• 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

No, actually its not. If it was a Constitutional right then it would be in the Constitution in some form or another. It's not.

Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?

Any law (federal or not) that goes outside of the powers that the constitution grants to the government is indeed unconstitutional. As such if you can point out to me where in Article 1 Section 8 it gives the government the power to force business owners to sell to anyone and everyone you might have a case.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Just for reference....

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

US Constitution Text
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Any law (federal or not) that goes outside of the powers that the constitution grants to the government is indeed unconstitutional. As such if you can point out to me where in Article 1 Section 8 it gives the government the power to force business owners to sell to anyone and everyone you might have a case.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964).
Commerce clause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Consumer choice is not a right.

I already said that in another post. Consumers really have no choice. Their choices are impeded. It is not free market to them. Free market only applies to the property owner. All other people have no real rights.

Edit to add: isn't that freedom at its best-
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I already said that in another post. Consumers really have no choice. Their choices are impeded. It is not free market to them. Free market only applies to the property owner. All other people have no real rights.

Edit to add: isn't that freedom at its best-

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. We don't have free speech.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You can't stop people from praying around you in public. We have no freedom of (or from) religion.

I'm not sure of your point.
 
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 they do not have a right to engage in a business transaction with another person. Their right is to seek another who is willing to engage in a business transaction with them. That right belongs to both the buyer and the seller.

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:

Incorrect premise on your part. The free market has always been based upon the property/service owner being able to decide with whom he does business with as well as the one seeking to obtain the property/service being able to decide whom he wants to do business with. They both have to agree to transact with each other. At any point that the government mandates an interaction or a lack of interaction (IOW you must make this transaction or you cannot make this transaction) the free market principle starts to collapse.

If the transaction itself is the privilege, that holds true for both parties.

Holy cow I think he finally gets it. The buyer can't force the seller to sell to him for any reason and the seller can't force the buyer to buy from him for any reason. That is their right. The privilege comes from each allowing the other to associate with them on a business transaction. As a parallel. You have no right to come upon my property,but I have the right to choose who comes on my property. When I allow you to come on my property it is a privilege that I am extending to you. The opposite holds true. I receive from you the privilege to be on your property.

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.

There is no such right except from government entities and within the law itself. There are many rights, that were previously denied and violated, that blacks and many other minorities have rightly and successfully fought for and won. And wagging a campaign to try to eliminate discrimination is a worthy goal and indeed enormous strides towards the goal have been made, thankfully. What has occurred is that we as a country have said that we will correct a wrong (the denying and violation of rights and freedoms of minorities) with a wrong (violation of freedoms of association and private property rights).

One's making a transaction with that property. Selling= transaction.

Thank you Captain Obvious. This point does nothing to support either side of the argument. It's a simple statement of fact.

Civil Right's Act.

Oh well if the law is the end all and be all, then blacks never had their rights violated during the slavery as by law they didn't have any.

Okay, so prices and discounts can be decided freely, how about selling to certain people while limiting certain people from making a transaction due to race?

Wait a minute, isn't age a supposed protected category? Right now McDonalds is discriminating based upon age. If there was a white discount or even a black discount there would be riots, wouldn't there? So why is an age discount allowed if discriminating on an unchangeable attribute is supposed to be illegal?

Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?

No just the ones that violate what is already in the Constitution, such as freedom of association.

Well the consumer's choice is impeded.

How so? The consumer gets to make a choice as to who he will try to make a transaction with. The same choice that the buyer gets to make. The whole problem here is that you are equating a transaction that does not complete with being denied. As I've pointed out if the buyer chooses to to not buy because of skin color of the proeprty owner why is that not a violation of law. Either it's illegal in both directions or it's legal in both directions.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm not going to rehash what's already been said but your last point really hasn't been discussed.

The consumer is NOT making a choice if he is being denied service based on the whims of the property owner. He only has a choice if business is open freely to everyone. That is the whole point. On one hand, free marketers try and push this fallacy that consumers have real choice when on the other hand they are working behind the scenes to restrict those choices.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Except that the government cannot discriminate. It does not have the power to do so. Private individuals that own privately owned companies however do have that power and right. So it doesn't really work. I fully believe that the government should not discriminate in any way shape or form against the people that it serves. IE: Citizens of the US. But I do support private individuals in their right to discriminate. The right to freedom of speech allows them their right to speak out against someone that they dislike...for whatever reason. Freedom to dictate what you do with your own property is essential to a free society. Freedom of association allows people to discriminate against others for any reason. All of those come with benefits and negatives. So long as no one violates another persons rights then they have no right to dictate that another must be punished for simply exercising their right. And since no one has the right to force themselves upon another, and no one has the right to dictate what a person does with thier property, and no one has the right to disregard someone elses free speech....people have a right to discriminate.

Why are you arguing with me when we see the same thing on this issue?

