• 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!

Is this unreasonable/illegal discrimination?

Questions regarding discrimination

  • Is he discriminating against white power rallies?

    Votes: 13 76.5%

  • Is he discriminating against white people?

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • If there is discrimination, should it be legally allowed?

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Total voters
    17
Zyphlin said:
A black man owns a barbeque joint and caters for events regularly; christmas parties, birthdays, weddings, etc.

A local KKK outfit is having an annual "White Power" Rally and cookout and actually seeks to hire said black man to cater their event.

The business owner, realizing that the event he'd be catering is a "White Power Rally", doesn't want the groups business and refuses to cater the event.

A few questions here...

1. Is the owner discriminating against catering "White Power" events?

2. Is the owner discriminating against white people?

3. If there is discrimination, is it discrimination that should be legally allowed?
Click to expand...

It is political discrimination and legal, as it should be.
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO this isnt rocket science, here i will help you figure it out

illegal discrimination is based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation

so ask yourself this, why is the caterer discriminating, who/what is he discriminating against?

wamo and now you have your answer

also FYI some other FACTS that might help you

the caterer's race race is 100% meaningless and the NAACP has many white, asian, latino etc members they also have gays and women too, crazy huh?! lol

let me know if you are still confused
Click to expand...

Wasn't confused in the first place, asked you a simple question regarding your OPINION. One you went to great lengths not to answer.
 
clownboy said:
Wasn't confused in the first place, asked you a simple question regarding your OPINION. One you went to great lengths not to answer.
Click to expand...
greath lengths? LMAO wow anyway

thank you for this post because it shows exactly why so many of your posts fail
"my opinion" on this issues and to your question doesn't matter and you did NOT ask me for my opinion you as me a legal question. You asked in my estimation.

well the estimation based on facts, laws and rights are, yes, he can do so IF its not illegal :shrug:

if you want my opinion you must specify and ill gladly answer
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nothing special about it we all belong to them, ALL OF US
2.) 100# false see #1
3.) fact already proved this wrong no matter how you try to slice it.

the the KKK member is a white man then he has a gender, a race/color and national origin, an age, ability or disability, religion or lack of one and he has a sexual orientation.
all the SAME protections that we all have


facts win again
Click to expand...

sorry charlie, not all genders, races, national origins or sexual orientations are considered "protected" under the law.

but you are right on one point...facts do win again....
 
OscarB63 said:
1.)sorry charlie, not all genders, races, national origins or sexual orientations are considered "protected" under the law.
2.)but you are right on one point...facts do win again....
Click to expand...
no need for you to apologize for being factually wrong it happens
1.) wow you are factually wrong they ALL ARE lmao the only one not is sexual orientation is protected everywhere
2.) correct and they just proved your post wrong again

if you disagree please tell me the gender thats not or that race LMAO i cant wait to read this comedy
 
OscarB63 said:
sorry charlie, not all genders, races, national origins or sexual orientations are considered "protected" under the law.

but you are right on one point...facts do win again....
Click to expand...

You might want to do some reading on EPC. You are factually incorrect.
 
AGENT J said:
greath lengths? LMAO wow anyway

thank you for this post because it shows exactly why so many of your posts fail
"my opinion" on this issues and to your question doesn't matter and you did NOT ask me for my opinion you as me a legal question. You asked in my estimation.

well the estimation based on facts, laws and rights are, yes, he can do so IF its not illegal :shrug:

if you want my opinion you must specify and ill gladly answer
Click to expand...

More dodging and playing around with words. I asked your opinion, you went off on a couple little rants now giving me everything but your opinion. Is it discrimination in your opinion or not? Wasn't even trying to set you up for a follow up, it was a straight forward question. I know, you're not used to that.

My posts fail only in your eyes, but those are the same eyes that see their own opinion as fact. Everyone here sees the silliness in that.
 
Zyphlin said:
A black man owns a barbeque joint and caters for events regularly; christmas parties, birthdays, weddings, etc.

A local KKK outfit is having an annual "White Power" Rally and cookout and actually seeks to hire said black man to cater their event.

The business owner, realizing that the event he'd be catering is a "White Power Rally", doesn't want the groups business and refuses to cater the event.

A few questions here...

1. Is the owner discriminating against catering "White Power" events?

2. Is the owner discriminating against white people?

3. If there is discrimination, is it discrimination that should be legally allowed?
Click to expand...

Yes the owner is discriminating against a "white power" group
No the owner is not discriminating against white people in general.
Yes his discrimination should be legally allowed.

