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

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

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.

Click to expand...

a doctor is taking an oath to do.....he must fulfill his oath or lose this license.....he could not obtain the license unless he agreed .

there is no law for rules of conduct, government does not have that authority.....laws are made for rights violations or health and safety, not based on peoples behavior.

the business owner signs no contract, he gets a tax i.d. and is in business......

your last part, are you wanting to get into the owner/ worker relationship?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

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.

Click to expand...

again, jim crow laws were government instituted discrimination laws.......i cant believe your guys keep throwing that back into the mix, ..i guess because you have got nothing else.

constitutional law is supreme law, and no law is higher, not federal or state, you cannot make a law which overrides the constitutional law.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Oh, I see. Not for the doctor but only for the owner of things.

Click to expand...

a person does not have a right to be a doctor, he has a right to seek and be a doctor on his on merit.

when something is a right, ..its yours, you cannot be denied it.

that is why there is no right TO food or water....their is a right to seek food and water.

a right to food and water, would mean it must be provided to you free of charge.

a business owner or person has the right to commerce to buy and sell to ever they chose..........and NO, you don't have a right to force commerce thru them, you have the ability to seek commerce with other people who will deal with you.

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

ernst barkmann said:

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

Click to expand...

I believe that only became true in the 80s - that hospitals were required to treat anybody who could potentially die without immediate medical intervention. But as far as I know, what you're saying is true only in the case of emergency treatment. What I mean is that, in theory, without discrimination law, a hospital could still refuse to see a patient based on race so long as they're not in need of immediate emergency intervention.

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

ernst barkmann said:

a doctor is taking an oath to do.....he must fulfill his oath or lose this license.....he could not obtain the license unless he agreed .

there is no law for rules of conduct, government does not have that authority.....laws are made for rights violations or health and safety, not based on peoples behavior.

the business owner signs no contract, he gets a tax i.d. and is in business......

your last part, are you wanting to get into the owner/ worker relationship?

Click to expand...

Why not, we are talking about personal rights so it's also important to examine the rights these people who fund think tanks (that peach property rights) to get the whole picture. And, it's pretty easy to see the whole picture here. Individual rights are very limited for many people yet we sit here on this thread and fret about property rights. Oy vey!

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

ernst barkmann said:

again, jim crow laws were government instituted discrimination laws.......i cant believe your guys keep throwing that back into the mix, ..i guess because you have got nothing else.

constitutional law is supreme law, and no law is higher, not federal or state, you cannot make a law which overrides the constitutional law.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well get over it because there is one called the Civil Rights Law. Why don't you take up the good fight with the Supreme Court. I'm sure you'd get funding.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Yeah, well get over it because there is one called the Civil Rights Law. Why don't you take up the good fight with the Supreme Court. I'm sure you'd get funding.

Click to expand...

if you want to get into supreme law i will tell you something that will shock you and you will say ...what?????

the u.s. congress has no legislative authority on state or private property at all

all one has to do is read article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution, and the constitutional convention notes, of the founders sept 5 1787....as they talk about that clause, a Mr. Gerry states they have no authority, but only on federal property.

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

ernst barkmann said:

if you want to get into supreme law i will tell you something that will shock you and you will say ...what?????

the u.s. congress has no legislative authority on state or private property at all

all one has to do is read article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution, and the constitutional convention notes, of the founders sept 5 1787....as they talk about that clause, a Mr. Gerry states they have no authority, but only on federal property.

Click to expand...

Well of course they do in a private hospital.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Well of course they do in a private hospital.

Click to expand...

sorry no... the federal government was given no legislative role in the lifes liberty property of the American people...as stated in federalist 45

the federal government is only given legislative authority on federal property only.

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

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Focus: the point was police officer are not in that type of servitude. Before we go on, admit you're talking about something different as I said you were and you disagreed. You guys dance too hard sometimes.

Second, once we're agreed, you're wrong. No one is forcing them to be in business. Nor are they uncompensated. Nor are they not free to live their type of life. They can still gobble up cheese burgers, smoke a pack a day, and drink booze all night. They're free to live as they please. They just can't walk nude in the Mall, rob a 7-11, or discriminate against a paying customer. So don't be hyperbolic. No one is in servitude.

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

ernst barkmann said:

sorry no... the federal government was given no legislative role in the lifes liberty property of the American people...as stated in federalist 45

the federal government is only given legislative authority on federal property only.

Click to expand...

Why do I care what the federalist papers say?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

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.

Click to expand...

They're not being asked. They're being forced. There is a difference.

There is also a difference between what happened Pre-Civil Rights era and what I am suggesting. Pre-Civil Rights they had laws that were made, supported, and enforced segregation by the government. That is something which you are failing to mention in your talks about the Civil Rights. It was government force that was creating an air of fear and hatred because a black would go to prison for violating the laws by sitting next to a white person. What I am suggesting leaves the government totally out of it. The government cannot support or enforce segregation.

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

Mustachio said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is in large part due to media demonizing them because of 9/11. Before then they were barely a blip on anyones radar. As for them not being treated as equal...in what way? Poor people say that they are not treated equally all the time. Doesn't make it true.

Mustachio said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about now. They had a legitimate claim 70+ years ago. Not so much today. Today alot (not all) of blacks still claim that "The Man" is holding them down. Never mind the fact that they can get full scholarships just because they are black. Never mind that bleeding hearts have lowered test scores because blacks have been testing lower than whites. I've been from one coast of the US to the other. Lived in Washington state and South Carolina and alot of states in between and to the side. I've not once met a dumb black person. But I have met plenty of lazy ones. Test scores should not be lowered just because many blacks have a habit of being lazy. Partly because they think that "The Man" owes them. And yes, i've met blacks who have said that very thing..that they are taking advantage of government programs because "The Man" owes them. Never mind that they weren't even born until 20 years ago. Now do you understand?

And before you (general "you") go into some self righteous mode please note that I said "many"...not all. I've also met alot of blacks that worked their asses off and are better off than me by far. And there are alot more that I haven't met but are examples that blacks can succeed. There are lots of black politicians, scientists, sports stars (Michael Jordan anyone?) and other vocations.

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

Boo Radley said:

Focus: the point was police officer are not in that type of servitude. Before we go on, admit you're talking about something different as I said you were and you disagreed. You guys dance too hard sometimes.

Click to expand...

If I was talking of a different type of servitude then why is it that 1: you did not actually address what I said? and 2: how could I use your own definitions and apply them as I have?

BTW: you're making a strawman by trying to focus only on police. They are a part of the government and as such are not allowed, nor should they ever be allowed, to discriminate. Plus they are employee's, not business owners. Which is our topic of discussion.

Boo Radley said:

Second, once we're agreed, you're wrong. No one is forcing them to be in business. Nor are they uncompensated. Nor are they not free to live their type of life. They can still gobble up cheese burgers, smoke a pack a day, and drink booze all night. They're free to live as they please. They just can't walk nude in the Mall, rob a 7-11, or discriminate against a paying customer. So don't be hyperbolic. No one is in servitude.

Click to expand...

But you are forcing them to either serve someone or go out of business, or not be able to exercise their right to start and run their own business. You are forcing them to either choose to live a certain way or get punished. And you are denying them the right to association. People have a right to go into business for themselves so long as that business does not interfere in other peoples rights. Denying to serve someone is not violating anyones right as no one has a right to force people to sell their property to them. I met and answered and applied your definition of servitude to store owners. Yet you still discount it...actually you ignored it. You didn't once address my points. Just went off on another point, partially repeating yourself.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Why do I care what the federalist papers say?

Click to expand...

Do you know what the Federalist Papers were?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

It's never equal footing when someone can withhold resources from you due to something you can't change. That is called power over a person. That kind of power is illegal.

Click to expand...

So when the buyer withholds the resource of money from the seller due to an attribute that the seller can't change, it's illegal? Doesn't seem to be. But I agree that such is unequal, since you are saying that the buyer can and the seller can't.

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

Mustachio said:

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

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

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?

Click to expand...

1: People have a right to life, a doctor not treating them endangers that life. The government has a valid power in ensuring that people get medical attention.

2: Most private doctors do not have the tools necessary to carry out life saving surgury in their clinics. As such they must send the patient to the hospital if such is needed. Those hospitals are generally called "community hospitals" for a reason. They are funded in large part due to contributions and government monies. Which makes them public hospitals and therefore under the same mandate that any other government institution would be regarding discrimination. Not allowed to.

This applies to any privately owned business also. If you take money from the government then you are in essence employed by the government to provide a service, as such you are under the same mandate of non-discimination.

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

ecofarm said:

My statement was for others, not you. I don't expect you to understand, and I don't care what you understand and don't.

Click to expand...

I asked you whether you think you have the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will.

At least I take comfort in the fact that you refuse to answer.

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

ernst barkmann said:

wrong, i am an individual person, not a government i can discriminate if i wish, i don't have to like you sell you trade to deal with you in any way.

you unfortunately, do not believe in the rights of the people........and do not recolonize right to property or association

.

Click to expand...

Just because you're an "individual person" (which also applies to ALL other people) doesn't give you some kind of "right" to discriminate against others. If a thing you do does deliberate harm to other people - as discrimination certainly does - then you do NOT somehow have a right to do that thing.

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

Kal'Stang said:

1: People have a right to life, a doctor not treating them endangers that life. The government has a valid power in ensuring that people get medical attention.

Click to expand...

You support universal socialized healthcare?

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

Federalist said:

At least I take comfort in the fact that you refuse to answer.

Click to expand...

I bet you do that often.

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

ecofarm said:

You support universal socialized healthcare?

Click to expand...

Actually I do. Why?

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Just because you're an "individual person" (which also applies to ALL other people) doesn't give you some kind of "right" to discriminate against others. If a thing you do does deliberate harm to other people - as discrimination certainly does - then you do NOT somehow have a right to do that thing.

Click to expand...

What harm is there in not selling someone an ipod just because they're <insert skin color here>?

And as I've pointed out several times already, people do have a right to disciminate. I've even named the Rights that we have that support it.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Actually I do. Why?

Click to expand...

Just checking to see if you're always inconsistent, or only in claiming that no harm is done by refusing service.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Actually a person does have that right. Via free speech, freedom of association, the right to boycott, and the right to private property.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's probably how the Nazi's probably felt, too: "We have a right to tell the Jews that no, we don't want to do business with them!".

But in reality, you have no such right except for in your mind and in the minds of those who believe as you do.