not allow blacks onto the property where your home is or your other property. You'd be an ass, but it is situational.

I was talking about how property rights work, not so much current law and its many violations, but thanks.
 
So this right to not be discriminated against you admit is a positive right? Do you realize that makes it violation of rights to begin with? Nothing like a bit of coercion in our right declarations.

So you do believe we have the right to compel others to sell us a cheeseburger. Sorry, but no such right exists.

Absolutely ridiculous behavior on your part. Shame on you.

Sorry, but The Civil Rights Act says it's against the law. If my opinion, that of SCOTUS, and the majority of people in this country is ridiculous? I'll gladly take that label. Bigotry and racism comes in many forms. Yours is but one.
 
Can someone offer some legal definitions for Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity? I think many people have different views of what they mean and we end up debating each other based on incorrect notions. To be honest, I don't know the real definitions myself.

I for one don't think a less qualified minority should be hired and/or promoted by force of law over a more qualified people of the majority. I also question it when very large employers have nearly all of their key people made up almost exclusively of non-minorities and just males. At the same time I also realize there are various forms of favoritism in various work places where decision makers voluntarily hire, promote and give raises to the less qualified person. Sometimes less qualified friends are hired and promoted over more qualified applicants who might be of a different race. Sometimes less qualified female employees who are in office romances with decision makers are hired, promoted and given raises over the more qualified person who might be a minority male. What then is the recourse and should there be other than if you don't like it, find another job?

Broadly speaking, Equal Opportunity requires that employers make hiring/assignment decisions without considering race/ethnicity/gender/age. Here's a summary from the EEOC's website:

Prohibited Practices

By contrast, Affirmative Action would require pretty much the opposite - that employers/educational institutions consider race as a factor (although there are many different types of AA, and no overriding single defiition that I'm aware of). For instance AA in educational contexts probably means that race would be taken into consideration as one of many factors in admissions. This probably doesn't mean that a less qualified black person would be admitted over a more qualified white (or asian) applicant, but it might very well mean that if the two are equally qualified, the black person would get admitted over the white person by virtue of being black. Personally I think AA is stupid (at least as generally construed) but that's basically what it's all about.
 
Sorry, but The Civil Rights Act says it's against the law. If my opinion, that of SCOTUS, and the majority of people in this country is ridiculous? I'll gladly take that label. Bigotry and racism comes in many forms. Yours is but one.

So I'm a bigot because I recognize that control of property is where the power of ownership lies? Interesting.
 
I get that government intrusion because the restaurant selling the burgers is a public place. What I don't get is the intrusion you mention on private property sales. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it one bit that folks will refuse others solely based upon the color of their skin or whom they're married with. But I also don't like government intrusion on private property.

If you've got a bit of land you should be able to sell it to who you wish, and that includes not selling it to someone for whatever your reason. The government doesn't constitutionally and shouldn't, have that reach.

We are a better nation for The Civil Rights Act. It's a shame that people have to be forced to do the right thing. But such is life.
 
So I'm a bigot because I recognize that control of property is where the power of ownership lies? Interesting.

No, it's bigotry and racism that's gotten us The Civil Rights Act, plain and simple. You have the right to own your property. You have the right to sell it at whatever price you set. But, if you set that price and then refuse to sell it to someone who offers you full price for it? You have violated a contract....whether that person is black or white, Asian or Indian. If "the buyer" can prove you didn't accept his offer because of his race? You've got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
 
A business open to the public is still private property.

The business license issued buy the state, local governments is a contract. To maintain said license they must obey the laws as set down by the state including discrimination laws. If they don't like it, they can go someplace else to do business.

The contract trumps private property in this case.
 
So I'm a bigot because I recognize that control of property is where the power of ownership lies? Interesting.

You are a bigot if you set a price on your property and then refuse to sell it at full price to someone because of their race.
 
The business license issued buy the state is a contract. To maintain said license they must obey the laws as set down by the state including discrimination laws. If they don't like it, they can go someplace else to do business.

The contract trumps private property in this case.

Yes, because provisions in contracts can't violate rights. Try harder.
 
Yes, because provisions in contracts can't violate rights. Try harder.

It is not a "right" to operate a business in any specific jurisdiction without government aproval. So no.

As an example zoning laws are not unconstitutional. You cannot open a store in a residential area etc.

And yes contracts can trump rights. The contract I signed on joining the military I gave up certain rights and was then considered under the UCOMJ.
 
You are a bigot if you set a price on your property and then refuse to sell it at full price to someone because of their race.

And that would correct. Your point is?
 
Yes, because provisions in contracts can't violate rights. Try harder.

Black Mantra's answer is spot on. If it's your private home? You can decide not to let anyone in your home or on your property for whatever reason, their color and race included. Once you become a public venue? You will adhere to The Civil Rights Act or suffer the rather uncomfortable consequences. If you don't get that -- and the reason for that -- you need to try harder.
 
We are a better nation for The Civil Rights Act. It's a shame that people have to be forced to do the right thing. But such is life.

Agreed, however, I don't believe the private property thing was part of the Civil Rights Act, but was adjudicated in later on. I know for a fact that private golf courses were allowed to discriminate until recently.They may have given that up under public pressure rather than from government regulation.
 
And that would correct. Your point is?

You know, this conversation is like having an argument with someone on why it's okay to beat your wife. It's against the law. Until the law changes, The Civil Rights Act trumps property rights. Period. Much the same as our right to assemble is trumped by laws that require permits.
 
Back
Top Bottom