• 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 is just plain extreme thinking.

oh, what did the CO judge say to the bakery........"Bake the cake"

if the bakery refused, they would have paid fines and been put of out business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You must see though that if peace is acceptance that the only way to obtain it is to practice a system where sovereignty of the individual is absolute. Otherwise, once it is limited there will undoubtedly arise a lack of acceptance. You can not have a system depending on modern liberal ideology and have one of peace. It will never happen. A system built on coercion and slavery is not one of peace, but a system of war and conflict.

This is probably true for you. Other people have a different point of view, which is my point. Peace means different things to different people, sometimes your system is compatible and sometimes it isn't. People accept what they can and change what they can't. And if your system doesn't provide for happiness for someone, they will seek alternative means, there is no changing that. If enough people seek alternative means, the alternative becomes the norm. However, true peace will never be achieved under any system (because no system is perfect as the definition of perfection is relative from one person to another). Not your preferences, not mine, nobodies. Utopia is a pipe dream.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Being forced to work is all that is required for it be involuntary servitude. This could be direct by checking the person out yourself or indirect by being forced to giving up your property under conditions you do not agree to for someone else's benefit.

My benefit to drink a bottle of water is no different than the man you rung up before me or after me.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It's not bondage to conduct business even if you dislike what you do. Simply quit if you dislike serving the public. Business is conducted in order to make a transaction, that was my point.

An individual opens a business to meet their own desires and serve themselves. They do this by providing goods and services to people they consent to commence in commerce with. If they find it in their interest to commence in commerce with some people or all people is up to them and how they personally feel.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

All of this might have been true 7 decades ago. While racism may still exist, its not near as rampant as many would like to believe or espouse.

"racism may still exist".

I think that phrase shows it all - "racism MAY still exist".

That, sir, is the problem.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

oh, what did the CO judge say to the bakery........"Bake the cake"

if the bakery refused, they would have paid fines and been put of out business.

Yeah, that is a great example of bondage:roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

well glen, here is why your wrong...

Madison was asked to write the bill of rights

he did it on his own not among other people, he likes to jot things down making notes to myself.

on a small piece of paper he writes the bill of rights, and one thing Madison writes in his 8th amendment is life liberty and property, Madison understands the right to property, without it.....we as a people have no liberty.

so the constitution recognizes the right to property.....even the 14th amendment does later on.

Madison goes on to write about the right of property, and he states clearly.......


This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.



so you see glen, without the right of property, liberty would not exist, because everything about a human being is property...the body... the labor, and the objects we obtain from that labor, a persons own words and ideas and how that person runs a profession.

*sigh*. So in YOUR world, Madison wrote it as he thought he should, and there were no changes to what he wrote, no suggestions he accepted, no complaints or protests as to what he wrote...and no vote on the negotiated final document.

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

An individual opens a business to meet their own desires and serve themselves. They do this by providing goods and services to people they consent to commence in commerce with. If they find it in their interest to commence in commerce with some people or all people is up to them and how they personally feel.

I'm not seeing this written in stone any where? Is this on a Koch Brother site or something:2razz:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

"racism may still exist".

I think that phrase shows it all - "racism MAY still exist".

That, sir, is the problem.

i and the others agree, however , you cant take away people rights, because racist exist by non service, ..it must be thru a criminal act.

discrimination is not a criminal act.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

First, there are not lower standards; everyone must meet the minimal standards for acceptance.

Actually, telling someone they don't have to compete at the same level everyone else does is a lower standard. What you want is for minimum standard to be the standard, which is bad for society on every level.

Second, diversity improves the university's product.

Lowered standards do not improve the university's product. They destroy it.

Third, giving the oppressed bootstraps with which to pull themselves out of poverty is the American way; this serves society.

Giving the oppressed a head start and telling them they aren't capable of winning without it is the opposite of giving them bootstraps. Tying everyone else to the floor and saying "see, you can go as high as everyone else (with our help)" serves society in no way whatsoever.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yeah, that is a great example of bondage:roll:

you stated what i said before was extreme.

it was not extreme, ..how is how governments in business works, coercion.....make me do something, or i can no longer be in business
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I will admit that Kant has something absolutist in the requirement for rationality. I don't think it would be correct to associate the categorical imperative with limited analytical capacity, however.

You said your problem with just and unjust discrimination is your own inability to differentiate between the two, and that this has lead you to an absolutist position.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Actually, telling someone they don't have to compete at the same level everyone else does is a lower standard. What you want is for minimum standard to be the standard, which is bad for society on every level.

So, you're aware of this. That makes your claim a lie and not just ignorance.

Giving the oppressed a head start and telling them they aren't capable of winning without it is the opposite of giving them bootstraps.

You fail to comprehend. They are capable, as evidenced by their success despite oppression and poverty.

Tying everyone else to the floor and saying "see, you can go as high as everyone else (with our help)" serves society in no way whatsoever.

So, when a black needs to go to a different store, it's too bad for them; however, when a white needs to go to a different school it's injustice. What hypocrisy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

*sigh*. So in YOUR world, Madison wrote it as he thought he should, and there were no changes to what he wrote, no suggestions he accepted, no complaints or protests as to what he wrote...and no vote on the negotiated final document.

Riiiiiiiiight.

do you believe the constitution does not recognize the right to property?...yes or no?

lets start at the beginning.

Declaration of Independence.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...HAPPINESS is property

Bill of Rights......

5th-nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property

14th amendment

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

do you still believe there is no right to property?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm not seeing this written in stone any where? Is this on a Koch Brother site or something:2razz:

A man doesn't invent something wonderful to raise the living standards of all people, but because he finds it in his interest to pursue it and share it with the world for his own personal benefit both mentally and financially. The same applies to any kind of transaction. A man doesn't involve himself in trade because he wants to better the life and condition of someone else, but because he wants to better his own life and his own condition and finds it in his interest to involve himself in trade to do so.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

My benefit to drink a bottle of water is no different than the man you rung up before me or after me.

Both parties in the transaction are in the transaction for their own benefit and more than likely care very little about the benefit of the other party. Both parties are going to be trying to get the most for themselves while trying to give up the least in return and it is in the best interest of both parties to push their interests to their fullest of their abilities. If one of the parties determines he doesn't benefit from it or simply does not desire to trade with someone then the transaction has no footing to take place.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

A man doesn't invent something wonderful to raise the living standards of all people, but because he finds it in his interest to pursue it and share it with the world for his own personal benefit both mentally and financially. The same applies to any kind of transaction. A man doesn't involve himself in trade because he wants to better the life and condition of someone else, but because he wants to better his own life and his own condition and finds it in his interest to involve himself in trade to do so.

Oh, right, I see. You didn't go into business to sell your (general you) products for a profit, but to feel good about yourself denying me that bottle of water because of my attributes. Thanks for explaining. It gives the motto the pursuit of happiness new meaning:roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So do you feel you have the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will?

Orwell would have LOVED you!

Why? Because you've turned "No, you can't refuse a person's business just because of how he was born" to "VIOLATING THE BODY OR PROPERTY OF YOUR FELLOW MAN!!!!!!!"

How terrrrrrrrible, how utterly tyrannical it must be to FORCE someone to make money by dealing with people guilty of nothing more than being born the wrong color!

Guy, you truly have my pity.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Both parties in the transaction are in the transaction for their own benefit and more than likely care very little about the benefit of the other party. Both parties are going to be trying to get the most for themselves while trying to give up the least in return and it is in the best interest of both parties to push their interests to their fullest of their abilities. If one of the parties determines he doesn't benefit from it or simply does not desire to trade with someone then the transaction has no footing to take place.

I'm not talking about horse trading. I'm talking about doing a normal business transaction.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

i and the others agree, however , you cant take away people rights, because racist exist by non service, ..it must be thru a criminal act.

discrimination is not a criminal act.

"discrimination is not a criminal act"

Yep - he's from the Right!

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

Apparently, you jumped into the middle of a conversation with no clue what was being discussed. Better luck next time.

And this phantom proposition you're arguing against that all individual rights are enumerated in the constitution came from which part of the conversation?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And this phantom proposition you're arguing against that all individual rights are enumerated in the constitution came from which part of the conversation?

Figure it out. I don't care if you get up to speed.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

"discrimination is not a criminal act"

Yep - he's from the Right!

Next!


you just heard me say it not a criminal act....why do you dodge , and play off what i said?.....glen you disappoint!

since it is not a criminal act, the government has no authority to act on discrimination.

laws are formed to protect rights, not the feelings of people.

discrimination is administrative law.....

no person gets hand cuffed and booked into jail, for not serving someone.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

do you still believe there is no right to property?

It's nice to think we have a right to property...but when it comes down to it, can you name a single right - ANY single right - that the government cannot legally take away if it felt the need to do so?

And while you're chewing on that one, can you name any time in American history when speech was more free than today?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And for those who really wonder why much of America is seeing conservatives and Republicans in general - and Tea Partiers and libertarians in particular - as either racist or (in MLK's words) "giving aid and comfort to racists"...the above post is all they need to see.

Really? Since I was talking about fighting racist, I don't see how it would be considered "giving aid and comfort to racists". Sending them to burn in hell because they were racist and socialist is hardly giving them aid and comfort.
 
Back
Top Bottom