View Poll Results: What's More Important - the "Right" to Discriminate, or Freedom From Discrimination?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Right to Discriminate

    38 33.04%
  • Freedom From Discrimination

    77 66.96%
Page 152 of 230 FirstFirst ... 52102142150151152153154162202 ... LastLast
Results 1,511 to 1,520 of 2291

Thread: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

  1. #1511
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    You can't stop people from praying around you in public. We have no freedom of (or from) religion.
    I'm not sure of your point.

  2. #1512
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    I'm not sure of your point.
    I was counting on that.

  3. #1513
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I was counting on that.
    As I was counting on you being evasive.

  4. #1514
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,998

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
    Because they do not have a right to engage in a business transaction with another person. Their right is to seek another who is willing to engage in a business transaction with them. That right belongs to both the buyer and the seller.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best
    Incorrect premise on your part. The free market has always been based upon the property/service owner being able to decide with whom he does business with as well as the one seeking to obtain the property/service being able to decide whom he wants to do business with. They both have to agree to transact with each other. At any point that the government mandates an interaction or a lack of interaction (IOW you must make this transaction or you cannot make this transaction) the free market principle starts to collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    If the transaction itself is the privilege, that holds true for both parties.
    Holy cow I think he finally gets it. The buyer can't force the seller to sell to him for any reason and the seller can't force the buyer to buy from him for any reason. That is their right. The privilege comes from each allowing the other to associate with them on a business transaction. As a parallel. You have no right to come upon my property,but I have the right to choose who comes on my property. When I allow you to come on my property it is a privilege that I am extending to you. The opposite holds true. I receive from you the privilege to be on your property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    And what you're not getting is that YES, those cops beat him in violation of his rights...yet here you are advocating taking away their RIGHT to freedom FROM discrimination...which took minorities in general and blacks in particular centuries to win. Do you really think they wouldn't riot about losing that right, that freedom?

    If you do, you really don't know people half so well as you seem to think.
    There is no such right except from government entities and within the law itself. There are many rights, that were previously denied and violated, that blacks and many other minorities have rightly and successfully fought for and won. And wagging a campaign to try to eliminate discrimination is a worthy goal and indeed enormous strides towards the goal have been made, thankfully. What has occurred is that we as a country have said that we will correct a wrong (the denying and violation of rights and freedoms of minorities) with a wrong (violation of freedoms of association and private property rights).

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    One's making a transaction with that property. Selling= transaction.
    Thank you Captain Obvious. This point does nothing to support either side of the argument. It's a simple statement of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Civil Right's Act.
    Oh well if the law is the end all and be all, then blacks never had their rights violated during the slavery as by law they didn't have any.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Okay, so prices and discounts can be decided freely, how about selling to certain people while limiting certain people from making a transaction due to race?
    Wait a minute, isn't age a supposed protected category? Right now McDonalds is discriminating based upon age. If there was a white discount or even a black discount there would be riots, wouldn't there? So why is an age discount allowed if discriminating on an unchangeable attribute is supposed to be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?
    No just the ones that violate what is already in the Constitution, such as freedom of association.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Well the consumer's choice is impeded.
    How so? The consumer gets to make a choice as to who he will try to make a transaction with. The same choice that the buyer gets to make. The whole problem here is that you are equating a transaction that does not complete with being denied. As I've pointed out if the buyer chooses to to not buy because of skin color of the proeprty owner why is that not a violation of law. Either it's illegal in both directions or it's legal in both directions.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #1515
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    I'm not going to rehash what's already been said but your last point really hasn't been discussed.

    The consumer is NOT making a choice if he is being denied service based on the whims of the property owner. He only has a choice if business is open freely to everyone. That is the whole point. On one hand, free marketers try and push this fallacy that consumers have real choice when on the other hand they are working behind the scenes to restrict those choices.

  6. #1516
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Except that the government cannot discriminate. It does not have the power to do so. Private individuals that own privately owned companies however do have that power and right. So it doesn't really work. I fully believe that the government should not discriminate in any way shape or form against the people that it serves. IE: Citizens of the US. But I do support private individuals in their right to discriminate. The right to freedom of speech allows them their right to speak out against someone that they dislike...for whatever reason. Freedom to dictate what you do with your own property is essential to a free society. Freedom of association allows people to discriminate against others for any reason. All of those come with benefits and negatives. So long as no one violates another persons rights then they have no right to dictate that another must be punished for simply exercising their right. And since no one has the right to force themselves upon another, and no one has the right to dictate what a person does with thier property, and no one has the right to disregard someone elses free speech....people have a right to discriminate.
    Why are you arguing with me when we see the same thing on this issue?

    Public pools = taxpayer funded, city/county government run = no discrimination allowed

    We see this issue the same way. Why you felt the need to go on a rant about it is beyond me.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #1517
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best
    an exercisable right is a right you chose to exercise.

    exercisable rights:

    speech
    worship
    assembly or association
    bear a firearm
    petition the government
    right to commerce

    to name a few


    non-exercisable rights:

    life
    liberty


    an exercisable right, is when a person chooses to exercise his or her right to engage in one of the activities listed.

    example-- i can chose to bear a firearm, or chosen not to bear one, i can chose to pray, or not to pray, or protest or not protest.


    a non exercisable right you don't exercise.

    you dont chose to be dead today, and live tomorrow

    you dont chose to be a slave today and free the next.

    when you are on another persons property, you have no exercisable rights.....you cannot pray, bear a firearm, have free speech, protest, or force me to engage in commerce with you.

  8. #1518
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    an exercisable right is a right you chose to exercise.

    exercisable rights:

    speech
    worship
    assembly or association
    bear a firearm
    petition the government
    right to commerce

    to name a few


    non-exercisable rights:

    life
    liberty


    an exercisable right, is when a person chooses to exercise his or her right to engage in one of the activities listed.

    example-- i can chose to bear a firearm, or chosen not to bear one, i can chose to pray, or not to pray, or protest or not protest.


    a non exercisable right you don't exercise.

    you dont chose to be dead today, and live tomorrow

    you dont chose to be a slave today and free the next.

    when you are on another persons property, you have no exercisable rights.....you cannot pray, bear a firearm, have free speech, protest, or force me to engage in commerce with you.
    Yep, I get it. When things are privatized, no one has any rights except for the property owner. A very compelling case we need to be wise when privatizing resources. In the meantime, anyone with a rational mind should fight to keep the Civil Rights Laws into place.

  9. #1519
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Yep, I get it. When things are privatized, no one has any rights except for the property owner. A very compelling case we need to be wise when privatizing resources. In the meantime, anyone with a rational mind should fight to keep the Civil Rights Laws into place.
    are you saying THAT you should be able to come on my property and exercise every right you have?

    in other words...you can enter my store.....PACKING A FIREARM, ..AGAINST MY WISHES?

  10. #1520
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    are you saying THAT you should be able to come on my property and exercise every right you have?

    in other words...you can enter my store.....PACKING A FIREARM, ..AGAINST MY WISHES?
    No, but if you are open for business and I am acting ethical, I should not be denied the right to a business transaction based on my skin color.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •