• 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

Glen Contrarian said:
So what's the solution? Certain people just don't get to go to the store or go to the doctor anymore?
Click to expand...

They go to another store or doctor. Your hypotheticals dont really mirror real life.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
And your point? Please do not try to merge the rightness or wrongness of an action with the right to do the action. I very much doubt that you will find a person in this thread who will say that it is right and proper for the business to not serve blacks. But simply because it is wrong doesn't mean that they don't have a right to do it. It is just as wrong and discriminatory to say that no black person is allowed in one's home, but it is still within one's right. It is wrong to call a black person "nigger" or a white person "cracker" or "honky", but it is still within one's right to do so.

Also learn how to edit.



Which applies to law and government facilities and services and not to individual rights. "Separate but equal" as related to business came about by Jim Crow laws which mandated discrimination, taking the decision away from business owners, also a violation of private property rights and freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Isn't it remarkable how some of our forumites can't imagine a world without govt mandates?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

US Conservative said:
They go to another store or doctor. Your hypotheticals dont really mirror real life.
Click to expand...
It would be far more of an issue in small downs and communities, where there aren't multiple options for a given need.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

US Conservative said:
So they can drive. This isn't an insurmountable task.
Click to expand...
What if they don't have a vehicle?

Or can't afford the energy costs?

What if the distance is too great to make it feasible?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
You seem to be unaware that there is a difference between the constitution and a particular piece of legislation enacted by congress. One can certainly support the constitution and oppose a particular piece of legislation.

My personal standard does not apply to the constitution....
Click to expand...

Exactly. So quit bitching about Americans who support the Constitution and the powers it gives to the peoples government. You are NOT objecting about a particular piece of legislation. You are objecting to the power given to the government in the Bill of Rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The Mark said:
What if they don't have a vehicle?

Or can't afford the energy costs?

What if the distance is too great to make it feasible?
Click to expand...

Then the demand might be there for a physician who will cater to them. So many "what ifs" here.

There isn't a govt mandate that physicians practice where the govt (or you) wants them to.

I work for a Physician provider group in So Cal. In general, the pay is higher the more inland you go-and thats to attract providers from where they want to be, typically near the beach.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The Mark said:
What if they don't have a vehicle?

Or can't afford the energy costs?

What if the distance is too great to make it feasible?
Click to expand...

What if the business owner decided to shut down instead of having to serve those he doesn't want to?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
You are NOT objecting about a particular piece of legislation. You are objecting to the power given to the government in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

The BOR does not give the govt power, rather it tells the govt what it CANT do. Please get educated.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
You are NOT objecting about a particular piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

Um, yes I am. In particular, I object to the legislation that makes it a crime for a person to control access to his property and to exclude those with whom he does not wish to trade.

You are objecting to the power given to the government in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Nope. I am objecting to legislation that congress opted to enact, not to the bill of rights.

We are all equals. Some are not masters and some are not slaves. None of us has the divine right to tell our fellow man who he must allow on his property or with whom he must exchange. Any legislation that does so is unjust, as it makes some people the master over others.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
What if the business owner decided to shut down instead of having to serve those he doesn't want to?
Click to expand...

What if the doctor just happened to drop dead? People would have to find another doctor.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Um, yes I am. In particular, I object to the legislation that makes it a crime for a person to control access to his property and to exclude those with whom he does not wish to trade.



Nope. I am objecting to legislation that congress opted to enact, not to the bill of rights.

We are all equals. Some are not masters and some are not slaves. None of us has the divine right to tell our fellow man who he must allow on his property or with whom he must exchange. Any legislation that does so is unjust, as it makes some people the master over others.
Click to expand...

This should be clear to all...tragically its not.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

US Conservative said:
This should be clear to all...tragically its not.
Click to expand...

Society has always had to contend with those who wish to use force to set themselves up as master over their fellow man. The tragedy is that it seems every generation must fight its own tyrants and wanna be tyrants.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

US Conservative said:
The BOR does not give the govt power, rather it tells the govt what it CANT do. Please get educated.
Click to expand...

Amendment V clearly contains language which authorizes the use of eminent domain in the USA as it mandates payment for when it is used. The practical end result is the same.Your nitpicking is a distinction without a difference.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Um, yes I am. In particular, I object to the legislation that makes it a crime for a person to control access to his property and to exclude those with whom he does not wish to trade.