Some have brought up the baker case in regard to not wanting to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples. The only reason a "white power" group would want to hire a black caterer is to start some "stuff". And since the case of the Christian photographer in New Mexico being taken to court over not wanting to participate in a gay marriage, the bakery in Oregon, a Christian couple too and recently the Christian baker in Colorado, enough evidence has been surfacing that all these people too were sought out by gay activists who wanted to start some "stuff". None of these people discriminated against gay people in general. They took photographs for them, they sold them all occasion cakes and pastries, just not any service pertaining to same sex marriage. So yes, these discriminations if that is what you want to call them should be allowed by law. Otherwise at one point we will all be forced to go against our very being.
 
clownboy said:
1)More dodging and playing around with words.
2.)I asked your opinion
3.) you went off on a couple little rants now giving me everything but your opinion.
4.) Is it discrimination in your opinion or not?
5.)Wasn't even trying to set you up for a follow up
6.) it was a straight forward question.
7.) I know, you're not used to that.
8.) My posts fail only in your eyes
9.), but those are the same eyes that see their own opinion as fact.
10.) Everyone here sees the silliness in that.
Click to expand...

1.) lie #1
2.) lie #2
3.) lie #3 you factually never asked for opinion
4.) my opinion lines up with the law and rights so . . . . wait for it . . . . .wait for it . . . the law say no, i agree im my OPINION
5.) never claimed you did, please stay on topic and stick with things that were actually said
6.) correct and when i answered it the way you asked it bothered you and entertained me
7.) actually many honest, respected, topically educated and objective posters do that around here
8.) no it factually failed because you asked for my estimation but you really wanted my opinion, thats a factual fail
9.) link? proof? facts? thats right like usual you have ZERO lol your posts reek of desperation in an endless attempt to save face
10.) yes they do see the silliness in asking one thing, getting that and then being upset something different wasnt given. I agree. Next time you'll be able to avoid your issue
 
I Honestly believe that the question is formed poorly in the poll so i voted the third option because it best represents my answer. but that does not mean i agree with it completely.

I don't believe it is discrimination. No one should be forced to create/ serve something/ serve for something, they believe is morally wrong. For instance if a white women baker who was a christian was asked to bake a cake for a homosexual couple she could not discriminate against them. she would bake their cake and everything would be fine. but if they ask for something like two men kissing on the cake for instance, then she would be within her right to refuse to make THAT cake. she would not be discriminating against the couple, or in this case the black man against the white guys, but rather be objecting to what they are asking them to actually do, which goes against their personal moral code, and their business code of ethics. in this case the black man would be objecting to going to the rally. If they wanted to come and get his food from his store and buy a heck of a lot of it and serve it themselves then that would be within their right and the black store owner could not say no to them. However sense they are asking him to associate his business with the rally he can say he objects to the rally and not the white guys themselves.

That is my opinion and understanding of how the law works anyway. Do take it with a grain of salt.
 
vesper said:
Yes the owner is discriminating against a "white power" group
No the owner is not discriminating against white people in general.
Yes his discrimination should be legally allowed.

Some have brought up the baker case in regard to not wanting to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples. The only reason a "white power" group would want to hire a black caterer is to start some "stuff". And since the case of the Christian photographer in New Mexico being taken to court over not wanting to participate in a gay marriage, the bakery in Oregon, a Christian couple too and recently the Christian baker in Colorado, enough evidence has been surfacing that all these people too were sought out by gay activists who wanted to start some "stuff". None of these people discriminated against gay people in general. They took photographs for them, they sold them all occasion cakes and pastries, just not any service pertaining to same sex marriage. So yes, these discriminations if that is what you want to call them should be allowed by law. Otherwise at one point we will all be forced to go against our very being.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. At some point it becomes ridiculous. if someone disagrees with you and wont do what you want,it gets to where you can sue them and make them have to do what you want them to do because they are "discriminating" against you for some reason. Two people can disagree, and one can refuse to do as the other tells them. Disagreement and freedom of choice concerning your own beliefs and actions is the whole foundation of this country and western democracy.
 
OscarB63 said:
please cite me the applicable section of this law that FORCES businesses to discriminate against gays.

making it legal to do something in no way forces anyone to do it.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. Either you're unable or unwilling to read what's typed. Bless your heart.
 
clownboy said:
So, the white caterer who refuses to cater for an NAACP function is well within his rights to do so in your estimation?
Click to expand...
Yes, as would be any photographer etc. Now the NAACP may want to publicize the sleight, as might the KKK, but they should have no civil recourse to being refused.
 
Summerwind said:
Yes, as would be any photographer etc. Now the NAACP may want to publicize the sleight, as might the KKK, but they should have no civil recourse to being refused.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering the question. Also, I agree with you.

I suppose the issue was a tad more complex when mobility and variety were more restricted, with only one caterer or one photographer to do business with.
 
To me the boundary is participation. If the service provided with or without product requires a business to participate in an event, then they shouldn't have to. If the service or product is acquired without participation at the actual event required, then they should not be able to refuse.
 
Summerwind said:
I never said it did. Either you're unable or unwilling to read what's typed. Bless your heart.
Click to expand...

but you did.

I said that the law will not force business to refuse service to gays. and you replied, "you must not have read the law". This implies that you think the law does force businesses to discriminate.

seems that you are the one unable or unwilling to read what is typed. keep your blessing to yourself, you need it.

let's review:

OscarB63 said:
It's not like any of these laws are forcing businesses to not serve gays.
Click to expand...

Summerwind said:
Well then you've not read the law,
Click to expand...


see, you clearly implied that these laws force business to not serve gays.
 
Ray410 said:
Regardless, if the end result is refusal to serve white people, or any other specific group, it is discrimination in the result of his policies and he is liable.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter at all given the fact that he didn't refuse them service because they were white? You're equating "any other specific group" which is ridiculously general to one of the specific ways people can discriminate which is by race; which this guy didn't do might I repeat.
 
Summerwind said:
To me the boundary is participation. If the service provided with or without product requires a business to participate in an event, then they shouldn't have to. If the service or product is acquired without participation at the actual event required, then they should not be able to refuse.
Click to expand...

what if it would do damage to their company image? or simply goes against their belief system? lets say a young man walked in and asked an older baker to bake a cake in the shape of a naked women. should the baker have the option of saying no? i would say that he should because it goes against his MORAL and ETHICAL code to do so. its not discrimination because he would make a cake for the boy in another shape, a normal cake for his event or what have you, but he wont make THAT cake because its immoral in his eyes.
 
I haven't read the thread yet, so forgive duplication.

1) Yes, it is discrimination against the event and its purpose.
2) No, it is not discrimination against white people.
3) Yes, it should be... and is, I believe... legal.
 
Why in the hell would a black man trust his safety, his livelihood and his dignity to racist bastards with a proven history of violence and hatred against African-Americans? I would say his fears and suspicions justify his reasons for refusing. His discrimination is legal and prudent.
 
Aren't Women's Only Gyms and Women's College's equivalent to the KKK in being discriminatory? How about Black Only Colleges? Shouldn't they be shut down?
 
RiverDad said:
Aren't Women's Only Gyms and Women's College's equivalent to the KKK in being discriminatory? How about Black Only Colleges? Shouldn't they be shut down?
Click to expand...

Give us the violent history of Women Only Gyms. :lamo
 
Someone made a good point about damage to your reputation, that of employees and even endangerment. The caterer or one of his employees years later could find photos used against him/her standing with a collection of KKKers - which would destroy any chance in most elections if any want to run for public office. There also are real potentials of being endangers in the event there is a riot or your picture is in the paper with them - and then some African-American young men see you alone for which they are certain you are with the KKK.

I would think "this will endanger me" in a literal sense is a justifiable reason to refuse. I do think I can be required to have my picture in the newspaper and online standing with a KKKers, nor that I have to face any dangers they may face, nor risk being identified as being one of them for the known dangers and reputation damage this could cause me.
 
Zyphlin said:
1. Is the owner discriminating against catering "White Power" events?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "discrimination" but he is turning down a customer on a basis of choice because that customer's money is the same as anyone else's.

Zyphlin said:
2. Is the owner discriminating against white people?
Click to expand...

No

Zyphlin said:
3. If there is discrimination, is it discrimination that should be legally allowed?
Click to expand...

No, it should not be legally defined or allowed because that opens up a can of worms. The existing definitions are pretty clear in that discrimination based on race are well defined. This is not a case of racial discrimination.

Businesses are allowed to bar customers (may take legal means to do this) who have caused problems but extending that choice to a whole racial or sexual group is not a legal act by the business owner.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Really? Suppose it was a white caterer and they refused to serve a Jesse Jackson (or Al Sharpton) rally based on the "political message"?
Click to expand...

Well, it could be they just don't like their politics and have nothing to do with them being black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom