• 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!

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?


  • Total voters
    62
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

How is one harmed by being refused a cupcake?

If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are being harmed. How is someone being forced to sell a cupcake to someone he doesn't like harmed? I have sold products and provided services to people I don't like and I didn't experience any harm beyond mild annoyance.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Racial, religious etc. discrimination harms society and vulnerable people. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Even in a more urban environment, discrimination can force poor people to unnecessary waste time and money searching for a business that will accept their money in exchange for goods or services. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.

The business owner who doesn't like serving a customer because of their race, religion, gender etc is harmed much less when forced to serve that person than the would-be customer who has to find another place that will serve him/her is harmed. When a person can't get a job or a home because of race, religion, gender etc discrimination they suffer far more than the employer or landlord will suffer from being forced to treat that person as an equal. In addition, society as a whole is harmed by the impact of discrimination based on prejudice and hate.

Discrimination harms society by maintaining an impoverished underclass living with all the ill effects of poverty and oppression, effects which can impact everyone in the form of blight, large numbers of beggars, disease, crime, violence, rebellion and revenge.

Past experiences and the experiences of other places show us what happens when discrimination is allowed. Jim Crow laws existed during my lifetime and the negative effects from them still impacts life today. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed.

If you have specific examples, that's fine. If one's rights are violated, you most certainly can seek the intervention of government.

But I'll tell you right now, comparing a cupcake to Jim Crow is dishonest and ludicrous.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are being harmed. How is someone being forced to sell a cupcake to someone he doesn't like harmed? I have sold products and provided services to people I don't like and I didn't experience any harm beyond mild annoyance.

How? How is one harmed by having to go to another shop for a cupcake. You cannot simply declare it so, you must demonstrate it. You are the one looking to use government force. How is being refused a cupcake harmful?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Racial, religious etc. discrimination harms society and vulnerable people. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Even in a more urban environment, discrimination can force poor people to unnecessary waste time and money searching for a business that will accept their money in exchange for goods or services. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.

The business owner who doesn't like serving a customer because of their race, religion, gender etc is harmed much less when forced to serve that person than the would-be customer who has to find another place that will serve him/her is harmed. When a person can't get a job or a home because of race, religion, gender etc discrimination they suffer far more than the employer or landlord will suffer from being forced to treat that person as an equal. In addition, society as a whole is harmed by the impact of discrimination based on prejudice and hate.

Discrimination harms society by maintaining an impoverished underclass living with all the ill effects of poverty and oppression, effects which can impact everyone in the form of blight, large numbers of beggars, disease, crime, violence, rebellion and revenge.

Past experiences and the experiences of other places show us what happens when discrimination is allowed. Jim Crow laws existed during my lifetime and the negative effects from them still impacts life today. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed.

wrong, rights are not collective, they are individual rights, and my by not serving you, this is not a violation of rights, or health and safety.

if you trying to buy a cupcake from me...then you must be on my property......and you have no exercisable rights while on my property, ..only privileges, if i wish to extend them to you.

what government does with discrimination laws is....ordering people[by force] to extend privileges on their property which is unconstitutional.

people can discriminate, ...governments cannot.

you ideas of discrimination is simply you don't like how some people behavior...therefore you seek to stop them with government force, to suit your ideas.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are being harmed. How is someone being forced to sell a cupcake to someone he doesn't like harmed? I have sold products and provided services to people I don't like and I didn't experience any harm beyond mild annoyance.

under the constitution 13th, no one can be forced to serve another person......unless a crime has been committed........discrimination laws, are not criminal.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

deflection by you...means you have no argument....to save face!


My argument is very very simple and very very direct Herr Barkmann.
1- current US law offers protections to people against discrimination and bigotry by making such actions illegal under US law
2- you advocate changing current US law so that one can engage in actions of bigotry and discrimination
3- you would enable and facilitate actions of bigotry and discrimination which are now illegal

And that argument is impossible to refute because either you do or you don't advocate these changes and you have already made it clear that you do.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Absolutely. Refusing business due to reasons like racism or sexism is deplorable behavior and the laws do no harm being kept in place.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Absolutely. Refusing business due to reasons like racism or sexism is deplorable behavior and the laws do no harm being kept in place.

And all the self serving double talk about
"what would the great savior James Madison do"
belongs back in the 1700's. We had this discussion and have moved on as a nation and as a people.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Kind of circular logic there which appears to try to elicit an emotional response. When laws are written to make an action against the law then of course they are illegal. In terms of rights there is a conflict of "rights" you assume that one individual has a right to the services and property of another private entity (to be distinguished from governmental entities). However to usurp the rights of individual private business owners their right to manage their own rights of property and freedoms of association are violated when forced to provide goods and services they don't want to provide under penalty of law.

We used to have:

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.​

Add to all this, these types of laws are the same as the infamous Jim Crow laws, but in the opposite direction. Both types of laws force the decision one way or the other. Under the Jim Crow laws a business man couldn't choose to have a mixed business. One of the biggest misdirection in counterarguments is that if a person is against anti-discrimination laws that they must be for discrimination and Jim Crow laws. Nothing could be further from the truth for a super majority of us.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

I absolutely support non-discrimination laws which protect every human being's right to be treated fairly.

Anyone who thinks (Wishes, hopes, dreams.) that the haters will ever win in the USA will be disappointed.

Anyone who is opposed to equal rights for all will be disappointed, because the majority of Americans are opposed to hate-based ideas.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

I agree with this, and its also because I vote 'other', for the buck stops at "based on...." We must treat everyone fairly, and ideally should accept for what we are. Period.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

if you trying to buy a cupcake from me...then you must be on my property......and you have no exercisable rights while on my property, ..only privileges, if i wish to extend them to you.

I'll disagree with you here, although I am with you on most of what you are saying. I indeed do have exercisable rights (unless we are differing on the use of the word exercisable) while on your property. My right to life and my right to not be forcibly detained are still intact as are all my personal property rights. I believe you mean to say that one has no exercisable right towards your services and/or goods/property.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WOW!!!!! Did you get cheated !!!!! Now this explains everything about you ideology and beliefs.

Return it at once and get one that starts our with the collectivist sentiment


WE THE PEOPLE
A phrase that refers to the collective or collective action is not the same as an adherence to or endorsement of collectivist principles. So stop playing word games. The Founders were distinctly INDIVIDUALISTS in their ideology which is why collectivists like yourself so revile them.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

A phrase that refers to the collective or collective action is not the same as an adherence to or endorsement of collectivist principles. So stop playing word games. The Founders were distinctly INDIVIDUALISTS in their ideology which is why collectivists like yourself so revile them.

The document they provided for us says otherwise. It is a balance of individualism and community - as is America itself.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

The document they provided for us says otherwise. It is a balance of individualism and community - as is America itself.
Not true, the document itself lays out no collectivist principles at all. The unique political philosophy of the founders was of individualism and they sought to erect a government to secure those principles. You may disagree and believe that the collectivist approach is better, but you cannot deny that this country was not founded upon that sort of thing.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Not true, the document itself lays out no collectivist principles at all. The unique political philosophy of the founders was of individualism and they sought to erect a government to secure those principles. You may disagree and believe that the collectivist approach is better, but you cannot deny that this country was not founded upon that sort of thing.

The Constitution begins with a belief in WE THE PEOPLE. That is about as collectivist as you could get in 1878.

It talks in the Preamble about the common defense and the general welfare - both far beyond individualism.

It talks about establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility - both very much group concerns.

The Constitution and indeed America is balance between individualism and the collective nature of society.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

The Constitution begins with a belief in WE THE PEOPLE. That is about as collectivist as you could get in 1878.
Again, that is not a statement of principle or ideology but of unity. A collective effort is not the same as collectivism.

It talks in the Preamble about the common defense and the general welfare - both far beyond individualism.

It talks about establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility - both very much group concerns.

The Constitution and indeed America is balance between individualism and the collective nature of society.
Society is a collective unit--a collection of individuals who join together to establish a system of governance. Again, just because people form a group to achieve some united purpose, that does not mean that group has embraced the principles of collectivism.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Again, that is not a statement of principle or ideology but of unity. A collective effort is not the same as collectivism.

Society is a collective unit--a collection of individuals who join together to establish a system of governance. Again, just because people form a group to achieve some united purpose, that does not mean that group has embraced the principles of collectivism.

We disagree then.

I have said that America is an attempt to balance the individual and the society. I stand by that and have cited examples of where the Founders realize that in the Preamble to the Constitution.

If you want to argue that some of the Founders were probably more rugged individualists and less believers in the collective nature of society - I would probably agree that some were. However, the document they provided allows for both and that is the important point NOT what individuals may have believed.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

There you have it. You can have my waiter and I'll just stick with my ignorance.

bon appetite
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

I'll disagree with you here, although I am with you on most of what you are saying. I indeed do have exercisable rights (unless we are differing on the use of the word exercisable) while on your property. My right to life and my right to not be forcibly detained are still intact as are all my personal property rights. I believe you mean to say that one has no exercisable right towards your services and/or goods/property.

life and liberty are not exercisable rights.......you don't choose to not live today, but live tomorrow, or be enslave today, and have your liberty the next.

exercise rights.....i choose to own a firearm, pray, protest, use free speech, .....but also not to exercise..... i have the power to not own a firearm, not pray, not protest, not to speak freely.

when you are on another person's property, they cannot kill you or imprison you, .........but you have no right to bare a weapon, pray, speak freely, protest, or be secure in your person.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

We disagree then.

I have said that America is an attempt to balance the individual and the society. I stand by that and have cited examples of where the Founders realize that in the Preamble to the Constitution.

If you want to argue that some of the Founders were probably more rugged individualists and less believers in the collective nature of society - I would probably agree that some were. However, the document they provided allows for both and that is the important point NOT what individuals may have believed.


wrong, the FATHER of the Constitution, states clearly:

federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property of the people, so you claim of a balance of individual and society by federal controls is ........wrong!
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

life and liberty are not exercisable rights.......you don't choose to not live today, but live tomorrow, or be enslave today, and have your liberty the next.

Well I do have the right to choose not to live, but under most circumstances I only get to make that choice once.

when you are on another person's property, they cannot kill you or imprison you, .........but you have no right to bare a weapon, pray, speak freely, protest, or be secure in your person.

Actually I have every right to be secure in my person at all times, save when a warrant is issued or upon entry into a place with written notification.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

well i do have the right to choose not to live, but under most circumstances i only get to make that choice once.



Actually i have every right to be secure in my person at all times, save when a warrant is issued or upon entry into a place with written notification.

come on to my property and you can be searched by me, but anyone using sound judgement, better be sure the reason they do a search, not just to exercise that power.

Now if someone would steal from you, property from your .. ie......store, naturally you would call the law.

But if you on my land, house i can use my power to search you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Add to all this, these types of laws are the same as the infamous Jim Crow laws, but in the opposite direction. Both types of laws force the decision one way or the other. Under the Jim Crow laws a business man couldn't choose to have a mixed business. One of the biggest misdirection in counterarguments is that if a person is against anti-discrimination laws that they must be for discrimination and Jim Crow laws. Nothing could be further from the truth for a super majority of us.

Being tolerant of private sector business's right to discriminate is bad enough. In these times, businesses can, and sometimes will, influence, control, coerce, oppress and harm people as much as any government can. Those whose philosophy allows them to consider the harm to unpopular minorities from business discrimination acceptable because they consider their theoretical principal of "freedom" more important, are aiding the cause of bigotry, discrimination and segregation, whether that is their intent or not.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

come on to my property and you can be searched by me, but anyone using sound judgement, better be sure the reason they do a search, not just to exercise that power.

Now if someone would steal from you, property from your .. ie......store, naturally you would call the law.

But if you on my land, house i can use my power to search you.

You need to provide case law for that. Like I said, if you had a sign in a conspicuous place that said "entry onto this property constitute consent to be physically searched" or to that effect, then you have a right because I voluntarily entered onto your property with the sign in plain sight. My failure to bother to read it would be irrelevant. But to search me or my personal property simply because I am on your land is a violation of my person and a form of assault. Any attempt that you made would be legal grounds for me to defend myself.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Being tolerant of private sector business's right to discriminate is bad enough. In these times, businesses can, and sometimes will, influence, control, coerce and harm people as much as any government can.

One does not have to tolerate something that is legal. Protest occur all the time to combat an action by an organization that people dislike but is legal. There are protests all the time outside one of our local porn shops. There has been another set of protests against a "My Doc's In" clinic locally due to some issue that people have but that is perfectly legal. Sufficent negative outcomes, including but not limited to protests and refusing to conduct business, are ways to bring pressure to individuals or businesses to stop the undesired practices without violation of their property rights, or freedom of association.
 
Back
Top Bottom