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 96 of 230 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106146196 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 960 of 2291

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

  1. #951
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    –Prejudice is an ATTITUDE and Discrimination is an ACTION.

    The important distinction here is you are free to be prejudice but once you discriminate your action is directly harming another person or group of people. If you own several gas stations in town, or if a person lives in a place where many people dislike you because of your skin color your actions of not granting permission for a group of people to engage in trade of goods and services is extremely powerful. What you are creating is a society of the powerful vs insubordinate and that is what we had in certain places in the US. Places like Nazi Germany also practiced this form of discrimination. There is NOTHING free about that kind of society. If you think that is not the definition of oppression, I don't know what is!
    I don't believe anyone here has ever said that discrimination is always a good thing, or that racial discrimination is ever a good thing. I agree that not agreeing to engage in trade of goods and services with someone is extremely powerful. Well-executed boycotts work. Forcing someone by law to engage in trade against their will is also extremely powerful, and much more like Nazi Germany than an individual racist's actions. If everyone in town banded together and refused to sell food to the blacks, I would concede your point. That would be approaching the definition of oppression and a situation where I would advocate economic isolation and ruination of the town and everyone in it. Black people who stayed in that town (particularly if they had a job) would be contributing to a bunch of racist assholes by trading with them...it's extremely powerful, you know. Could you tell me why, again, you want black people to trade with racist assholes rather than simply denying the racist assholes the business?

  2. #952
    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 FederalRepublic View Post
    I don't believe anyone here has ever said that discrimination is always a good thing, or that racial discrimination is ever a good thing. I agree that not agreeing to engage in trade of goods and services with someone is extremely powerful. Well-executed boycotts work. Forcing someone by law to engage in trade against their will is also extremely powerful, and much more like Nazi Germany than an individual racist's actions. If everyone in town banded together and refused to sell food to the blacks, I would concede your point. That would be approaching the definition of oppression and a situation where I would advocate economic isolation and ruination of the town and everyone in it. Black people who stayed in that town (particularly if they had a job) would be contributing to a bunch of racist assholes by trading with them...it's extremely powerful, you know. Could you tell me why, again, you want black people to trade with racist assholes rather than simply denying the racist assholes the business?
    We really don't need to set up a situation where certain groups of people only engage with trade with each other. That creates a rather segregated society in itself. There is really no reason people can't put their prejudices aside when it comes to any kind of business transaction whether it's making a bank deposit, filling a gas tank or buying food. The other way was done before and it made for an oppressive society. The current civil right's laws have been far less oppressive than the alternative.

  3. #953
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,486
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That is a different argument. In that case anyone that is looking to open a business must acquire a business license and once acquired must follow certain rules that are open to change at any point in time from the government. In effect, when the government requires someone to acquire a business license they are not only requiring people take action to take part in their rights, which by itself is a right violation, but are forcing individuals to forfeit their right to operate their business in the way they desire.

    Offering people a choice on how much freedom they will have is rather stupid argument on your part.
    Any community will have its own rules re the sort of society it wishes to have. This is how the Founders intended it to be. Those who want to be super religious, morally rigid, a very proper ordered society can have that. Those who want a wide open, no rules, no restrictions kind of lawless "Deadwood type" society can have that. Carmel CA passed a law that no ice cream or other such foods could be consumed outside of buildings or designated eating areas in the downtown area--this to prevent unsightly spills from marring their pristine historic image. That is their right to have.

    What the Founders did not intend the USA to ever be is a country in which one citizen can be forced to serve another. Yes, slavery was legal in all states when the Constitution was ratified but black people were not full citizens. And in the spirit of liberty that the Constitution provided, and with no involvement of the federal government, one by one the original 13 colonies and other states began abolishing slavery which would have become universal eventually had there been no bloody civil war. The federal government did not encourage slavery and as new territories opened up--most especially the great northwest--it was done so that any new settlements would not have slavery. The pressures against and opposition to slavery would have ended it in this country as it did in Canada and Mexico and elsewhere with or without government pressure. Just as women would be given the vote; just as all other immigrants who first met with resistance here would be assimilated into the whole society, the people themselves chose to eliminate all sorts of artificial barriers. Give people their freedom, and sooner or later, they will choose the right thing.

    The Founders knew that a free people would make mistakes just as un-free people do. But they would eventually figure things out and choose the best path which, while we were still a free people, we mostly did. A business that discriminates against certain groups of people because of who they are, not because of what they do, would likely find disfavor with large groups of people and via publicity or word of mouth will almost always suffer much more loss of business than any advantage that can be gained. That generally is enough to convince the hardest heart to do things differently.

    But when I, Citizen A, is told by my government that I must provide service to Citizen B, for whatever reason, then I no longer have any rights at all.
    "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

  4. #954
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    No, I'm not assuming that at all. Making a group of people have to search in hopes to find someone willing to sell to them due to something they have zero power to change is not freedom.
    There's no such thing as collective freedom. An individual telling a group of people he won't do business with them because of something they have zero power to change is a ****ty thing to do, but it is actually freedom. Bringing another woman home for sex while your wife is in the hospital dying of cancer is a ****ty thing to do, also freedom. Personally, I'd like to see John Edwards hung by his toenails for being a terrible person, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw being a complete dick. Why? Because it can't be done while still having equal protection under the law.

  5. #955
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    A person that owns a buisness owns the property also. As such it is still private property. Just because he/she opens it up to the public does not change that. Public property are things like parks, city hall, etc etc. Things that are government owned and that the government allows the general populace in.

    I personally believe that the right to association does not stop just because you own a buisness. As such if an owner wishes to discriminate against someone because of their skin color then that is their right to do so. However it is also the right of people to decline to go to that buisness. Its an open street that goes both ways. If you cannot force people to go to a certain buisness then you cannot force buisness's to accept customers that they do not want. Personally I think that AA laws should be gotten rid of. It will show us who are the real racists and as such they can be shunned.
    Ah. The almighty market would drive the racists out of business. Sounds good, doesn't it? Sounds really reasonable, doesn't it?

    The problem with your theory - which I've heard espoused many times before - is that it wouldn't work that way because we have something called the Deep South, where racism is still strong. All it takes is ONE racist business to succeed to start the vicious circle. That business which wouldn't allow blacks attracts enough racists (and there ARE enough racists in the Deep South) to succeed...and what happens? Sooner or later the blacks get ticked off, and open their own blacks-only business. THEN the racist whites point to the blacks doing that, and say, "See? It was the blacks who were racist all along" and so the whites-only business gets more business, and more businesses like that open, and more blacks-only businesses open in retaliation...

    ...and suddenly we're on our way down that vicious circle to a market-enforced Jim Crow era.

    Not only that, but when the blacks decide to come in and sit down at the counter in the whites-only business (just like they did in the Civil Rights struggle), the whites would call the police and say, "We don't allow blacks in our business" and so the police are forced to enforce the law...

    ...and suddenly we have government-enforced racism...and you know as well as I do that this would be all over the media. There would be riots - particularly in the black community - and innocent people would die.

    Is this really where you want America to go?
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #956
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Neither of those examples are preventing a person from engaging in trade which any person willingly to follow rules they can control (like behavior) should do with a business, otherwise all that is being produced is oppression.
    This doesn't make sense.

  7. #957
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Wrong. At that moment you are headed for court, where it will get sorted out.
    Wrong. At that moment it's all over the media. In case you haven't noticed, the media does NOT wait for the court to decide...

    ...and what could the court do anyway, if the LAW allows businesses to refuse business to those of a different color? The court, sir, is NOT there to decide right or wrong - the court is there to enforce the LAW.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  8. #958
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    There are plenty of lessons to be learned from history if we are willing to listen. No society that shuns people due to attributes they have no control of changing has been a free society. It has been the exact opposite. It has been an extremely oppressive and repressive one. On the other hand, civil rights laws exist now and I'm not seeing merchants oppressed because they have to put their prejudices aside in order to conduct business.
    So there has never been a free society. I might agree with that to a certain extent, but to say that all societies have been extremely oppressive and repressive is a bit over the top.

  9. #959
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,461

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    you are being racist ,not government
    Really? How am I being racist for supporting the right to be free from discrimination based on race?

    And nice to see someone from Turkey - Istanbul's one of the top ten places I'd like to see in the world...and I'd love to walk the battlefields of Gallipoli where the Turks threw off the English in their aborted forcing of the Dardanelles.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  10. #960
    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 FederalRepublic View Post
    There's no such thing as collective freedom. An individual telling a group of people he won't do business with them because of something they have zero power to change is a ****ty thing to do, but it is actually freedom. Bringing another woman home for sex while your wife is in the hospital dying of cancer is a ****ty thing to do, also freedom.
    That is faulty logic because what you are saying is people are oppressed if they can't act the way they please. Sorry, but we do have restrictions on how we conduct ourselves whether you find that oppressive or not.

    Personally, I'd like to see John Edwards hung by his toenails for being a terrible person, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw being a complete dick. Why? Because it can't be done while still having equal protection under the law.
    People most often have legal recourse when someone does wrong. It's a fact of life. We have laws for reasons. There is no law that would hang him by his toenails, but she could have still went after him legally. Many divorce cases end that way. Very rarely do people walk Scott free.

Posting Permissions

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