• 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

That would only apply to government discrimination. Since libertarians don't support public education I thought it would have been obvious I was referring to private discrimination.

Well, it's a great thing you're wrong, now ain't it?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Due process, Equal protection.

normally isn't that something that has to be caused by state action?

If you get kicked off this website you cannot claim a first amendment violation
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Name me a right that isn't dependent on discrimination. Have fun with that.

and so you would go down the metaphorical trail of hypothetical twists and turns of what you feel to be logic. However, in the REAL world, you either allow discrimination against others...or you don't.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I voted that freedom from discrimination is more important but that does not mean that no discrimination (selectivity) may be done. The problem with many anti-discrimination laws is that they assume that if service was denied to a "protected class" member that it was because the person was a member of that class. I should be free to refuse service to anyone and not have to prove my innocence - the complete burden of proof should lie with the one alleging discrimination.

I quite agree. Having nearly lost my career due to a false accusation, I've learned to not be so quick to judge...and to demand proof of accusation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And that's not how the law is enforced. To use an easy example, if you refuse to do business with someone who walks through your door because they're Jewish? You've violated the law . . . whether he owns a slaughterhouse or not. ;)

But that is the problem; the businessman says the reason was the slaughterhouse (work location/scope), the denied customer says the reason was personal (their religion). Who, if either, should the state believe (and why)?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

and so you would go down the metaphorical trail of hypothetical twists and turns of what you feel to be logic. However, in the REAL world, you either allow discrimination against others...or you don't.

Most of us are not in a position to 'allow' what others do. I choose a government that has less power rather than more. if one of the distasteful byproducts of limiting the power of government is that some private businesses engage in silly discrimination, that is still better than giving government the power to "stop" such activities. and in a competitive environment-making unsound business decisions will cost the decision maker
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm not an "it's all or nothing" girl. I think that makes it too broad. And the answer to the question "should you legally be allowed to tell someone you won't do business with them (in your open-to-the-public business) because they're black", the answer is "absolutely not". But at the same time, I can't agree with forcing people to enter into commerce with everyone whether they want to or not, just to prevent that from happening.

If you are open to the public, sure, you can deny someone if you can reasonably show why that person was not someone with which you should do business i.e. they don't have money, they have a history of fraud, you have a not-so-nice personal history with that person, and so forth. You're refusing service on the basis of what that person has done or has failed to do. Of course you have the right to refuse service in occasions like that!

But refusing to do business due to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation...that's more what my question is about.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

What if I did other slaughterhouses, and decided I didn't want to do them anymore? And the first time I decided it the owner happened to be black.

I'm not saying I'm right, ecofarm. I'm saying it's something I consider when considering everything that pertains to commerce.

The threat to society of a wrongful claim does not negate the need for legislation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Most of us are not in a position to 'allow' what others do. I choose a government that has less power rather than more.

Your vote is your voice...but as long as you're living on our American oligarchy-masquerading-as-representative-democracy soil, your rights are defined by the laws passed by the government thereof.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But that is the problem; the businessman says the reason was the slaughterhouse (work location/scope), the denied customer says the reason was personal (their religion). Who, if either, should the state believe (and why)?

The state believes the defense unless there is convincing evidence. You have some idea of how the court system works, right? Pretending to have no idea how courts work is not a defense for crying 'sky falling'.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Most of us are not in a position to 'allow' what others do. I choose a government that has less power rather than more. if one of the distasteful byproducts of limiting the power of government is that some private businesses engage in silly discrimination, that is still better than giving government the power to "stop" such activities. and in a competitive environment-making unsound business decisions will cost the decision maker

The government condones discrimination all the time. It's the type and level that forms the measure of what is acceptable, and what is not. And I suppose that is as it should be.

I think it foolish and an abomination to discriminate against someone based on their skin color, cultural heritage, etc..

However, the trend seems to be to erase all form of "discrimination" no matter the impact or purpose.

If the government becomes the only arbiter of what is and isn't, I fear a day when such power can become a method to eliminate, as opposed to protect.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The threat to society of a wrongful claim does not negate the need for legislation.

In my opinion, there does not need to be legislation requiring every business owner to have to engage in commerce with every person who wants to engage in commerce with said business owner, because many if not most of the time, the reasons aren't based in an -ism (sexism, racism, etc.).

I have a friend who owns a hair salon. A few months ago, a man came in for a haircut. This man had also raped my friend's sister back in the 1980s. He did his time and was released, but she for obvious reasons did not want to touch him. She refused to serve him and refused to allow any of her staff to serve him. If a law was in place that made it a requirement to serve everyone who walked into her place of business, she would have broken the law. You may not find that problematic. I do.

Is that an extreme example? Yes it is. But it's a real one. And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The state believes the defense unless there is convincing evidence. You have some idea of how the court system works, right? Pretending to have no idea how courts work is not a defense for crying 'sky falling'.

Indeed, I do. That is the problem - one must often suffer arrest, post bond and then appear in court to be heard. That is quite a high price to be paid by those presumed to be innocent. ;)
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Really it is more like black people stopping in for a soda at the Woolworths and not being able to get one. Not my idea of America.
In my opinion, there does not need to be legislation requiring every business owner to have to engage in commerce with every person who wants to engage in commerce with said business owner, because many if not most of the time, the reasons aren't based in an -ism (sexism, racism, etc.).

