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 201 of 230 FirstFirst ... 101151191199200201202203211 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,010 of 2291

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

  1. #2001
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So what is "morally right and fair" if you see some distinction between that personal standard and the legal laws of the land?

    That seems a very broad and not very exact term to apply that could mean many different things to different people and even vary with different situations at different times.
    Maybe. I use the non-aggression principle as my yardstick. I consider it unjust to initiate violations against the person or property of my fellow man. Thus, I consider it unjust to take the property of others. You apparently consider it just for someone to use force to take what belongs to you. I have more respect for my fellow man than that.

  2. #2002
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Maybe. I use the non-aggression principle as my yardstick. I consider it unjust to initiate violations against the person or property of my fellow man. Thus, I consider it unjust to take the property of others. You apparently consider it just for someone to use force to take what belongs to you. I have more respect for my fellow man than that.
    You seem caught in a loop chasing your own tail going round and round and round. Why are you refusing to answer the issues I have brought up regarding this declaration by you about what is just and moral and the problems that come with it making it impossible to use that as any sort of lawful standard for a nation?

    Why do you insist on attacking me and telling me what I believe instead of continuing the very discussion you started by speaking to the issues I raised and defending your own standard?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #2003
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    But you didn't make that stipulation before and now you're backtracking on it, which is what typically happens. Police have no business enforcing discrimination...except when they do. Face it in the end we have government enforced discrimination all the time.



    But the public doesn't own the business. Therefore it is a private business. This whole nonsense of being open to the public is a legal fiction. Either the business belongs to the owner(s) and is a private one and subject to all the same rights and freedoms as the owner(s) or it is owned by the public and thus subject to the non-discrimination requirements of the government.




    Easy enough since both you and I would agree that the gun wielder in this case is violating another person's right (most likely. Can't say for sure unless you specify the crime). But it is obvious that there is disagreement on whether or not there is a right to not be discriminated against. We both agree that the government cannot do so. And actually we both agree that the private individual can do so in most situations. You simply don't want to believe that part of a person's private property and the inherent rights of that and himself are applicable at times and places that you don't like him exercising them. Use an actual comparable example where the action of the person is more subjective as to whether or not they are violating a right.



    Not surprising. One does not have to know about something in order to interact with it, even if he objects to it. You object to murder and yet your friend, unbeknownst to you, is a murderer. Federalist objects to the use of eminent domain and yet might be using a facility, unknowingly, that was taken by eminent domain. It does not make him any more hypocritical to use such a facility than it would you being friends with the murderer. Similarly, if the only facility available to do a required task was obtained by eminent domain and he had no alternatives (phone, internet, etc), he would still not be hypocritical. That would be like protesting the work conditions in the shop but continuing to work there since you need the money. Finally we can play 6 degrees of separation with just about anything and probably find a connection to eminent domain. It is rather unreasonable to hold to account anyone for secondary relations to that which he opposes.

    Finally you still have not proven anything as far as his association to eminent domain facilities. At best you can cite odds, but for all you know Federalist may live in a small town where they have never used eminent domain and no higher level has ever needed to make use of it. You cannot in any honesty show that he indeed benefits from eminent domain. Unless you're stalking him and then we have other issues to address.



    Credit where credit is due....dude that was pitiful even for deflection. Your answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. You entirely changed the premise. If you want to discredit the premise that is one thing, or show where it is incompatible to the topic at hand. But you don't get to change it and not get called out on it.



    Sorry it is discrimination. Just because the liberals are trying to confine the concept of discrimination to just their special groups, it does not mean that any discrimination outside those groups is not still discrimination. If you base it upon the color of the person's hair....discrimination. Left or right handed....discrimination. Cat owner or dog owner....discrimination.

    In the example you were indeed prejudiced. You made an assumption based upon the visual without really giving the person a chance that show whether or not they fall within your stereotype. By acting upon that prejudice, i.e. not hiring them to babysit, you discriminated.
    I did give the person a chance. He failed to show that he may be a good caretaker the second he did something that I thought would be bad for my kids to learn. He was given the chance, failing it in the first second doesn't make it discrimination compared to someone failing 20 minutes in. It just means they were even less qualified.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  4. #2004
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You seem caught in a loop chasing your own tail going round and round and round. Why are you refusing to answer the issues I have brought up regarding this declaration by you about what is just and moral and the problems that come with it making it impossible to use that as any sort of lawful standard for a nation?
    I answered you already. I consider it unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my fellow man. That's your answer, in case you missed it.


    Why do you insist on attacking me and telling me what I believe instead of continuing the very discussion you started by speaking to the issues I raised and defending your own standard?
    My standard is that it is unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my neighbor. This entire thread is devoted to the discussion of whether or not it is okay to violate the person of one's neighbor in order to force him to allow someone he doesn't want onto his property and to force him to engage in exchange with this person. You have taken the position that it is right and just to do so. I oppose the initiation of such a violation.

  5. #2005
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,572
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    How can you conduct business on your free time?
    I don't see how the question relates to anything I posted, so could you clarify? Actually I often have mixed business and free time, most especially when I was running my own business.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  6. #2006
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,565

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I answered you already. I consider it unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my fellow man. That's your answer, in case you missed it.




    My standard is that it is unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my neighbor. This entire thread is devoted to the discussion of whether or not it is okay to violate the person of one's neighbor in order to force him to allow someone he doesn't want onto his property and to force him to engage in exchange with this person. You have taken the position that it is right and just to do so. I oppose the initiation of such a violation.
    I think I asked you before, but how does your opinion work if, say, the only doctor in town or the only grocery store in town decides to stop serving those whom it doesn't like? There's still many towns in America that have only one of each, and most of these towns have people that are too poor to move elsewhere. So...what happens?
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  7. #2007
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Last Seen
    06-13-14 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    We aren't talking about engaging in business in the public domain. We are talking about engaging in one's own private business that one funded with his/her own money and took all the risks associated with that business's success. So long as they do not violate anybody's rights or any formal legal agreements, a person should not give up their unalienable rights to be who and what they are purely because somebody thinks they should be able to tell that person what they can and cannot do with their own property.

    And which unalienable rights are you alleging were violated??


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  8. #2008
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,572
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by reconmark View Post
    And which unalienable rights are you alleging were violated??


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    There are too many to list. But basically, so long as we are violating nobody else's rights, we are talking about an unalienable right to be who and what we are, to say what we think, believe, hope for, and express our personal opinions without fear that some group or mob will organize a hateful protest or boycott in an attempt to punish us for just being ourselves.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  9. #2009
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I think I asked you before, but how does your opinion work if, say, the only doctor in town or the only grocery store in town decides to stop serving those whom it doesn't like? There's still many towns in America that have only one of each, and most of these towns have people that are too poor to move elsewhere. So...what happens?
    The one thing that should not happen is that force should not be initiated against the body or property of the doctor or store owner. Any other course of action is legitimate.

  10. #2010
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I answered you already. I consider it unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my fellow man. That's your answer, in case you missed it.




    My standard is that it is unjust to initiate a violation against the person or property of my neighbor. This entire thread is devoted to the discussion of whether or not it is okay to violate the person of one's neighbor in order to force him to allow someone he doesn't want onto his property and to force him to engage in exchange with this person. You have taken the position that it is right and just to do so. I oppose the initiation of such a violation.
    When you criticize others for following the law of the land but not your personal individual standard based on your own personal belief system, you are in effect placing the validity of your personal standard above the Constitution and the law of the land. And in any discussion that places you as completely and utterly irrelevant in daring to criticize anyone when all they are doing is following the Constitution and the law.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Posting Permissions

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