• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    93
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It's a habit of mine...especially since what I said applies every other white I've ever met who said that racism isn't that prevalent anymore (or words to that effect).

Like I said, why should I bother when you've already made up your mind?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Guy, you have a right to be a prejudiced as you want - but you do NOT have a right to discriminate against other people on the basis of how they were born. YOUR freedom ends where the other guy's freedom begins.

Sorry, guy, but that is not a "God-given" human right - that's nothing more than a twist of logic used by racists to excuse their actions.

Show me where a person has a right to force me to sell them something.

The freedom of speech is a god given right.

The freedom of association is a god given right.

The freedom to sell my property to who I want to and not sell to who I do not want to sell is also a god given right. It's MY property. Not theirs. I have a right to dictate who I sell it to.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

1: No, police are government employees. The government is the servant of the people. Just because you get paid does not mean anything. Both may be temporary in their servitude. But the servitude is still there. Servitude does not have a time limit or lasts forever. And you can't tell me that there are not cops out there that are not prejudiced yet are forced to help those that they are prejudiced against on penalty of losing their jobs.

Again, a different use of the word servant. We're making a distinction you're ignoring. The word serve means to serve, meaning anyone who serves is a servant. However, when you say you're making them servants (which by your above definition they already were), you're leaning more to the forced servitude. More like this: the condition of being a slave or of having to obey another person or this: 1: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life, 2: a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.

So, no, your are not using the word correctly in your claim of making them servants.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I know exactly why they were passed. They are no longer needed. I know I know, blacks and hispanics etc etc are still being discriminated against. As i've said before, not near as much today as many would have people believe. Now it is a detriment. People need to start standing on their own and taking responsibility for their actions. Not keep running to Big Daddy Government to help bail them out of tough situations.

You really overestimate people. There are enough business owners out there right now who are looking for any excuse in the world to deny service to gay people. I have no idea what you're talking about with the "responsibility" bit. Are you so used to saying that that you've forgotten what it means? Responsibility for their actions? What actions? Being born black? What on Earth are you talking about?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I know that. That's why I used public pools as an example. It works better than trying to use a privately owned restaurant or department store.

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

Again, a different use of the word servant. We're making a distinction you're ignoring. The word serve means to serve, meaning anyone who serves is a servant. However, when you say you're making them servants (which by your above definition they already were), you're leaning more to the forced servitude. More like this: the condition of being a slave or of having to obey another person or this: 1: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life, 2: a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.

So, no, your are not using the word correctly in your claim of making them servants.

Bold: Does the business owner have liberty in who he/she sells their property to? Answer: No. As such he/she lacks liberty in determining their course/way of life.

Underlined: By telling the owner that they must sell to X person or get punished even if that owner is racist against that person you are inherently forcing them to sell their property to someone for their specified use or enjoyment.

Like I said, no twisting done.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You really overestimate people. There are enough business owners out there right now who are looking for any excuse in the world to deny service to gay people. I have no idea what you're talking about with the "responsibility" bit. Are you so used to saying that that you've forgotten what it means? Responsibility for their actions? What actions? Being born black? What on Earth are you talking about?

And you really underestimate people. Even now the majority of people in this nation support gay rights. Is there people that want to deny them service? Most definitely. And those people are growing increasingly more sparse. And this just in the last couple of decades. Racism has been stamped far more and there is a lot less of it than 70 years ago.

As for the responsibility comment, its pretty evident what I meant. People need to stop blaming their woes on other people. They need to stop going to the government and pleading to them that they make others do what they want them to do through force. Instead of taking responsibility and working hard to achieve what ever it is that they want to achieve on their own. This applies to everything be it racism or welfare.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another. The term is sometimes equated with slavery, however, it does not necessarily imply the complete lack of personal freedom that accompanies slavery.Involuntary servitude of individuals is illegal in the U.S., except when in the form of punishment for a crime. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/04/us-supreme-court-endorses-involuntary-servitude/
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The government is not allowed to do that. Private indivduals have that right. For example, if I wish to get married in a catholic church should I be able to sue them if they refuse because I'm not catholic? Happens all the time you know. They do so because they feel that the other person is not worthy. Is inferior. Just an fyi, I was refused to be married to my wife from a church. Not catholic, but christian.



No one is preventing them from accessing resources. There are plenty of Ipods and cell phones, and tv's out there.

As for creating a society of exclusion and fear....that's been around for ages and many of them are fully acceptable. For example schools, do you know how many cliques are in schools that exclude those that do not conform to their way of thinking and beliefs? Even cliques of race. Yet we don't admonish black children to let white children hang out with them. And visa versa. We don't admonish cheerleaders to let the nerds hang out with them. Or the jocks and the goths. Like it or not society naturally segregates itself. And yet...we do not have a society of fear.

No doubt racism still exist but not on the same scale seen before the Civil Rights Movement. Sadly, many people that dispense this kind of stuff were too young to feel any effects from that kind of toxic environment. So, the thinking goes....big deal racism will always exist so let's not be concerned. It's pretty easy for a person that has never been barred from transportation, restaurants, shops etc...over and over again to say "no big deal just go somewhere else". Many, who are old enough, do know what that creates. You know what they say about repeating history? The ONLY people oppressed in this scenario are those being barred from these everyday activities we take for granted. If someone wants to open business all that is being asked is to take responsibility when you work with the public. That is not the same thing as being reduced to a servant.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And you really underestimate people. Even now the majority of people in this nation support gay rights. Is there people that want to deny them service? Most definitely. And those people are growing increasingly more sparse. And this just in the last couple of decades. Racism has been stamped far more and there is a lot less of it than 70 years ago.

As for the responsibility comment, its pretty evident what I meant. People need to stop blaming their woes on other people. They need to stop going to the government and pleading to them that they make others do what they want them to do through force. Instead of taking responsibility and working hard to achieve what ever it is that they want to achieve on their own. This applies to everything be it racism or welfare.

According to Gallup, more than half of Americans say they "do not respect" Muslims, and in turn, more than half of Muslims say they are not treated as equal. You make strides with one group and another becomes the target. There will always be a group of people who are hated and feared, and discrimination laws are a large part of what ensure that they will be able to pursue success and happiness without unbreakable barriers.

The responsibility comment still makes no sense. I'm trying to put it into context. So my ancestor, a Jew, was refused treatment at the only reputable hospital he could get to in time for emergency surgery. So, you're saying that he needed to take responsibility and do the surgery himself? Or you're saying that other Jews, instead of being outraged that he was allowed to die, should have worked hard to build their own hospital? Then they could have had "separate but equal" hospitals and it would have made the Jews even more outcast.

My contention is that they should have been outraged and lobbied for a law that prevented discrimination, because it didn't matter how hard they worked if people were still going to treat them as animals because of their religion.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

According to Gallup, more than half of Americans say they "do not respect" Muslims, and in turn, more than half of Muslims say they are not treated as equal. You make strides with one group and another becomes the target. There will always be a group of people who are hated and feared, and discrimination laws are a large part of what ensure that they will be able to pursue success and happiness without unbreakable barriers.

The responsibility comment still makes no sense. I'm trying to put it into context. So my ancestor, a Jew, was refused treatment at the only reputable hospital he could get to in time for emergency surgery. So, you're saying that he needed to take responsibility and do the surgery himself? Or you're saying that other Jews, instead of being outraged that he was allowed to die, should have worked hard to build their own hospital? Then they could have had "separate but equal" hospitals and it would have made the Jews even more outcast.

My contention is that they should have been outraged and lobbied for a law that prevented discrimination, because it didn't matter how hard they worked if people were still going to treat them as animals because of their religion.

that would be a health and safety issue, you cannot discriminate over that, because government has authority in that area.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

that would be a health and safety issue, you cannot discriminate over that, because government has authority in that area.

Even though the government is forcing the doctors to engage in commerce against their will? What about their rights?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

that would be a health and safety issue, you cannot discriminate over that, because government has authority in that area.

Yes, please do explain how it is a 'lesser' form of servitude for a doctor to render his labor than a merchant to sell his gas?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, please do explain how it is a 'lesser' form of servitude for a doctor to render his labor than a merchant to sell his gas?

Another illustration that this is not about principles or rights, it's about waging economic war against blacks.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Even though the government is forcing the doctors to engage in commerce against their will? What about their rights?


government is instituted to protect life, liberty, and property.

it does it by criminal law, and by regulation or administrative law

when one person violates the rights of another ,its criminal

when a person violates the rights of another person inadvertently by say a business, its regulation by fines.

if a person under health and safety knowing with intend, seeks to cause pain suffering or death, then its criminal.

if a hospital refused service causing the lost of life, it violated health and safety.. and will lose its license.

if a doctor is named for not caring for a person and he dies, then the doctor will lose his license, and can faces charges for a lesser extent, than murder 1
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Another illustration that this is not about principles or rights, it's about waging economic war against blacks.

It's getting more transparent is has nothing to do with principles based on the original premise.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

if a doctor is named for not caring for a person and he dies, then the doctor will lose his license, and can faces charges for a lesser extent, than murder1

The doctor didn't kill anyone. Your principle argument is BS. That's obvious now.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The doctor didn't kill anyone. Your principle argument is BS.


right, however when he became a doctor he took an oath that he would perform certain duties, he is taking an oral contract to get his practicing license.

negligence, could be a charge against him
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

right, however when he became a doctor he took an oath that he would perform certain duties, he is taking an oral contract to get his practicing license.

Yeah, well the same thing can be done with a business license. Why must a doctor be a servant while a shop owner gets to be king?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yeah, well the same thing can be done with a business license. Why must a doctor be a servant while a shop owner gets to be king?

a business owner, gets a tax i.d. number for tax purposes, he does not take or sign any contract...and the government cannot create rules of conduct, because it has no authority to tell an individual citizen how to behave, ..if government could do that, then the door is open for them to make laws concerning the conduct of your personal life.

a constitution is what gives government authority.....conduct, morals, are not a duty of government.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yeah, well the same thing can be done with a business license. Why must a doctor be a servant while a shop owner gets to be king?

Requiring a contract be agreed to practice your rights is a violation of rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

a business owner , gets a tax i.d. number for tax purposes, he does not take or sign any contract...and the government cannot rules of conduct, because it has no authority to tell an individual citizen how to behave, ..if government could do that, then the door is open for them to make laws concerning the conduct of your personal life.

a constitution is what gives government authority.....conduct morals, are not a duty of government.

Oh, so now a doctor is not an individual person?

Ah, um the rules of conduct is already open for private places of business to dictate as far as what a person can do during his personal time. Even if nothing is signed, a person can lose his job for doing things on his personal time 'king' owner deems undesirable to him. Why does the owner get to escape such oppression? Why does he get to be dictator? Do pray tell.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Requiring a contract be agreed to practice your rights is a violation of rights.

Oh, I see. Not for the doctor but only for the owner of things.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

right, however when he became a doctor he took an oath that he would perform certain duties, he is taking an oral contract to get his practicing license.

negligence, could be a charge against him

According to your "principles", the doctor should not be obligated to take that oath. It goes against his "right of association". Thus, the "right of association" is not immutable.






There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Well it's pretty transparent after this short interaction who in such a 'perfect' society has great privilege and power and it ain't [sic] the doctors, police, public workers, consumers, workers. It is the property owner specifically merchants. Anyway, think tanks like this dispense this kind of power:
Snip- The 1964 Civil Rights Act Is under Attack Today -- from Within | Cato Institute

Forty years ago, Congress responded to the moral urgency of ending Jim Crow and bringing blacks and other minorities into the American mainstream by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, the primary justification for anti-discrimination laws has shifted from this relatively limited goal to an authoritarian agenda aimed at eliminating all forms of supposedly invidious discrimination. Such a goal cannot possibly be achieved — or even pursued — without grave consequences for civil liberties.
 
Back
Top Bottom