Nope. I am objecting to legislation that congress opted to enact, not to the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Quote the exact piece of legislation which you object to. Which law is that exactly? When was it passed? What does it do? Lets see this piece of legislation that you object to.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Quote the exact piece of legislation which you object to. Which law is that exactly? When was it passed? What does it do? Lets see this piece of legislation that you object to.
Click to expand...

You acknowledge that discrimination is currently against the law, do you not? That's the law I'm talking about.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
You acknowledge that discrimination is currently against the law, do you not? That's the law I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

That's not a single law. A lot centers around CRA but that is not the only piece of legislation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
That's not a single law. A lot centers around CRA but that is not the only piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. It's legislation that congress opted to enact. And to object to those particular pieces of legislation has nothing to do with the constitution.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
You acknowledge that discrimination is currently against the law, do you not? That's the law I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. You were objecting to the use of eminent domain even though a clear process for it is authorized in the Constitution. You claim it is legislation you object to and not the Constitutional language. Quote the exact piece of legislation which you object to. Which law is that exactly? When was it passed? What does it do? Lets see this piece of legislation that you object to.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. You were objecting to the use of eminent domain even though a clear process for it is authorized in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Oh so you're back on eminent domain. Okay.

You claim it is legislation you object to and not the Constitutional language. Quote the exact piece of legislation which you object to. Which law is that exactly? When was it passed? What does it do? Lets see this piece of legislation that you object to.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not going to quote the legislation. Do your own homework.

You say you taught government, and yet you don't know that congress writes legislation when it chooses to exercise its powers? Come on now, seriously?

Let me explain then. The constitution grants congress the power to enact laws. Congress may choose to exercise a particular power or not. For example, congress has the power to declare war. This means that they may opt to declare war, or they may opt not to declare war. Congress is not required to declare war.

So you see, there is a difference between congress being allowed to do something and congress actually opting to do that thing.

I oppose congress opting to exercise its power of eminent domain through legislation, because I consider it unethical to forcibly take the property of others. Frankly, I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Nope. I'm not going to quote the legislation.
Click to expand...

So you DO NOT object o the Constitutional power but you DO object to the legislation but when challenged CANNOT provide any such legislation. :doh:shock:

Got it loud and clear. :roll:

So you see, there is a difference between congress being allowed to do something and congress actually opting to do that thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the real world with real people and government acting to solve real problems - the end result is the same so there really is no practical difference. You give government a basic power that governments all over the world use to conduct normal business and its going to be used as a matter of course. Again, you try to preach about a distinction without a difference.

I oppose congress opting to exercise its power of eminent domain through legislation, because I consider it unethical to forcibly take the property of others. Frankly, I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Click to expand...

You got it wrong. I DO understand your position. Its the typical right libertarian pie-in-the-sky nonsense based on axioms and personal beliefs which are absolutely divorced from the real world the rest of us live in where there are consequences for ones political positions. The right libertarian has no political power so they can take any absurd or inane position they want to take since there are never any consequences for the silly positions they take.

So I do understand your position perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Actually, in the real world with real people and government acting to solve real problems - the end result is the same so there really is no practical difference. You give government a basic power that governments all over the world use to conduct normal business and its going to be used as a matter of course. Again, you try to preach about a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

You seem to be having difficulty understanding my position on eminent domain, so I'll put this as simply and succinctly as possible:

I oppose eminent domain.

I oppose it because it is wrong to use force in order to take what belongs to other people.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
You seem to be having difficulty understanding my position on eminent domain, so I'll put this as simply and succinctly as possible:

I oppose eminent domain.

I oppose it because it is wrong to use force in order to take what belongs to other people.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.
Click to expand...

There is no confusion. Your position is crystal clear and in fact could not be any clearer if you posted it fifty more times today. But you got it wrong. I DO understand your position. Its the typical right libertarian pie-in-the-sky nonsense based on axioms and personal beliefs which are absolutely divorced from the real world the rest of us live in where there are consequences for ones political positions. The right libertarian has no political power so they can take any absurd or inane position they want to take since there are never any consequences for the silly positions they take.

So I do understand your position perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom