• 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

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?
 
Yes, unfortunately, we still need those laws as to race. One of the things that make me tepid about the gay rights stuff is that it is just a matter of time until that one gets thrown in the mix which will make it even more of a minefield for employers on the potential nuisance claim end of the pool.
 
Based on my very limited experience of recent years, I would guess that service discrimination would be unlikely but in employment I suspect that there would be a temptation for management to hire those they are most comfortable with themselves. But it would be bad for business if you were obvious about it so maybe not even then.

Las Vegas was a segregated city and I'm sure you all know that Sammy Davis had to use a service entrance, but over the years, I would say that racial crap has gone. Now, in the South or the North, I have no clue.
 
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?

Not as much as we did back in the day but laws to protect the working person no matter what race, sex etc still need to be on the books. Mostly for the one person who it may actually happen to. It gives them a legal avenue for recourse without having to take the law into their own hands. It also deters company's from taking advantage on some level.
 
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?

A sterling example of the rights' delusional thought process - We need to repeal laws against discrimination so businesses that don't discriminate can continue not discriminating
 
A sterling example of the rights' delusional thought process - We need to repeal laws against discrimination so businesses that don't discriminate can continue not discriminating

Oh please, like one person represents the right. I said the exact opposite and you completely ignore it.
 
ANd you are to be commended for doing so. However, your opinion is not representative of the right.

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


yes they would and thats obvious because they already get busted discriminating. And those are the stupid people.
Many business still discriminate they just do it in a smart way to make sure its covered up.

So theres only one factual answer and its yes.

and currently has AA/EO laws are written it doesnt treat anybody differently. Some people CHOOSE to treat some groups differently but they arent forced to as a matter of fact if they did give special treatment to any group that breaks the law also.
 
Funny how the anti discrimination laws all tend to be on the employer/ business owner side, and yet activist groups can have public campaigns against businesses (think Chik Fila) because they don't like the owner's political standards. I think we need laws against that. You know, in the interest of fairness and all. Until that happens I will carefully interview perspective employees and find a reason to not hire liberals. My business calls for objective reasoning and I can't depend on them to be accurate.
 
Based on my very limited experience of recent years, I would guess that service discrimination would be unlikely but in employment I suspect that there would be a temptation for management to hire those they are most comfortable with themselves. But it would be bad for business if you were obvious about it so maybe not even then.

Las Vegas was a segregated city and I'm sure you all know that Sammy Davis had to use a service entrance, but over the years, I would say that racial crap has gone. Now, in the South or the North, I have no clue.

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.
 
Unconstitutional laws are never necessary, then or now. Respect for the rule of law should be paramount.

But since you're asking, no. Emphatically, no.

While Title II of CRA 1964 has always been unconstitutional - far exceeding the limits of Congress's authority - as a practical matter, there is zero utility for it in the modern day. People's attitudes have changed, social media, organized boycotts, etc. Always remember that businesses want to make money.

And remember that Jim Crow laws were an equal and opposite evil, demanding that businesses within a state could NOT give custom. Compelling a business to give custom OR to not give custom to anyone is wrong. By simply abolishing Jim Crow laws, things could have and would have normalized. Because... oh yeah... businesses want to make money.
 
Last edited:
Yes, unfortunately, we still need those laws as to race. One of the things that make me tepid about the gay rights stuff is that it is just a matter of time until that one gets thrown in the mix which will make it even more of a minefield for employers on the potential nuisance claim end of the pool.

Its really quite disgusting. I'm against anti-discrimination laws, because while they sound good, to me it just ends up making every hiring/firing a tribute to race/gender/sexuality. Its going to end up being like this. If you fire someone who is gay/lesbian, its because you're discriminating against their sexuality and get sued. If you never hire that same gay/lesbian because you don't want to get sued if you have to fire him/her, you get sued for discriminatory hiring practices. I hate to use the word lazy here, but why else would someone want that strict of protections unless it was because he/she was going to be either lazy or a misfit.

When I talk about a moocher society, civil lawyers are one of the biggest parts of that. It seems like everyone is just trying to get theirs from either A. the government or B. a lawsuit. I found it appalling that Obama would talk about we, and being together, and a collective, blah blah, when he takes money from the very people who instigate Americans trying to take from other Americans.
 
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.

I actually am not that against that type of affirmative action. Forcing employers to meet racial quotas in hiring, and making every firing an attribute to race/gender/sexuality is just asking for trial lawyers to step in, and it adds unnecessary burdens on businesses. But, I think if you completely ignore the hiring/firing practices of business, and simply say "you need to have x% of minorities/women in your management positions" it is a much easier policy to manage. It will have the advantage of A. allowing businesses to promote the most qualified women/minorities who have already been working in the company & B. having them in those positions will indirectly change the hiring/firing process.
 
Just because dejure discrimination does not exist does not mean de facto discrimination doesn't either. Even if discrimination weren't an issue, I see no reason to repeal anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination is still wrong, and there's no guarantee that it won't happen in the future.
 
There's a thread out there about things you don't like but wouldn't ban, I believe.

Well, here's one, I guess.



Discrimination is morally wrong, but there is no reasonable basis for making it illegal.
 
Just because dejure discrimination does not exist does not mean de facto discrimination doesn't either. Even if discrimination weren't an issue, I see no reason to repeal anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination is still wrong, and there's no guarantee that it won't happen in the future.

Really good point. If by some miracle murder instantly stopped, that's no reason to say "Okay, murder just isn't happening anymore so lets repeal the law against it and make murder legal."
 
Yes, unfortunately, we still need those laws as to race. One of the things that make me tepid about the gay rights stuff is that it is just a matter of time until that one gets thrown in the mix which will make it even more of a minefield for employers on the potential nuisance claim end of the pool.

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.
 
there are not many worker protection laws that I would repeal. I definitely wouldn't support repealing measures banning discrimination.
 
Do we really need laws against discrimination by businesses in 2013?

Depends I suppose. I would say many companies in the modern era wouldn't discriminate. However, a nonzero number will do so and will have customers who frequent it. So if you know this but your goal is removal of government force; than no it's not really needed. Some areas will have businesses which discriminate but likely enough won't such that consumerism and general availability are not greatly affected. If your goal is to ensure against discrimination, then yes it really is necessary since some businesses left to their own devices would discriminate.
 
Really good point. If by some miracle murder instantly stopped, that's no reason to say "Okay, murder just isn't happening anymore so lets repeal the law against it and make murder legal."

Thats because it would be irrational and illogical.

also people dont seem to actually understand AA/EO it doesnt give anybody special treatment, by law it demands equal opportunity and theres nothing unconstitutional about that. It IS the constitution lol
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"The law is working to well and nobody discriminates anymore, lets get rid of it" is absurd

Yes, that straw man is absurd.

However, "the law serves no utility whatsoever in the modern day (and was never justified to boot)" is not absurd, and that's the actual argument.
 
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?

Yes, we do.

Denny's, a national restaurant chain, agreed today to pay more than $54 million to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of black customers who had been refused service or had been forced to wait longer or pay more than white customers.

The new head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department, Deval L. Patrick, said it was the largest and broadest settlement under the Federal public-accommodation laws. Those laws were adopted more than 30 years ago to end segregation in restaurants and other places that serve the public.

Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits - New York Times
 
Back
Top Bottom