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 223 of 230 FirstFirst ... 123173213221222223224225 ... LastLast
Results 2,221 to 2,230 of 2291

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

  1. #2221
    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
    Yesterday @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    But the poor people who can no longer have a doctor! And what if the doctor shuts down so that he doesn't have to serve white people? That's discrimination. Shouldn't that be illegal?
    No, that's just you trying to make up stuff.

    *yawn*
    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

  2. #2222
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Wrong...because as soon as the racist business owner calls up the cops to enforce his no-blacks-allowed store policy, and the cops are forced by law to remove those blacks, we suddenly have state-enforced racism.

    Which was once known as Jim Crow.

    Sure, it's not quite the same...but the moment this starts, you're going to see violence across America like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. Why? Blacks have had a taste of equality, and they're not going to give it up...and they're armed, too.

    Is that the kind of future you want for America? Is it really?
    You are still making the mistake of equating state enforced action with state approved or state mandated action. Right now WBC gets to go out and protest pretty much any funeral they want. They throw out all their hate rhetoric and sexual discrimination speech crap. If you were to try to come by and silence them the cops would have to stop you. We would then have state enforced hate speech. Is that what you want for this country? Well I do, not because I want hate speech, but because I don't want any limitation on my free speech. Appropriate consequences, yes. Same goes for private property rights and freedom of association.

    Additionally get it straight. Jim Crow was about mandating discrimination. Don't want to be discriminatory with your business? Too bad. Law says you can't allow the blacks to integrate with the whites even if you want to. That is Jim Crow

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    It can't be discrimination because his action affects all his customers, not just one or two or one certain segment thereof.

    For instance, I once owned a used clothing store in that same one-doctor town I keep talking about. ALL my customers - most (but not all) of whom were black - were poor. Does that somehow mean that I was being discriminatory because I closed my business? Please.

    Like I said, you're making a bogus comparison.
    No the bogus comparison is the whole issue of if they have to go to another town or not. If the issue is of them traveling then it is an issue whether there is no doctor or there is one who discriminates. You still did not answer the question as asked though. If the doctor, or you and your store even, shut down claiming that they are doing so so that they do not have to serve X group (discrimination!) and even announces so, should not that be illegal. Not "Oh I am in poor health and can no longer run the store I am shutting down".
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  3. #2223
    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
    Yesterday @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    You are still making the mistake of equating state enforced action with state approved or state mandated action. Right now WBC gets to go out and protest pretty much any funeral they want. They throw out all their hate rhetoric and sexual discrimination speech crap. If you were to try to come by and silence them the cops would have to stop you. We would then have state enforced hate speech. Is that what you want for this country? Well I do, not because I want hate speech, but because I don't want any limitation on my free speech. Appropriate consequences, yes. Same goes for private property rights and freedom of association.

    Additionally get it straight. Jim Crow was about mandating discrimination. Don't want to be discriminatory with your business? Too bad. Law says you can't allow the blacks to integrate with the whites even if you want to. That is Jim Crow



    No the bogus comparison is the whole issue of if they have to go to another town or not. If the issue is of them traveling then it is an issue whether there is no doctor or there is one who discriminates. You still did not answer the question as asked though. If the doctor, or you and your store even, shut down claiming that they are doing so so that they do not have to serve X group (discrimination!) and even announces so, should not that be illegal. Not "Oh I am in poor health and can no longer run the store I am shutting down".
    What you're not getting is that in the eyes of over ten million black Americans and the many, many tens of millions of people who would support them, there is NO difference between "enforced" and "mandated"...because the end result is the same.
    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

  4. #2224
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    What you're not getting is that in the eyes of over ten million black Americans and the many, many tens of millions of people who would support them, there is NO difference between "enforced" and "mandated"...because the end result is the same.
    That's rather like saying that there is no difference between blue and teal. There is a difference and especially in the context of freedoms and rights they are very important. You failed to address the state enforced hate speech issue and you failed again to answer the question. Something you're trying to avoid?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #2225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    +
    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    That's rather like saying that there is no difference between blue and teal. There is a difference and especially in the context of freedoms and rights they are very important. You failed to address the state enforced hate speech issue and you failed again to answer the question. Something you're trying to avoid?
    He's trying to avoid a further mugging by reality.

  6. #2226
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Wrong...because as soon as the racist business owner calls up the cops to enforce his no-blacks-allowed store policy, and the cops are forced by law to remove those blacks, we suddenly have state-enforced racism.

    Which was once known as Jim Crow.

    Sure, it's not quite the same...but the moment this starts, you're going to see violence across America like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. Why? Blacks have had a taste of equality, and they're not going to give it up...and they're armed, too.

    Is that the kind of future you want for America? Is it really?
    No. That's not state-enforced racism. It's state-enforced property rights and rights of free association, which is a proper function of the government in a free society. Jim Crow was state-mandated and enforced racism. They are not the same at all.

    Some examples:

    It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other in any game of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers.
    Any white woman who shall suffer or permit herself to be got with child by a negro or mulatto...shall be sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than eighteen months.
    Any person...presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
    Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school.
    If a shop owner in today's USA denies service to a black man openly due to the color of his skin, there might very well be violence on that shop owner, but it's much more likely he'll be out of business in the not too distant future. The general public has open disdain for racism, which is pretty much the future I want for America. We're not going to get there by mandating that people serve other people that they don't like.

  7. #2227
    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 maquiscat View Post


    The rules of a place of business is what the business owner decides they are. Real simple concept.
    Except when it interferes with another's rights. That is why they have sexual harassment and discrimination laws.

  8. #2228
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    No. That's not state-enforced racism. It's state-enforced property rights and rights of free association, which is a proper function of the government in a free society. Jim Crow was state-mandated and enforced racism. They are not the same at all.
    Now just to be clear, what we are indeed arguing in favor of state enforced racism, which we already have right now anyway. I can't say how many times I've heard where people have said things, like Bundy recently and others, and have had their speech called racism. Now I challenge our opponents to show where their free speech rights should not be upheld, even while engaging in such racism.

    You can whine all about what might happen, but you don't know. You are projecting your own feelings here. Granted so are we; we can't be sure that people won't riot when such discrimination occurs. But it still comes down to it is all a direct violation of freedom of association and private property rights. There is no getting around that.

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Except when it interferes with another's rights. That is why they have sexual harassment and discrimination laws.
    There is no right to not be discriminated against. Otherwise it would be illegal to say that someone can't shop my store because they are a redhead or they wear punk style clothing. Currently that is not illegal. There is no right to commerce, there is only the right, under freedom of association, to seek someone who wished to do commerce with you. There are no rights interfered with. It is all "I don't like what your freedom allows so I will violate your rights and call the prohibited action a violation of other's rights." Take your pig Maybelline and come back with a better argument. And once again, no we are not saying that racism and discrimination are proper and good and just. Quite the opposite. But you don't violate one's freedoms and rights because you don't like what that allows them to do. It is you and the others who are interfering with another's rights, or rather advocating for it.

    And let me ask you the question that Glen and the others have been avoiding. Maybe you actually have the 'nads to answer. Shouldn't it be illegal for a business owner to say that they will shut down their business in order to not serve a certain group (i.e. discrimination)? Why or why not? Oh and leave your sexual harassment red herring out of this argument. We've already shown that sexual harassment is not isolated to businesses and thus are not a part of this issue. It would be equivalent if we were allowed to engage in sexual harassment on our residential properties but not in our businesses. But it's not, so it is not an equivalent argument.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #2229
    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 maquiscat View Post
    Now just to be clear, what we are indeed arguing in favor of state enforced racism, which we already have right now anyway. I can't say how many times I've heard where people have said things, like Bundy recently and others, and have had their speech called racism. Now I challenge our opponents to show where their free speech rights should not be upheld, even while engaging in such racism.

    You can whine all about what might happen, but you don't know. You are projecting your own feelings here. Granted so are we; we can't be sure that people won't riot when such discrimination occurs. But it still comes down to it is all a direct violation of freedom of association and private property rights. There is no getting around that.



    There is no right to not be discriminated against. Otherwise it would be illegal to say that someone can't shop my store because they are a redhead or they wear punk style clothing. Currently that is not illegal. There is no right to commerce, there is only the right, under freedom of association, to seek someone who wished to do commerce with you. There are no rights interfered with. It is all "I don't like what your freedom allows so I will violate your rights and call the prohibited action a violation of other's rights." Take your pig Maybelline and come back with a better argument. And once again, no we are not saying that racism and discrimination are proper and good and just. Quite the opposite. But you don't violate one's freedoms and rights because you don't like what that allows them to do. It is you and the others who are interfering with another's rights, or rather advocating for it.

    And let me ask you the question that Glen and the others have been avoiding. Maybe you actually have the 'nads to answer. Shouldn't it be illegal for a business owner to say that they will shut down their business in order to not serve a certain group (i.e. discrimination)? Why or why not? Oh and leave your sexual harassment red herring out of this argument. We've already shown that sexual harassment is not isolated to businesses and thus are not a part of this issue. It would be equivalent if we were allowed to engage in sexual harassment on our residential properties but not in our businesses. But it's not, so it is not an equivalent argument.
    There are laws to protect groups of people from being discriminated against and the law is not finite to any particular group. If red heads are finding themselves being denied services in place after place, they can go to their representative. And, sexual harassment IS part and parcel to the argument because it is specific to a place of business. Give me an example of sexual harassment in a residential place. Commerce does has its rules and regulation. It does not allow for whatever the hell I please.

    An owner can shut down their doors if they don't want to follow the rules.

  10. #2230
    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
    Yes it is when authorized by the greater society and the government of the people.
    Majority sanction does not change anything. It is still taking other people's stuff.

    And since that violates your personal principle of belief - it is ample evidence provided directly by you that your ideas are NOT those of the real world we live in. If you disagree, feel free how you could run the USA, the fifty states, and local areas WITHOUT compulsory taxation.

    Lets hear it how it would work in Libertarian Lala Land.

    People have much much more than simple property rights. They have all kind of rights including many other individual rights as well as the rights that the collective society has top have the type os society they want to have for their community, their state nd their nation as long as it is constitutional.
    Apparently you feel they have the right to take other people's stuff. You'll never convince me to get on board a plan that violates the body or property of my fellow Americans.

    Of course you will not leave. You have good thing here and do not have the courage of your principles to leave a system you find so abhorrent and wrong. Instead, you will stay and keep on with your own hypocrisy.
    Yep. Not leaving. Deal with it.

Posting Permissions

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