Public pools = taxpayer funded, city/county government run = no discrimination allowed

We see this issue the same way. Why you felt the need to go on a rant about it is beyond me.:2wave:
 
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:

an exercisable right is a right you chose to exercise.

exercisable rights:

speech
worship
assembly or association
bear a firearm
petition the government
right to commerce

to name a few


non-exercisable rights:

life
liberty


an exercisable right, is when a person chooses to exercise his or her right to engage in one of the activities listed.

example-- i can chose to bear a firearm, or chosen not to bear one, i can chose to pray, or not to pray, or protest or not protest.


a non exercisable right you don't exercise.

you dont chose to be dead today, and live tomorrow

you dont chose to be a slave today and free the next.

when you are on another persons property, you have no exercisable rights.....you cannot pray, bear a firearm, have free speech, protest, or force me to engage in commerce with you.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

an exercisable right is a right you chose to exercise.

exercisable rights:

speech
worship
assembly or association
bear a firearm
petition the government
right to commerce

to name a few


non-exercisable rights:

life
liberty


an exercisable right, is when a person chooses to exercise his or her right to engage in one of the activities listed.

example-- i can chose to bear a firearm, or chosen not to bear one, i can chose to pray, or not to pray, or protest or not protest.


a non exercisable right you don't exercise.

you dont chose to be dead today, and live tomorrow

you dont chose to be a slave today and free the next.

when you are on another persons property, you have no exercisable rights.....you cannot pray, bear a firearm, have free speech, protest, or force me to engage in commerce with you.

Yep, I get it. When things are privatized, no one has any rights except for the property owner. A very compelling case we need to be wise when privatizing resources. In the meantime, anyone with a rational mind should fight to keep the Civil Rights Laws into place.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yep, I get it. When things are privatized, no one has any rights except for the property owner. A very compelling case we need to be wise when privatizing resources. In the meantime, anyone with a rational mind should fight to keep the Civil Rights Laws into place.

are you saying THAT you should be able to come on my property and exercise every right you have?

in other words...you can enter my store.....PACKING A FIREARM, ..AGAINST MY WISHES?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

are you saying THAT you should be able to come on my property and exercise every right you have?

in other words...you can enter my store.....PACKING A FIREARM, ..AGAINST MY WISHES?

No, but if you are open for business and I am acting ethical, I should not be denied the right to a business transaction based on my skin color.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, but if you are open for business and I am acting ethical, I should not be denied the right to a business transaction based on my skin color.

DOES NOT MATTER.

you cannot come into my store, and do what you want.

you cannot come in and BY FORCE......hold a prayer service, protest me, call me nasty names, have a firearm, force me to do anything for you....your are on my property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Ok. On one hand, a person should be able to run their business any way they want and let the free market sort it out, which is the usual argument.

On the other hand, if say a gay person lives in a predominantly religiously zealous community and they are refused service at a restaurant, the likelihood that all the restaurants in the area are holding the same discriminant mindsets are pretty high and well, quite frankly, a person shouldn't have to leave their hometown to receive any kind of service.

Let me qualify my remarks to follow with my 100% honest opinion that the gay person should be seated and treated no differently than any other patron; I would verbally tell the owner off and walk out of any establishment who would refuse to seat him; and I don't believe there is any moral justification for discriminating against him in that way.

But by what criteria do we dictate to any person who he must or must not serve with a business he owns, that he took all the risks to open and finance, that he has put in his time, blood, sweat, and tears to make a success? What did that gay person (or anybody else) contribute to that success that entitles them to demand service from that proprietor?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

DOES NOT MATTER.

you cannot come into my store, and do what you want.

you cannot come in and BY FORCE......hold a prayer service, protest me, call me nasty names, have a firearm, force me to do anything for you....your are on my property.

Only I'm not there for any of those proposes. I'm there for the same reason 100% of your consumers are there doing. Only you have the power to discriminate and refuse my service. There is most definitely a structure of power that does not exist at all with government services since the government cannot discriminate. As of now, neither can a private owner. If groups like Cato succeed in their zeal to overthrow Civil Rights Law they may find themselves in a situation that may make it harder to privatize all things that exist in the name of freedom of choice. They will have to be called out on their blatant lies.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Only I'm not there for any of those proposes. I'm there for the same reason 100% of your consumers are there doing. Only you have the power to discriminate and refuse my service. There is most definitely a structure of power that does not exist at all with government services since the government cannot discriminate. As of now, neither can a private owner. If groups like Cato succeed in their zeal to overthrow Civil Rights Law they may find themselves in a situation that may make it harder to privatize all things that exist in the name of freedom of choice. They will have to be called out on their blatant lies.

you dont seem to understand, each one is an exercisable right.......the right to commerce is exercisable.


you cannot exercise a right to commerce on my property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

you dont seem to understand, each one is an exercisable right.......the right to commerce is exercisable.


you cannot exercise a right to commerce on my property.

Obviously, you didn't bother reading my last post.

Edit to add:
If groups like Cato succeed in their zeal to overthrow Civil Rights Law they may find themselves in a situation that may make it harder to privatize all things that exist in the name of freedom of choice. They will have to be called out on their blatant lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom