• 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

Doesn't that always seem to be the way they argue? "Oh if you're against this then you must be supporting that."

Most definitely. Unfortenately for them the world is not black and white (no pun intended). It is many shades of grey. I often argue on behalf of peoples rights even when I don't support those peoples idea's. Such as racism. I may not like racism (in fact I hate it) but I recognize that even racists have rights. And I am not about to take away their rights just to spite them. Because of this standing for peoples rights I have often been called racist and a bigot. All because it's an "them or us" mentality.

Ok given this statement You've brought to mind a different set of conditions. Do you hold this to be true only in the realm of this country or is this a universal stance. IOW, if the US were to impose sanctions (I believe this is the word I'm looking for but correct me if I'm wrong) and ban the sale of goods to say China for labor sweat shop issues, or Saudi Arabia for nuclear weapon issues, is the government allowed to say that you can't sell to business and individuals in those countries? I realize that in a way it is opposite to the current thread in that the government is saying you can't sell instead of you must sell, but it still runs upon the same principle of the government telling you what to do with your property where that action does not invoke direct harm.

Good question. I personally would say that private individuals should still be allowed to sell to them. BUT the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate international trade. And I can understand why it does so security wise. As such I must defer to the Constitution in this and allow the government to regulate such.

Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.

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

As if slave labor doesn't invoke direct harm. Oh, but by gosh a private owner treating people like slaves is perfectly his right.

How can a business owner denying to sell them his/her property be considered slavery? Or even treating them as such?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

As if slave labor doesn't invoke direct harm. Oh, but by gosh a private owner treating people like slaves is perfectly his right.

Wow! Way to move to goal posts. Try to actually respond to what was said and not what you want it to mean. Let's reword since you seem incapable of comprehension.

The US has imposed sanctions upon China over sweat shop issues. I want to sell to a person in China, who for sake of argument does not use such practices nor agrees with them. He's a minority in the country but still I am choosing to deal with him because of those practices. Does the government have that right to tell me I cannot sell my property to said individual?

Your false analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood is pitiful. They are of course not a slave and they are perfectly free to go to another business owner who has the same good or service who does not discriminate. Isn't it amazing how simple that is and fully within the realm of rights and freedom?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

How can a business owner denying to sell them his/her property be considered slavery? Or even treating them as such?

I was referring to the right that a business owner has the right to treat his workers as slave laborers. Re-read my post.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Wow! Way to move to goal posts. Try to actually respond to what was said and not what you want it to mean. Let's reword since you seem incapable of comprehension.

The US has imposed sanctions upon China over sweat shop issues. I want to sell to a person in China, who for sake of argument does not use such practices nor agrees with them. He's a minority in the country but still I am choosing to deal with him because of those practices. Does the government have that right to tell me I cannot sell my property to said individual?

Your false analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood is pitiful. They are of course not a slave and they are perfectly free to go to another business owner who has the same good or service who does not discriminate. Isn't it amazing how simple that is and fully within the realm of rights and freedom?
The simple fact is these people believe in equality By law not equality under the law. they want force of goverment to make everyone the same.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Your false analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood is pitiful. They are of course not a slave and they are perfectly free to go to another business owner who has the same good or service who does not discriminate. Isn't it amazing how simple that is and fully within the realm of rights and freedom?

Oh, the delicious irony

Wow! Way to move to goal posts. Try to actually respond to what was said and not what you want it to mean. Let's reword since you seem incapable of comprehension.

Um, where did a I say this so called analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood? Um, I didn't. You made that up. I was responding to your post about putting sanctions because of sweat shops.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The simple fact is these people believe in equality By law not equality under the law. they want force of goverment to make everyone the same.

Nah, I don't want to make everyone the same because they are not. I just want them to be treated the same when conducting any kind of business transaction.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I was referring to the right that a business owner has the right to treat his workers as slave laborers. Re-read my post.

There is absolutely nothing in your post which indicates that you were talking about employees. Since the topic is not about employees I had no reason to think that you were talking about them without some sort of indication that you were talking about them.

That said, Lets stick to the topic OK? That is a different issue that deserves its own thread.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Um, where did a I say this so called analogy of a private owner not selling to an individual is akin to slave-hood? Um, I didn't. You made that up. I was responding to your post about putting sanctions because of sweat shops.

Actually that was just an example he used to flesh out the question that he posed.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is absolutely nothing in your post which indicates that you were talking about employees. Since the topic is not about employees I had no reason to think that you were talking about them without some sort of indication that you were talking about them.

That said, Lets stick to the topic OK? That is a different issue that deserves its own thread.

You're right. It does deserve it's own thread. With that said, sanctions on countries that engage in slave labor is to punish those who inflict direct harm on workers. 'Nuff said
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Nah, I don't want to make everyone the same because they are not. I just want them to be treated the same when conducting any kind of business transaction.
I shall explain..you wish to use government and its power to force one person, to treat another with respect and dignity , fairly, and if they don't you will use government power on them. But what you fail to realize is ,in having liberty people don't have to treat other people that way, unless a persons rights have been violated ,the government has no authority to act.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I shall explain..you wish to use government and its power to force one person, to treat another with respect and dignity , fairly, and if they don't you will use government power on them. But what you fail to realize is ,in having liberty people don't have to treat other people that way, unless a persons rights have been violated ,the government has no authority to act.

How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
Because you have no exercisable Rights on my property..... the right of commerce is an exercisable right.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?

To what "right/s" are you refering to? To not be discriminated against? Such a right does not exist.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Because you have no exercisable Rights on my property..... the right of commerce is an exercisable right.

So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best:confused:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

To what "right/s" are you refering to? To not be discriminated against? Such a right does not exist.

His right to make a business transaction following business ethic because he is of another race, creed, etc....
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

His right to make a business transaction following business ethic because he is of another race, creed, etc....

There is no such right. :shrug: It is however a priviledge.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And you continue to refuse to state whether you think 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. Fascinating, and very, very telling.

Make sure you tell all your minority friends about what you think about how you have a "right" to discriminate, how freedom from discrimination means "violating the body and property of your fellow man", okay? Make sure you tell all of them that, y'hear?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.

This may come as a shock to you, but government-enforced racism isn't the same thing as a sports game.

Yes, the cops were beating the black man in direct violation of his rights and freedoms...and those of you who want a "right" to discriminate would be - in the eyes of most Americans and particularly in the eyes of minorities - would be taking away rights and freedoms that took minorities (especially blacks) centuries to win.

And you think they wouldn't riot about that? Do you really?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is no such right. :shrug: It is however a priviledge.

If the transaction itself is the privilege, that holds true for both parties.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best:confused:

You are using the term "selective market" incorrectly. Selective marketing refers to marketing. IE advertising. And it is done all the time. Indeed it is a part of the free market idea.

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

I think Maquistcat answered this fairly well. :shrug: I would just like to add that there is a difference between denying a priviledge (me letting you buy my property) and that of cops beating up someone which violates thier rights...and getting away with it. As I have said countless times in this thread. As long as a person does not violate another persons rights then they can do what they want with their property.

One thing that I have noticed through out my talking in this thread is that I have given proof as to why people have the right to discriminate based on the Rights that we currently have and are upheld by SCOTUS as Rights. Yet no one has given proof as to why people have a right to not be discriminated against. They've given opinions. But no proof.

And what you're not getting is that YES, those cops beat him in violation of his rights...yet here you are advocating taking away their RIGHT to freedom FROM discrimination...which took minorities in general and blacks in particular centuries to win. Do you really think they wouldn't riot about losing that right, that freedom?

If you do, you really don't know people half so well as you seem to think.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

This may come as a shock to you, but government-enforced racism isn't the same thing as a sports game.

Yes, the cops were beating the black man in direct violation of his rights and freedoms...and those of you who want a "right" to discriminate would be - in the eyes of most Americans and particularly in the eyes of minorities - would be taking away rights and freedoms that took minorities (especially blacks) centuries to win.

And you think they wouldn't riot about that? Do you really?

There is no right to not be discriminated against. If there was then you would not be able to discriminate in who you are friends with and who you cannot be friends with. The government would decide who your friends are.
 
Back
Top Bottom