• 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

People have the right to make choices in their life towards their person or property; be that, decisions on who to hang out with, who to date, who to have sex with, who to buy things from, who to sell to, what price they are willing to sell their property at, what wage they are willing to accept for work, where they will work, under what conditions they will accept to work under, who they will allow on your property, who they will provide labor, who they will associate with, etc, etc. The point is that all of those decisions are up to their discretion. Their reasons for deciding on something might not be agreeable to other people, but it is their choice to make, just as it is other peoples choice to make on how to respond to them because of it. It might not be something you can personally tolerate, but people do have the right to be assholes and refuse to do business with you for any reason they want to pick.

I should have smelt it. All this fancy double talk about bodily sovereignty is just another way of saying you if want to be a bigot you can do so.

Sorry - it is spring and I do need fertilizer for the gardens but not buying this particular cartload of manure.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?

Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.

Is that really what we want?

By that logic, short of calling for violence we have government enforced hate speech, since cops could be called in to enforce someone's right to free speech.

Government enforced racism is a blemish on the history of a great country. I hope it never returns.

Government enforced freedom, even if it results in racism by an individual, is never a blight upon our country. Government mandated racism, however, is. There is a major difference.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why does one being more important mean that the other isn't important, I don't get the intended absoluteness of the question.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Prove a negative? I'm not asking you to prove anything at all. I'm asking about your opinion regarding what rights you consider yourself having when dealing with your fellow man.
Not a problem. As an individual, I have the right to exercise my rights to the point and extent that they do not harm others. We as a people have enacted laws to both give guidance as to where one ends and the other begins as well as prescribe penalties for such infringement. Both criminal and civil law.

It's a general question, but I'll paint a hypothetical scenario for you. A sole proprietor (one individual) contract software developer places a notice on his website that he will not do business with any redheaded customers.

Do you feel as if you have the right to violate the person or property of this individual in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?

As an individual, the only action I can take is to not do business with the individual, or choose to overlook this fact and do business with them anyway. It would depend if I felt that the person choosing to refuse to do business with redheads was against my moral and ethical standards.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I should have smelt it. All this fancy double talk about bodily sovereignty is just another way of saying you if want to be a bigot you can do so.

Sorry - it is spring and I do need fertilizer for the gardens but not buying this particular cartload of manure.

Oh no not the "F" word......Freedom! What a horrid idea!
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The problem with that concept is, it doesn't work. It simply. does. not. work.

Why? Business A says "no blacks"...so no blacks (and a significant amount of whites) don't go in there...but enough whites who are either racist or somehow want to defend their brand of libertarianism go in there to keep it afloat. This WOULD happen in the Deep South, because there's more than enough white racists (like those in my own family) who would keep that business afloat.

So racist Business A stays afloat. The blacks get ticked off and open racist Business B that says "no whites". All of a sudden more whites go to whites-only...and more blacks go to blacks-only...and it spirals downhill from there. And we're back to a capitalistic form of Jim Crow.

Not only that, but black person C decides he's going to refuse to leave racist Business A...and so racist Business A calls the cops who wind up forcibly removing black person C...and all of a sudden we have not only government-ENFORCED racism, but race riots just like those we had in the 1960's...except for now the blacks have a LOT more guns than they did then.

Is that really, truly where you want to go? You can dream all day about how you think it OUGHTA be...but there's a big difference between the way things oughta be...and the way things would be.

I love the whole "white people in the deep south are racist" meme there. Got any proof that all of them are? Or that only "white people" in the deep south are prejudiced?

Also, very progressive of you to point out the reason for the racist reaction of Business B, but you don't even consider the possibility that business A might also have a reason.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

As an individual, the only action I can take is to not do business with the individual, or choose to overlook this fact and do business with them anyway. It would depend if I felt that the person choosing to refuse to do business with redheads was against my moral and ethical standards.

And why are these the only two actions you feel you have a right to take? Why do you not feel you have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So you're saying that if I have a piece of property that I want to sell to a particular person, you have the right to demand that I sell it to you instead? You believe that?


Selling property[real] and selling a product[goods and services] is not the same.

There is a differnce in selling my truck[property] on craigslist and having a car lot[property][business][rules, regulations, laws]selling cars to the public.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And why are these the only two actions you feel you have a right to take? Why do you not feel you have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?

Why are you asking these personal questions of me?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why are you asking these personal questions of me?

I'm trying to understand why you feel that certain individuals in society are ethically justified in violating the person or property of a person in order to coerce him into doing business with someone he doesn't want to.

So why are these the only two actions you feel you have a right to take? Why do you not feel you have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm trying to understand why you feel that certain individuals in society are ethically justified in violating the person or property of a person in order to coerce him into doing business with someone he doesn't want to.

So why are these the only two actions you feel you have a right to take? Why do you not feel you have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?

Your not making sense. I explained in what I thought were very clear terms my feelings, and the law, in the previous post.

And I'm not sure I feel comfortable with your accusatory language as it appears you are inferring that I personally have infringed on someone's rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So let's get rid of all laws.

YES!! A man after my own heart. Of course I had to duck the facetious geese.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Your not making sense. I explained in what I thought were very clear terms my feelings, and the law, in the previous post.

And I'm not sure I feel comfortable with your accusatory language as it appears you are inferring that I personally have infringed on someone's rights.

No I'm not accusing you personally of doing so. You have clearly stated that you would feel justified only in either patronizing or boycotting the bigoted shopkeeper, not in violating his body or property in order to coerce some desired behavior.

So my question is: Why? Why do you feel you don't have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It isn't? In that case, I'll have the keys to your car, please...and your house, for that matter.

:dohIt's been said various times that no one is taking anything. The scenario is a merchant is selling something but wants to withhold it from someone he views as less than himself due to prejudices/discrimination. That is control.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No I'm not accusing you personally of doing so. You have clearly stated that you would feel justified only in either patronizing or boycotting the bigoted shopkeeper, not in violating his body or property in order to coerce some desired behavior.

So my question is: Why? Why do you feel you don't have the right to violate his body or property in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?

Okay, I'll play along for just a bit more.

First, redheads are not a protected class in our laws, but let's pretend they are for your scenario. The protected classes are:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

As an individual, I do not have the authority to force anyone to do or not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming me physically or threatening my life or property. No individual does.

As to the government however, we as a people have established guidelines to conduct ourselves. These guidelines include prohibitions against discrimination of the certain protected classes, in certain public interactions.

These prohibitions do not restrict private association or non-association. They only affect public association of groups or entities.

For instance, a business is a separate entity, that is granted a license to enter into commerce. Our Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate Commerce in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Each state also has the power to regulate commerce as well within its borders. As do local municipalities.

Each municipality, state, as well as the Congress, has sets of laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances and rules such as zoning that regulate commerce.

This has been the way our government and our society has operated since day one.

Does this clarify my position better?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Okay, I'll play along for just a bit more.

First, redheads are not a protected class in our laws, but let's pretend they are for your scenario. The protected classes are:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

As an individual, I do not have the authority to force anyone to do or not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming me physically or threatening my life or property. No individual does.

As to the government however, we as a people have established guidelines to conduct ourselves. These guidelines include prohibitions against discrimination of the certain protected classes, in certain public interactions.

These prohibitions do not restrict private association or non-association. They only affect public association of groups or entities.

For instance, a business is a separate entity, that is granted a license to enter into commerce. Our Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate Commerce in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Each state also has the power to regulate commerce as well within its borders. As do local municipalities.

Each municipality, state, as well as the Congress, has sets of laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances and rules such as zoning that regulate commerce.

This has been the way our government and our society has operated since day one.

Does this clarify my position better?

I agree with your first statement 100%, that none of us has the right to force anyone to not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming us physically or threatening our lives or property.

But here's the jump or leap I don't follow. If, as you say, no person has such a right, how can a bigot's body or property be justly violated by any person in order to coerce that bigot to change his behavior? There is no person on Earth who has the right to initiate such a violation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Okay, I'll play along for just a bit more.

First, redheads are not a protected class in our laws, but let's pretend they are for your scenario. The protected classes are:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

As an individual, I do not have the authority to force anyone to do or not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming me physically or threatening my life or property. No individual does.

As to the government however, we as a people have established guidelines to conduct ourselves. These guidelines include prohibitions against discrimination of the certain protected classes, in certain public interactions.

These prohibitions do not restrict private association or non-association. They only affect public association of groups or entities.

For instance, a business is a separate entity, that is granted a license to enter into commerce. Our Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate Commerce in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Each state also has the power to regulate commerce as well within its borders. As do local municipalities.

Each municipality, state, as well as the Congress, has sets of laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances and rules such as zoning that regulate commerce.

This has been the way our government and our society has operated since day one.

Does this clarify my position better?

I will rep, copy and paste your post everytime some asks why?

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

Wording it as "freedom from" is misleading. It should be "security against".

Limiting others is never freedom. Therefore, the OP and the poll is major flawed.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I agree with your first statement 100%, that none of us has the right to force anyone to not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming us physically or threatening our lives or property.

But here's the jump or leap I don't follow. If, as you say, no person has such a right, how can a bigot's body or property be justly violated by any person in order to coerce that bigot to change his behavior? There is no person on Earth who has the right to initiate such a violation.

There is none. No right by which any individual may do so. I've stated that. Not even the government will attempt to change anyone's behavior.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is none. No right by which any individual may do so. I've stated that.

Yes, but some individual WILL actually violate (or threatening to violate) the bigot's body or property in order to coerce him to do business with the protected person. And you seem to be saying that this individual has a right to do so.

Where does this particular individual acquire the right to do so when we've agreed that no individual has such a right? One can't NOT have the right to do something and also HAVE the right to do something at the same time.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, but some individual WILL actually violate (or threatening to violate) the bigot's body or property in order to coerce him to do business with the protected person. And you seem to be saying that this individual has a right to do so.

Where does this particular individual acquire the right to do so when we've agreed that no individual has such a right? One can't NOT have the right to do something and also HAVE the right to do something at the same time.

Man your stretching now. Please don't infer what I said, when what I did say is clearly in print on in this thread.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Oh no not the "F" word......Freedom! What a horrid idea!

Ah yes - the treasured right wing Freedom to be a bigot. Sorry but you can put all the glorious shiny lipstick you want on that ugly fat pig and even put it in a Dior gown - but in the end its just still a pig.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

For instance, a business is a separate entity, that is granted a license to enter into commerce. Our Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate Commerce in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Each state also has the power to regulate commerce as well within its borders. As do local municipalities.

Actually, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate business. They have the power to keep trade regular between the states, but they don't have the power to control business activities. The states on the other hand, never granted themselves the power to regulate business either in any of their constitutions, so in effect, no one has the power to regulate business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Man your stretching now. Please don't infer what I said, when what I did say is clearly in print on in this thread.

I'm not inferring. This is what you said: "No right by which any individual may do so."

But some individual WILL actually violate (or threatening to violate) the bigot's body or property in order to coerce him to do business with the protected person. Do you think this particular individual has a right to do so, and, if so, how do you reconcile that with your opinion that no individual may do so?
 
Back
Top Bottom