• 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

If he leaves his business he loses his business. Which is a part of his property.

If he doesn't want to leave his business no one is forcing him.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, I agree. There are times SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly, but I disagree this is the case here.

Because it fits your pov? There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to provide service to others. If the Constitution does not give the government the power to do something then it is unconstitutional.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If he doesn't want to leave his business no one is forcing him.

So you forcing him/her to either serve people that he/she doesn't want to or give up his/her lively hood. Much like the Obamacare mandate that isn't really a valid choice. Either way you are forcing the owner to do SOMETHING in order to promote your own form of discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Because it fits your pov? There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to provide service to others. If the Constitution does not give the government the power to do something then it is unconstitutional.

You're treating people as equals which is in the 14th amendment.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So you forcing him/her to either serve people that he/she doesn't want to or give up his/her lively hood. Much like the Obamacare mandate that isn't really a valid choice. Either way you are forcing the owner to do SOMETHING in order to promote your own form of discrimination.

Its discrimination to treat people as equals?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You're treating people as equals which is in the 14th amendment.

Again, that only deals with government.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You're treating people as equals which is in the 14th amendment.

The 14th is about treating people equally under the law. Unless businesses make laws now a days instead of our Congress and Senate then the 14th does not apply to this situation in the way that you want it to.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Its discrimination to treat people as equals?

But you're not treating people as equals. You are favoring consumers over the people that own a business and their right to freedom of association.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But you're not treating people as equals. You are favoring consumers over the people that own a business and their right to freedom of association.

Just to expand on this: If a consumer walks into a store and sees that the owner of the store is of a race that they are racist over they are free to leave, no legal course exists to prevent that. If the owner sees a person of a race they are racist against and refuses service then there is legal recourse for that consumer. Who here is favored?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The 14th is about treating people equally under the law. Unless businesses make laws now a days instead of our Congress and Senate then the 14th does not apply to this situation in the way that you want it to.

There is a law which is the civil rights law.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But you're not treating people as equals. You are favoring consumers over the people that own a business and their right to freedom of association.

It protects consumers not favors them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is a law which is the civil rights law.

Yes, and its just a federal law, it's called the Civil Rights Act. A law which has no valid basis in the Constitution as there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to serve others. In fact, as I've said before it directly prohibits it. Both in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It protects consumers not favors them.

No, it does. It ignores the desires of business owners to not commence in commerce, so that the consumer can get what they desire.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Having a business doesn't give one a license to do whatever he pleases.

Of course not. Obviously he can't just kill anyone. That's a violation of the other person's rights. Nor can he take from them anything they already had. Again a rights violation. However, no one has a right to do business with him. They have to right to seek to do business with him as he has the right to seek to do business with whomever he wishes.

No one has "the right to discriminate".. Discrimination is inherently anti-free

Oh really? So I have no right to say that no one can enter my house purely on the basis of their skin color?

Yeah, the interest is to trade...that is where the association ends.

Very good. Freedom of association includes in it the freedom to not associate with them. Ergo, one can choose to trade with one individual and not with another, for what ever reason.

Oh, your (general you) right to be a bigot is a 'natural right' compared to their right to be of a different race, creed, religion etc....is that not a 'natural' right?

Where in hell do you get a right to be a different race? It's not like that's a choice. Religion and creed, yeah, purely chosen. Race...not.

This is exactly why some "members-only" clubs/organizations/associations exist...exclusive membership at the exclusion of others who don't meet eligibility requirements. And if sex, race, marital status, income/education level, religion, etc., etc. are prerequisites for membership, I don't think most people would have a problem with not including those who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Of course, it's a different story when a facility that any reasonable person knows should be open to the public as you've stated and certain people are kept out, i.e., public swimming pool or a dinner on Route 66.

By definition it is a public pool and thus owned by a government entity of some level, which automatically means no discrimination. Government doesn't have rights like people have.

If businesses are allowed to discriminate, then the allowance of that discrimination must be backed by the force of law...which effectively makes it Jim Crow in all but name. You can deny it all you want...but that, sir, is a fact.

Get it straight. Jim Crows laws forced discrimination. As a business owner, I could not let blacks sit at my lunch counter with whites even if I wanted to. Jim Crow laws were also a violation of private property rights and freedom of association.

And everybody sometimes wants to punch the other guy in the face sometimes, too...but that doesn't make it right or acceptable to actually do it.

Ah and there is the crux. Simply because something isn't right or acceptable, it does not automatically follow that it should be illegal. It would not be right or acceptable for me to say to a overweight woman that she "...is a fat ugly cow who needs to be put so far out to pasture that no one has to be subjected to her hideous features." And yet there is no law that prevents my saying that. It's part and parcel of my freedom of speech.

So, are you saying if I dislike serving a cranky person I'm suddenly a servant? I must be a slave then because I served plenty a cranky person in my life. I didn't run around telling people I was a slave though because I understood 98% of the time it had nothing to do with me just like the attributes of another person has nothing to do with me. I'm only a slave to my own prejudices and not a slave to another person wanting to do business with me.

It starts with are you the business owner? Otherwise, yes you are a servant to the owner while you are on the clock. If you are the owner, did you choose to serve the man despite your dislike for the cranky person? If so, then there is no problem because you choose to do so. However, if you would normally choose to not serve such a person and the law said that you could not make that choice then yes you have once again become a servant, in the context that Kal'Stang and the others have been saying.

Really, I need to show you that people can get into legal problems if they refuse service based on someone's attributes? A quick google search can give you cases. Denny's has been in hot water for such violations before as well as several other chains.

Existence of a law does not automatically mean that a right isn't violated. Are you telling us that the rights of blacks were not violated when they were legally slaves? Are you telling us that the rights of blacks were not violated when the law prevented them from voting? I'm going out on a limb and saying that indeed these laws were violating the rights of blacks.

It couldn't be federal law if it was unconstitutional.

ROFLMFAO!!!! How many laws were on the books for years, even centuries, that were later ruled unconstitutional? Really?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, and its just a federal law, it's called the Civil Rights Act. A law which has no valid basis in the Constitution as there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to force people to serve others. In fact, as I've said before it directly prohibits it. Both in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

It protects people from being treated unequal due to their attributes. It does not promote servitude. The word servitude is being misused.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, it does. It ignores the desires of business owners to not commence in commerce, so that the consumer can get what they desire.

A business owner is not a King or a lord whose desires should trump every other human being.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

A business owner is not a King or a lord whose desires should trump every other human being.

Respecting both parties right to either accept or refuse being involved in commerce is not making one superior to the other.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Respecting both parties right to either accept or refuse being involved in commerce is not making one superior to the other.

Refusing to allow another person a business transaction due to their race etc... is allowing them to be superior over another.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It protects people from being treated unequal due to their attributes. It does not promote servitude. The word servitude is being misused.

Hate to break it to you but people do have a right to be racist. And they have a right to freedom of association. If you force them to provide service to someone then that is indeed involuntary servitude. A form of slavery that exists for even 1 second is still slavery.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Respecting both parties right to either accept or refuse being involved in commerce is not making one superior to the other.

If the seller would like to refuse being involved in commerce, he can close his business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, protect does not mean favors.

And what laws are there that protect the business owner from similar racism? Such as my example in post 1259. None. That is favoring. Not protection.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Hate to break it to you but people do have a right to be racist. And they have a right to freedom of association. If you force them to provide service to someone then that is indeed involuntary servitude. A form of slavery that exists for even 1 second is still slavery.

I never said people don't have a right to be racist. I said people don't have a right to shut others out of business transactions due to their prejudices.
 
Back
Top Bottom