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 226 of 230 FirstFirst ... 126176216224225226227228 ... LastLast
Results 2,251 to 2,260 of 2291

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

  1. #2251
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Your proof verifies that the person can be charged outside the workplace if "they have a business, service or professional relationship with the person they harassed". It's about power. It is not a sub issue because it is from the same law as discrimination (Civil Right's Act). It is a violation of a human right. Your rights end where another person's begins.

    As far as the second part of your post, the issue is people are not allowed to violate another's right. If they prefer to shut down rather than follow the law, it at least protects the rights of individuals. That is the point.
    You never did answer what TIA means. I'm sure it's some internet acronym like IIRC and BTW and such, but I can't figure it out nor find it on the internet.

    But yeah, you said not related to work or rental, and many of those are not related to a person's work. So it's between what I was saying and what you were saying. Like I said I am inquiring with some actual lawyers to check on what I was saying in regards to other places. It may well be that the term "sexual harassment" has developed a colloquial social meaning that isn't fully in line with the legal definition, much the way that pedophillia has even when the minor in question is outside the range for pedophillia and is in, say, the hebephillia range.

    The second part is where we are having a disagreement. A right is a right. The law either recognizes it or violates it, if it touches upon the right at all. There simply is no right from discrimination. There is no right to conduct commerce/business. These are misconstrued conclusions based upon other rights. For that matter there is not right to be treated as a human being, especially since what constitutes such treatment is highly subjective. Please don't get me wrong. I do not support discrimination based upon what are essentially arbitrary factors, such as skin color, gender, etc. But freedom of association is one of our rights; we are free to chose whom we associate with under what circumstances. The natural offshoot of this is that we can make such arbitrary choices in those association. Those who support anti-discrimination laws (as oppose to those who support anti-discrimination) don't like the idea of what that allows an individual to do and as such have manufactured a "freedom from discrimination" and codified it into law.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #2252
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,571
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    this is were we disagree, to make taxes complusary...is force....to the founders, your money is your property not to be taken by force.

    Taxes unders the founders was voluntary, you will find after taxes become complusry, ...government expanded outside the constutution.

    Income taxes, ...was a progressive idea of the late 1800's as was democracy for America...two great evils
    I am just looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. We are a very large nation of some 330 million people and if we stick to the constitutional principles of government the Founders believed in, some funding is necessary in order for the government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties. Some form of taxation is the most practical way to do provide that funding and I have no personal problem with every citizen being required to have some skin in that. I strenuously object to half the country being exempt from that, which is the case now, but still being able to vote for those who will decide how much the rest of us will pay.

    But what we the people now need is a revolution--preferably a peaceful and bloodless one--that will bust the federal government back to its constitutionally mandated authority and let the states handle everything else as was always intended.

    And then the federal government won't need to concern itself so much with what a business owner is allowed to do with his own property--that will be a matter for the states and/or local communities to decide.
    "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

  3. #2253
    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
    You never did answer what TIA means. I'm sure it's some internet acronym like IIRC and BTW and such, but I can't figure it out nor find it on the internet.

    But yeah, you said not related to work or rental, and many of those are not related to a person's work. So it's between what I was saying and what you were saying. Like I said I am inquiring with some actual lawyers to check on what I was saying in regards to other places. It may well be that the term "sexual harassment" has developed a colloquial social meaning that isn't fully in line with the legal definition, much the way that pedophillia has even when the minor in question is outside the range for pedophillia and is in, say, the hebephillia range.

    The second part is where we are having a disagreement. A right is a right. The law either recognizes it or violates it, if it touches upon the right at all. There simply is no right from discrimination. There is no right to conduct commerce/business. These are misconstrued conclusions based upon other rights. For that matter there is not right to be treated as a human being, especially since what constitutes such treatment is highly subjective. Please don't get me wrong. I do not support discrimination based upon what are essentially arbitrary factors, such as skin color, gender, etc. But freedom of association is one of our rights; we are free to chose whom we associate with under what circumstances. The natural offshoot of this is that we can make such arbitrary choices in those association. Those who support anti-discrimination laws (as oppose to those who support anti-discrimination) don't like the idea of what that allows an individual to do and as such have manufactured a "freedom from discrimination" and codified it into law.
    TIA means thanks in advance. The whole reason for sexual harassment and discrimination law under The Civil Rights Act is to make sure people's rights are not being violated in a place of business. Business does have a code of ethics were owners, bosses, co-workers etc....are not allowed to engage in whatever the heck they please. One right ends where another right begins.

  4. #2254
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    I am just looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. We are a very large nation of some 330 million people and if we stick to the constitutional principles of government the Founders believed in, some funding is necessary in order for the government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties. Some form of taxation is the most practical way to do provide that funding and I have no personal problem with every citizen being required to have some skin in that. I strenuously object to half the country being exempt from that, which is the case now, but still being able to vote for those who will decide how much the rest of us will pay.

    But what we the people now need is a revolution--preferably a peaceful and bloodless one--that will bust the federal government back to its constitutionally mandated authority and let the states handle everything else as was always intended.

