• 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

I am old enough to remember that a baker was able to refuse to participate in an activity to which he did not approve without it becoming major headlines, the fodder of endless discussion, and a catalyst for angry protesters demanding justice.

Yeah, how dare the American government take away that baker's right to refuse service to someone else just because that someone else had a lifestyle the baker didn't like! How dare the American government outlaw acts of prejudice and discrimination!

I am old enough to remember when a businessman could express support for right to life or traditional marriage or a belief that men and women are physically and tempermentally different without some angry mob descending upon him demanding that he be punished for his views.

Yeah, how dare the American government pass standards for conduct of a business and somehow expect that the same laws should apply to everybody, instead of allowing certain businesses to say, "well, we don't want to follow that law because it's against our religion"...never mind that it's NOT part of that religion that the business owners must have that business. Of course, if I can't legally run a business without violating my religious beliefs (and I am very much a strong Christian), then I won't run that business - I'll find a different business to run.

I can remember when a reality show personality could express his religious beliefs when asked without organized powers demanding that he lose his position and livelihood. I can remember when people had a sense of decency and fair play and would not demand retribution be heaped on a television show host when it was revealed she had used a politically correct word many years before.

Yeah, how dare people speak out against celebrities saying that Jim Crow wasn't so bad, that 'blacks were happier back then'! And how dare the networks react to the people speaking out against that radio show personality because they thought they might actually lose some business!

I can remember when people with name recognition did not have to fear IRS audits or other 'unusual' investigations when they spoke out in protest of certain government officials or policies.

And how DARE the government target left-leaning groups for a longer period of time than it did right-leaning groups! The government should ONLY have targeted left-leaning groups, I guess.

I am old enough to remember when people of widely differing points of view were invited, welcomed, and treated with great respect on college campuses, but that was when students were taught to think critically and evaluate different points of view rather than being indoctrinated with one 'right' permissible point of view that is all that is allowed to be on campus.

Mm-hmm...yes, we all remember how those of differing viewpoints like "communist" and "socialist" and "Muslim" and "gay" and "lesbian" and "transsexual" and "HIV-positive" were SO WELCOMED back in the day, weren't they?

There is a difference between an assumed right to speak out, and being subjected to organized emotional, physical, and/or economic retribution if you do.

Yes, the emotional, physical, and economic retribution now is certainly worse than it was against blacks during Jim Crow, worse than it was against LGBT's before the 2000's, worse than it was against communists and socialists during the Cold War (particularly the McCarthy era), worse than it was against anyone who wasn't white since before the Declaration of Independence was signed...

...yeah, things are SO BAD, SO TERRIBLE for those on the Right - they're being SO PERSECUTED! They're the real victims, right?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Right because a free society is an oppressed one. Sounds like doublespeak to me.

Sounds like doublespeak to me too. So why are you advocating a free society that uses the government to coerce individuals into associating with someone they don't like against their will?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yeah, how dare the American government take away that baker's right to refuse service to someone else just because that someone else had a lifestyle the baker didn't like! How dare the American government outlaw acts of prejudice and discrimination!



Yeah, how dare the American government pass standards for conduct of a business and somehow expect that the same laws should apply to everybody, instead of allowing certain businesses to say, "well, we don't want to follow that law because it's against our religion"...never mind that it's NOT part of that religion that the business owners must have that business. Of course, if I can't legally run a business without violating my religious beliefs (and I am very much a strong Christian), then I won't run that business - I'll find a different business to run.



Yeah, how dare people speak out against celebrities saying that Jim Crow wasn't so bad, that 'blacks were happier back then'! And how dare the networks react to the people speaking out against that radio show personality because they thought they might actually lose some business!



And how DARE the government target left-leaning groups for a longer period of time than it did right-leaning groups! The government should ONLY have targeted left-leaning groups, I guess.



Mm-hmm...yes, we all remember how those of differing viewpoints like "communist" and "socialist" and "Muslim" and "gay" and "lesbian" and "transsexual" and "HIV-positive" were SO WELCOMED back in the day, weren't they?



Yes, the emotional, physical, and economic retribution now is certainly worse than it was against blacks during Jim Crow, worse than it was against LGBT's before the 2000's, worse than it was against communists and socialists during the Cold War (particularly the McCarthy era), worse than it was against anyone who wasn't white since before the Declaration of Independence was signed...

...yeah, things are SO BAD, SO TERRIBLE for those on the Right - they're being SO PERSECUTED! They're the real victims, right?


what? are you admitting government is violating the bakers right........ you dont like the Constitution at all, it it gets in your way do you.

government passes a standard of conduct.????....hmmmm. then that would also give them the power to set conduct for how we behave in our life's to.......no sleeping around, no over eating or drinking, no foul language, no porn, ......i wonder when government got authority to be a moral entity.....since it is composed of people, ...so elected leaders, are morally superior to me and the rest of the population.

your Jim crow law does not work, that was government discrimination, and it has been stated to you several times and you keep using it, because you out of ammo.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Right, and one of the points of the movie is that the slave master felt the slaves were their property and they owned that labor. Please stop comparing a slave to someone selling items.

I'm not comparing a slave to someone selling items. I'm comparing the claim on someone's property to the claim on someone's property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Sounds like doublespeak to me too. So why are you advocating a free society that uses the government to coerce individuals into associating with someone they don't like against their will?

The government doesn't make you associate with people you don't like. Selling goods to someone isn't the same thing as associating with them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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!!!!!!!"

When you say, "No, you can't refuse a person's business just because of how he was born", you mean "If you refuse a person's business just because of how he was born, I will violate your body or property."

See, it's the threat of the initiation of aggression with which I have the ethical issue.

I would have have no problem saying, "If you refuse a person's business just because of how he was born, I will shun you and convince others to shun you," I would have no problem doing that.

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!

I consider initiating violence against one's fellow man is to be terrible and criminal.

Guy, you truly have my pity.

Do you think it's ethical to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will?
 
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.

It's bondage if you make a person serve you. Which is what you are advocating.

And "simply quit"? So you think that people who discriminate doesn't deserve the right to own and operate a business? Isn't that discrimination also?

As to your second point, I agree. If we gave humans free reign to conduct business based on emotions, you would have a vile mess on your hands. We had that pre-civil right's laws.

In otherwords you don't want people to be free. You want them to serve.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Not at all. I didn't say that I cannot tell the difference between positions. I do, however, believe that other people have different oppinions on the basis of other inputs and what else. I believe that any of us can be wrong and that therfore in normal times a society is better served, if it allows equal opportunity of expression.

So you demand absolute uniformity, or the confusion is too great for you to overcome. That's such a strong position; very convincing.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It's bondage if you make a person serve you. Which is what you are advocating.

And "simply quit"? So you think that people who discriminate doesn't deserve the right to own and operate a business? Isn't that discrimination also?



In otherwords you don't want people to be free. You want them to serve.

Owning a business doesn't make you a servant.
 
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.

Yes, it still does exist. But like the rest of my statement says that you apparently ignored, its not near as rampant as many would like to believe or espouse.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No it doesn't. But forcing the business owner to serve people that they do not want to serve does.

No, that still doesn't make them servants.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, that still doesn't make them servants.

Scuze me? Forcing someone to serve another person doesn't make them servants? Really? What planet do you live on?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Scuze me? Forcing someone to serve another person doesn't make them servants? Really? What planet do you live on?

The point is you are not serving them. Some people may say any person who works consumer service does serve the public. That doesn't mean you are a servant, and neither are people who have to sell lottery tickets to people on welfare. They may hate the idea but that does not make them a servant. The whole word is being so misused.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Scuze me? Forcing someone to serve another person doesn't make them servants? Really? What planet do you live on?

Nice play on words, but no. Not being able to discriminate based on race doesn't make anyone a servent.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Um, actually, "open to the public" DOES mean anyone (who does not present a danger or undue disruption to the business) CAN come in any time they like. And whether you like it or not, being of a different color is NOT an "undue disruption" of the business.

You say anyone, and then immediately follow it with exceptions, and no, they can't come in "any time they like". Someone being of a different color is not and undue disruption to me. If I hated black people, it probably would be...

For your edification, a legal definition of "public":

Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, re- lating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general ; open to common use. Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am. Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters (C. C.) 10 Fed. 621; Austin v. Soule, 36 Vt. 650; Appeal of Eliot, 74 Coun. 586, 51 Atl. 558; 0′IIara v. Miller, 1 Kulp (Pa.) 295.

Sorry, but I don't see any exceptions there for people of different colors.

Thanks, but I haven't learned anything new by reading your definition. Ecofarm would call you a dumbass for posting that, by the way, but I digress...there is also nothing in that definition about private. My guess is that's because public is the opposite of private. Public is something everyone has use of and a say in. Private is private.

You're the only one I've ever seen other than myself who ever owned up to being a racist in his or her youth. Kudos to you - that's not always an easy admission. That said, it wasn't a lynching that changed my mind, either - it was a career in the Navy, finding out first-hand that people all over the world are the same (with allowances for local culture).

Surely I'm not the only one. I remember a time when I thought the dirtiest name I could call someone was "nigger lover". The earliest experience that I can remember with black person was at a basketball game at my school and they smeared **** all over the bathroom wall. Looking back, I can't say that I blame them if they did it, but it's equally like that one of our douchbag racist students did it and blamed it on the black kid. Hell, it could have been one of the parents. Any way, at the end of the day, what really opened my eyes was when the first and only black kid came to our school and played football with us. He wasn't a dick and he was faster and stronger than any of us, so there wasn't anything substantive to criticize him about. He was different, but I pegged more of the differences to him being a yankee than being black. I used to hate yankees too, by the way. At this point I'd say "that guy who thinks nigger lover is a dirty name" is just about the dirtiest name I could call someone.

One other thing that really hit me in the face about race was when I started realizing that there were pretty black girls too.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

What the heck do you mean by "which you have chosen to be with this statement"?

You are falsely ascribing negative attributes to him based on your preconceived notions of his intentions. I think you probably know that, but whether you'll admit it to yourself is another question entirely.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Really? What do you think would have happened in 1858 had you displayed what our modern pornography shows? What do you think would have happened if you went to your child's school and told them that no, they can't use taxpayer money to celebrate 'Christmas'? What do you think would have happened if you burned an American flag in public?

No, the freedom of speech then doesn't even come close to what we have now.

Tell that to the kid who can't display the American flag on his truck in the school parking lot because the school is afraid it will piss off the Mexicans.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Wait. Who is advocating for the government to be allowed to discriminate? Last I checked the argument was that individuals should be allowed to discriminate even within the confines of their private business. I'll admit that there are a lot of post that I have not read because you guys are blowing up this thread and there a ton of new pages that posted both between when I went to bed last night and waking up this morning, and between my leaving for work and getting home tonight. It's hard to keep up with it all.

By allowing the law to have "protected classes", the law discriminates. Having such a thing as a "hate crime" as opposed to a regular crime provides a level of protection for some that it does not provide for others. That's discrimination, of the negative sort.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That's fine because you're not discriminating based on a person's attributes.

No. The correct answer is: "That's fine because it's your business."
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That's fine because you're not discriminating based on a person's attributes.

So do you think that 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?
 
Back
Top Bottom