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?