    And then the federal government won't need to concern itself so much with what a business owner is allowed to do with his own property--that will be a matter for the states and/or local communities to decide.
    to a LIBERTARIAN. the use of force is "repugnant"

    to take tax by force is violating the founding principles of America...the DOI...which is law.

    money is property...to take property by force, is stealing,. and the violation of the principle "government is instituted to protect rights"

  5. #2255
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,571
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    to a LIBERTARIAN. the use of force is "repugnant"

    to take tax by force is violating the founding principles of America...the DOI...which is law.

    money is property...to take property by force, is stealing,. and the violation of the principle "government is instituted to protect rights"
    I don't look at it as stealing. I look at it as paying my dues as a citizen so that my rights are secured and my property protected. But. . . . when the government oversteps its constitutional authority, THEN it becomes stealing and should be repugnant to all people who believe in unalienable rights and who value liberty.
    "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. #2256
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    I don't look at it as stealing. I look at it as paying my dues as a citizen so that my rights are secured and my property protected. But. . . . when the government oversteps its constitutional authority, THEN it becomes stealing and should be repugnant to all people who believe in unalienable rights and who value liberty.

    then how do you get pass the fact... money is property, and property of every sort is to be secured by government, which is why government is instituted.

    to the founders direct taxes on a person taking from him by force is stealing.

    taxes by the founders are voluntary, and they worked in america, until progressives got an amendment to the Constitution,...however that amendment still defies the founding principles of america in the DOI.

    voluntary taxes were placed on states, and those taxes were used to pay for the delegates powers of the federal government, and only for those purposes.

    by your explanation your saying to secure your rights, you have to give in and let government defy the DOI.....YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

    would you say the same to this statement?

    to secure my rights/ property, i must let government spy on me, search me, violate my privacy, thus making it possible to perform its delegated power of national security?

  7. #2257
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,571
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    then how do you get pass the fact... money is property, and property of every sort is to be secured by government, which is why government is instituted.

    to the founders direct taxes on a person taking from him by force is stealing.

    taxes by the founders are voluntary, and they worked in america, until progressives got an amendment to the Constitution,...however that amendment still defies the founding principles of america in the DOI.

    voluntary taxes were placed on states, and those taxes were used to pay for the delegates powers of the federal government, and only for those purposes.

    by your explanation your saying to secure your rights, you have to give in and let government defy the DOI.....YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

    would you say the same to this statement?

    to secure my rights/ property, i must let government spy on me, search me, violate my privacy, thus making it possible to perform its delegated power of national security?
    I get past it because I'm not a fanatical ideologue who sees everything in absolutes. I'm not saying you are either, but in this case it is purely a matter of practical common sense. Our unalienable rights are not recognized and not secured if we do not hand over responsibility to recognize and secure them to a central government. The common defense is going to be far less a certain thing unless we hand over the responsibility to organize and manage it to a central government. And we need a central government to provide sufficient laws and regulation to allow the various states to function as one cohesive nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. There is no liberty unless our rights are secured. And it requires funding to secure them. I just see a flat tax that everybody pays as the easiest, most reasonable, most sensible, and most practical way to do that with the least burden and least hassle for we the people.
    "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

  8. #2258
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    I get past it because I'm not a fanatical ideologue who sees everything in absolutes. I'm not saying you are either, but in this case it is purely a matter of practical common sense. Our unalienable rights are not recognized and not secured if we do not hand over responsibility to recognize and secure them to a central government. The common defense is going to be far less a certain thing unless we hand over the responsibility to organize and manage it to a central government. And we need a central government to provide sufficient laws and regulation to allow the various states to function as one cohesive nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. There is no liberty unless our rights are secured. And it requires funding to secure them. I just see a flat tax that everybody pays as the easiest, most reasonable, most sensible, and most practical way to do that with the least burden and least hassle for we the people.

    well we disagree, i will not compromise principles.

    our government ran fine when taxes were voluntary, and it was only after the income tax government began to expand and step outside of the constitution.

    by constraining the money government receives, it also restrains their powers, to only what is necessary and properer.

    by constitutional law the federal government role is external powers, not internal powers, all powers exercise by government are to be for the union as a whole, ..not inside states ruling in there affairs, and i stated to you from article 1 section 8 clause 17.

    because of income taxes, and expansion of government from it, government power/ debt has grown to uncontrollable levels......making for a dangerous time in the future, when no rights will be secure.

    i am not an anarchistic, i believe in government however that government is to be limited, and only exercising enumerated powers...not powers the government or people find as a conveyance for them, when it happens to suit.

    a consumption tax...which will be voluntary...and also promote savings.
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-11-14 at 06:28 PM.

  9. #2259
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,571
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    well we disagree, i will not compromise principles.

    our government ran fine when taxes were voluntary, and it was only after the income tax government began to expand and step outside of the constitution.

    by constraining the money government receives, it also restrains their powers, to only what is necessary and properer.

    by constitutional law the federal government role is external powers, not internal powers, all powers exercise by government are to be for the union as a whole, ..not inside states ruling in there affairs, and i stated to you from article 1 section 8 clause 17.

    because of income taxes, and expansion of government from it, government power/ debt has grown to uncontrollable levels......making for a dangerous time in the future, when no rights will be secure.

    i am not an anarchistic, i believe in government however that government is to be limited, and only exercising enumerated powers...not powers the government or people find as a conveyance for them, when it happens to suit.

    a consumption tax...which will be voluntary...and also promote savings.
    The income tax was not what caused the government to go out of control. Beginning with T R Roosevelt, it was the blind lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that mostly caused the government to go out of control.

    Just as it is not hatred or opinion of people of a certain color that is keeping racism and discrimination alive and well now but it is the lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that drives it.
    "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

  10. #2260
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    The income tax was not what caused the government to go out of control. Beginning with T R Roosevelt, it was the blind lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that mostly caused the government to go out of control.

    Just as it is not hatred or opinion of people of a certain color that is keeping racism and discrimination alive and well now but it is the lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that drives it.
    it is money that allows the government to involve themselves in things, and take control ...without money government is limited in its capacity to do things....this was a problem of the government under the articles so confederation, no way to tax at all.

    government was given the power to tax trade, not people..........to tax people gives government power over people......the founders did not want that.........."the power to tax is the power to destroy"

Posting Permissions

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