I have a friend who owns a hair salon. A few months ago, a man came in for a haircut. This man had also raped my friend's sister back in the 1980s. He did his time and was released, but she for obvious reasons did not want to touch him. She refused to serve him and refused to allow any of her staff to serve him. If a law was in place that made it a requirement to serve everyone who walked into her place of business, she would have broken the law. You may not find that problematic. I do.

Is that an extreme example? Yes it is. But it's a real one. And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you are open to the public, sure, you can deny someone if you can reasonably show why that person was not someone with which you should do business i.e. they don't have money, they have a history of fraud, you have a not-so-nice personal history with that person, and so forth. You're refusing service on the basis of what that person has done or has failed to do. Of course you have the right to refuse service in occasions like that!

But refusing to do business due to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation...that's more what my question is about.

And if you are a white woman who refuses to serve a black person you have a not-so-nice history with, and there was a law that said you have to serve everyone, you could bogged down in paperwork and litigation for years because that black person says it's because you're a racist. Your name could appear in a paper. Your business could be in ruins before you are ever convicted of a crime.

You don't ever have to serve someone without money, so that really isn't a relevant example. And if someone has a history of fraud, and that person served his time somewhere, you also don't have a right to refuse to serve that person "just because" you don't want to if there is a law in place saying you have to. In our society, we don't force people to be punished for the rest of their lives because of fraud. You don't have to hire that person, but you can't shun that person if the law says you can't shun that person.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

In my opinion, there does not need to be legislation requiring every business owner to have to engage in commerce with every person who wants to engage in commerce with said business owner, because many if not most of the time, the reasons aren't based in an -ism (sexism, racism, etc.).

I have a friend who owns a hair salon. A few months ago, a man came in for a haircut. This man had also raped my friend's sister back in the 1980s. He did his time and was released, but she for obvious reasons did not want to touch him. She refused to serve him and refused to allow any of her staff to serve him. If a law was in place that made it a requirement to serve everyone who walked into her place of business, she would have broken the law. You may not find that problematic. I do.

Is that an extreme example? Yes it is. But it's a real one. And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

But isn't that what I pointed out? She refused NOT because of that person's race/religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation...but because of what someone did or failed to do. And it's as MLK said - we want to be judged not by the color of the skin, but by the content of the character. It's a very, very bad idea to allow people to discriminate due to a person's condition at birth instead of by what that person has or has not done.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And if you are a white woman who refuses to serve a black person you have a not-so-nice history with, and there was a law that said you have to serve everyone, you could bogged down in paperwork and litigation for years because that black person says it's because you're a racist. Your name could appear in a paper. Your business could be in ruins before you are ever convicted of a crime.

You don't ever have to serve someone without money, so that really isn't a relevant example. And if someone has a history of fraud, and that person served his time somewhere, you also don't have a right to refuse to serve that person "just because" you don't want to if there is a law in place saying you have to. In our society, we don't force people to be punished for the rest of their lives because of fraud. You don't have to hire that person, but you can't shun that person if the law says you can't shun that person.

My reply #66 applies.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But isn't that what I pointed out? She refused NOT because of that person's race/religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation...but because of what someone did or failed to do. And it's as MLK said - we want to be judged not by the color of the skin, but by the content of the character. It's a very, very bad idea to allow people to discriminate due to a person's condition at birth instead of by what that person has or has not done.

If a law is in place that says you have to engage in business with everyone then the law would be applied to her.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Again, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
What if a restaurant or motel refused to accommodate a customer purely because of their race? Aside from a confession, how could you prove that it was racially motivated?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

In my opinion, there does not need to be legislation requiring every business owner to have to engage in commerce with every person who wants to engage in commerce with said business owner, because many if not most of the time, the reasons aren't based in an -ism (sexism, racism, etc.).

I have a friend who owns a hair salon. A few months ago, a man came in for a haircut. This man had also raped my friend's sister back in the 1980s. He did his time and was released, but she for obvious reasons did not want to touch him. She refused to serve him and refused to allow any of her staff to serve him. If a law was in place that made it a requirement to serve everyone who walked into her place of business, she would have broken the law. You may not find that problematic. I do.

Is that an extreme example? Yes it is. But it's a real one. And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

You continue to ignore the difference between legal and illegal discrimination. No court would ever begrudge a business the right to not serve someone who raped an employee or an employee's family member.

It's a stupid example, because there is no chance of prosecution.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Well, it's a great thing you're wrong, now ain't it?

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

Indeed, I do. That is the problem - one must often suffer arrest, post bond and then appear in court to be heard. That is quite a high price to be paid by those presumed to be innocent. ;)

So let's get rid of all laws.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is no right to discriminate, therefore that's out immediately. You're welcome to hate people based on their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. all you want, you're just not free to act on it.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

and so you would go down the metaphorical trail of hypothetical twists and turns of what you feel to be logic. However, in the REAL world, you either allow discrimination against others...or you don't.

Does that mean you can't name me a right that isn't dependent on the right to discrimination?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So let's get rid of all laws.

We need not go quite that far, just treat discrimination as a civil matter. As far as false criminal accusations go, the state should be required to pay restitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom