• 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

US Conservative said:
Said as if the democrat party isnt the party of confiscating wealth to redistribute for votes-and calling it virtuous. Its amazing how little insight you appear to have.
Click to expand...

And yet again I'll ask the question that NO conservative can honestly answer: why is it that the most prosperous democracies on the planet ALL have the exact type of high-tax, high-regulation, strong-social-safety-net systems that conservatives are Absolutely Sure are doomed to fail? I mean, it's been over half a century for ALL of them...and one of them have devolved to third-world status.

On the other hand, the nations that have no substantial minimum wage, low effective taxes, little or no regulation, and little or no safety net...ALL such nations are third world nations, and NONE of them have risen to the standard of living of first-world nations?

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

US Conservative said:
You dont have a right to convenience, buddy. Your racism strawman is so predictable so as to be considered unremarkable.
Click to expand...

Ah. He supports the 'right' of people to be overtly racist in the way they treat other people even to the point of denying medical treatment...but when we point out that his position legitimizing racism is why there are more racists in his party, well, THAT's building a strawman!

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

haymarket said:
ernst barkmann said:
You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Your own twisted perversion of the Constitution is bad enough but when you have to resort to outright lying - that is way way way over the bounds of decency.
Click to expand...


really, ...taxes are apportioned among the states, not on the people.......if you read, you would know the 16th amendment it as direct tax on the people


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

the original constitution gives the federal government NO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE........there are only 4 classes of people in the constitution that federal laws, CAN PERTAIN TO.............pirates......counterfeiters.......traitors, and [tax cheats...per the 16th...which deals with income taxes]

its sad you profess the constitution, and yet, you don't know Constitution 101
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. He supports the 'right' of people to be overtly racist in the way they treat other people even to the point of denying medical treatment...but when we point out that his position legitimizing racism is why there are more racists in his party, well, THAT's building a strawman!

Incredible.
Click to expand...

I can't yawn fast enough.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
haymarket said:
really, ...taxes are apportioned among the states, not on the people.......if you read, you would know the 16th amendment it as direct tax on the people


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

the original constitution gives the federal government NO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE........there are only 4 classes of people in the constitution that federal laws, CAN PERTAIN TO.............pirates......counterfeiters.......traitors, and [tax cheats...per the 16th...which deals with income taxes]

its sad you profess the constitution, and yet, you don't know Constitution 101
Click to expand...

Can you quote for me any US Supreme Court ruling which agrees with you and this rather unique "interpretation" regarding Article I, Section * paragraph on the power to levy and collect taxes and pass laws necessary to execute those powers?

And after you do that, explain how a state can pay a tax without any people in that state paying the tax. This I gotta hear.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
You are babbling nonsense about paragraph 17. Pure unadulterated whackjob weirdo fringe nonsense with no support in the law or in any court decision for such an extreme view.

The opinion of individuals writing 200 years or more ago is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution. Of course you should know this by know because it has been explained to you nearly hundreds of times by now
Click to expand...



The opinion of individuals writing the constitution is irrelevant ?

CONVENTION NOTES on article 1 section 8 clause 17:....2:510; Madison, 5 Sept.]

So much of the (4) clause as related to the seat of Government was agreed to nem: con:

On the residue, to wit, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.

Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of [awing/placing fear] the State into an undue obedience to the General. Government--

Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word "purchased" the words "by the consent of the Legislature of the State" This would certainly make the power safe.

Mr. Govr Morris 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con: as was then the residue of the clause as amended.


as usual, when confronted by the founders, who wrote the Constitution,......you dismiss when you don't like what they have to say!..............

i find it odd, you state they are irrelevant ....even though you have tried to use Hamilton, as a ploy for unlimited government...in which you failed so badly!
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
haymarket said:
The opinion of individuals writing the constitution is irrelevant ?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Compared to the actual Constitution, some incomplete and selective notes or the opinion of an individual means nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Can you quote for me any US Supreme Court ruling which agrees with you and this rather unique "interpretation" regarding Article I, Section * paragraph on the power to levy and collect taxes and pass laws necessary to execute those powers?

And after you do that, explain how a state can pay a tax without any people in that state paying the tax. This I gotta hear.
Click to expand...


back to the USSC now !!!!!!!

here is your post # 2146


haymarket said:
You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Your own twisted perversion of the Constitution is bad enough but when you have to resort to outright lying - that is way way way over the bounds of decency.
Click to expand...

it does say it in the constitution.....

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Yes it is. Compared to the actual Constitution, some incomplete and selective notes or the opinion of an individual means nothing.
Click to expand...

Really since the clauses of the constitution are what the are debating.

to say their opinion is irrelevant .....is just your inability to deal with truth
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

For ****s sake fix your quotes guys.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
And after you do that, explain how a state can pay a tax without any people in that state paying the tax. This I gotta hear.
Click to expand...

if you would read instead of creating your own fantasy, you would know taxes are levied on trade, ...trade is a voluntary action, ..no one is forced to engage in trade



Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
By Library Answer Person On October 4, 2004 · Leave a Comment · In Government

What are the respective differences between taxes, duties, imposts and excises? What does it mean concerning taxes when in the US Constitution it says “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”?

This is from Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Did anybody ever answer what "the right to discrimination" is and what type of discrimaintion are to use for this question that is based on fantasy?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AGENT J said:
Did anybody ever answer what "the right to discrimination" is and what type of discrimaintion are to use for this question that is based on fantasy?
Click to expand...
hmm...

I suppose that, IMO, people have a right to discriminate on their private land, possibly on their private land even if it's publicly accessible (like a store), but if the property is in any way publicly owned, controlled, or supported, discrimination beyond the reasonable (no you can't smoke in the oxygen-tank filling room) is unacceptable.

I think that's kinda how it works currently.


As to what discrimination is, I'd say in a general way it's making a decision based on the available information and data on something.

More specifically, unacceptable discrimination would be making a decision based upon things like race, sex, religion (except if in a religious field that requires such), or political position (except if in a political field that requires such).

Whereas acceptable discrimination would be making a decision based on how an individual or system performed under fair testing (such as, for example, SAT scores).
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The Mark said:
hmm...

1.)I suppose that, IMO, people have a right to discriminate on their private land, possibly on their private land even if it's publicly accessible (like a store), but if the property is in any way publicly owned, controlled, or supported, discrimination beyond the reasonable (no you can't smoke in the oxygen-tank filling room) is unacceptable.

I think that's kinda how it works currently.


2.)As to what discrimination is, I'd say in a general way it's making a decision based on the available information and data on something.

More specifically, unacceptable discrimination would be making a decision based upon things like race, sex, religion (except if in a religious field that requires such), or political position (except if in a political field that requires such).

Whereas acceptable discrimination would be making a decision based on how an individual or system performed under fair testing (such as, for example, SAT scores).
Click to expand...

1.) but what is "the right to discriminate"
we are all free to discriminate so i dont understand that part of the question. Is there some example where people are losing that

The question in the OP makes no sense to me since I havent seen or am unaware of anybody losing any freedoms

2.) yeah the second part i totally get "freedom from discrimination" in SOME ways we do have that RIGHT and FREEDOM, you said acceptable and unacceptable which is legal or illegal and one version of that violates the law and rights and freedoms of others.

so part two I totally get and can come up with perfect examples of how it could be legal or illegal and violate or not violate rights.

I cant do that for the first part?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

no one has a right to be free, from people not liking you and people not wanting to deal with you.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
no one has a right to be free, from people not liking you and people not wanting to deal with you.
Click to expand...

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

Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, and everybody has cars, don't they? And when one's really sick, it's no big deal at all to go 30-45 minutes away instead of 5 minutes away, huh? Since when do minutes matter when one is sick or injured? What are the lives of those despicable poor people (of the wrong color) compared to protecting one's right to be racist?

And y'all wonder why we keep pointing out racists among conservatives and Republicans - we do it because you have a LOT MORE...and your arguments are the reason why you have a lot more.
Click to expand...

You've (and not just you personally) still failed to answer the question posed a couple of times so far. But here let's just put it out again. I'll even rephrase it to make it easier to comprehend. What is the effective difference, in a place where there is only the one doctor (since that seems to be the current example), between a doctor discriminating against (a) particular group(s) of people, a doctor who shuts down instead of allowing the law to tell him/her whom (s)he will and will not conduct business with, and a doctor who dies while still running the business?

AGENT J said:
1.) but what is "the right to discriminate"
we are all free to discriminate so i dont understand that part of the question. Is there some example where people are losing that

The question in the OP makes no sense to me since I havent seen or am unaware of anybody losing any freedoms
Click to expand...

Are we free to discriminate? I would have to say that is depending on how you are applying the term. If it is merely in how we view things and our opinions, then you are perfectly right in that such freedom is in no way diminished. However, if it is in action, then the argument could be made that such a freedom has been limited. Now ultimately I see "right to discriminate" as a natural extension of private property rights and freedom of association. But there are those who want what is private property to not be private property for some purposes, and yet still treat it as private property for the purpose of taxes and other issues.

2.) yeah the second part i totally get "freedom from discrimination" in SOME ways we do have that RIGHT and FREEDOM, you said acceptable and unacceptable which is legal or illegal and one version of that violates the law and rights and freedoms of others.
Click to expand...

acceptable and unacceptable could be legal, or it social or even both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I believe that The Mark needs to clarify the context in which he used the term "unacceptable".
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
1.)Are we free to discriminate? I would have to say that is depending on how you are applying the term. If it is merely in how we view things and our opinions, then you are perfectly right in that such freedom is in no way diminished. However, if it is in action, then the argument could be made that such a freedom has been limited.

2.)Now ultimately I see "right to discriminate" as a natural extension of private property rights and freedom of association.

3.) But there are those who want what is private property to not be private property for some purposes, and yet still treat it as private property for the purpose of taxes and other issues.

4.)acceptable and unacceptable could be legal, or it social or even both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I believe that The Mark needs to clarify the context in which he used the term "unacceptable".
Click to expand...

1.) agreed
yes people are 100% free to discriminate as long as it doesn't break the law or violate rights

2.) again i simply dont see any "right" to discriminate, people are free to but i dont see a right per say.

3.) as far as property right the same principles apply to us all. You have some freedoms the come with your private property but one still doesnt get to break the law or violate the rights of others

4.) I can agree with that
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
Really since the clauses of the constitution are what the are debating.

to say their opinion is irrelevant .....is just your inability to deal with truth
Click to expand...

Your own twisted interpretation based on extremist politics IS NOT the truth.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
if you would read instead of creating your own fantasy, you would know taxes are levied on trade, ...trade is a voluntary action, ..no one is forced to engage in trade



Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
By Library Answer Person On October 4, 2004 · Leave a Comment · In Government

What are the respective differences between taxes, duties, imposts and excises? What does it mean concerning taxes when in the US Constitution it says “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”?

This is from Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.
Click to expand...

Not one word that you typed negates the reality that the Congress has the power of taxation. And that is the issue.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
haymarket said:
really, ...taxes are apportioned among the states, not on the people.......if you read, you would know the 16th amendment it as direct tax on the people


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

the original constitution gives the federal government NO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE........there are only 4 classes of people in the constitution that federal laws, CAN PERTAIN TO.............pirates......counterfeiters.......traitors, and [tax cheats...per the 16th...which deals with income taxes]

its sad you profess the constitution, and yet, you don't know Constitution 101
Click to expand...

There is not a single US Supreme COurt decision regarding taxation and the power of the national government that agrees with your interpretation. Not one in over 220 years.

That alone should tell you how extreme your views are when there is absolutely no support in law or in history for your views.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AGENT J said:
1.) agreed
yes people are 100% free to discriminate as long as it doesn't break the law or violate rights
Click to expand...

The existence of a law don't not automatically indicate the existence or lack thereof of a right. The law at one point allowed slavery, which was in direct violation of the rights of the blacks of that era. So there is a major difference between "One has the legal ability to do this action" and "One has the right to do this action".
2.) again i simply dont see any "right" to discriminate, people are free to but i dont see a right per say.
Click to expand...

As I noted it's not a right per se' but a natural and logical extension of both the personal property rights as well as freedom of association. If there was a "freedom from discrimination" it would have to be universal, and include things like hair color, height, weight, clothes style, etc. And indeed such is how it should be for interactions between any given citizen and the government, but not between any two given citizens.

3.) as far as property right the same principles apply to us all. You have some freedoms the come with your private property but one still doesnt get to break the law or violate the rights of others
Click to expand...

Indeed, I have already taken ernst barkmann to task over this and his wording of his argument. I agree with his principle and what he wants to say, he just keeps undermining himself. The problem comes in that some people want to assign extra rights that would be in direct conflict with actual rights. That is not to say that actual rights don't have conflicts with each other, or at least seem to, but when you take the time to apply the logic, the conflicts really aren't there. I actually do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that right absolve me of any consequences should others get hurt as a direct result of my speech? No. I've caused bodily harm to others thus violating their rights. Even if nobody had so much as twitched when I yelled "fire", thus their rights were not violated, the property owner could then throw me out. My free speech rights are not violated, and indeed he can do nothing to silence me as I am en route off of the property. Even if I refuse to leave he cannot violate (legally) my free speech rights and forcibly silence me. Likewise with freedom of association, one is free to choose who they will and will not associate with for whatever reason, be it personal or business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Your own twisted interpretation based on extremist politics IS NOT the truth.
Click to expand...

so your saying that when the constitutional convention was taking place they didn't debate the clauses that were proposed?

you hay have been beaten so bad in this thread, that now you shifted to not even addressing what is being said.

haymarket-:hitsfan:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom