Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

That's not the nature of due process.

Click to expand...

Due process is what you are discussing with someone else. Keep up. You claim that no one should deny another business or resource based on unchangeable attributes, but you then turn around and allow the buyer to deny business or resource to the seller due to unchangeable attributes. Face it, it's bloody hypocritical.

rabbitcaebannog said:

You can also get fired for doing stuff they don't like on your own property or someone else's property. That was my point not just they can fire you for anything on their property. That's a given. You can't even use social media to talk about things they may not like in your private life. You risk losing your job if they don't like it. Yes, you can seek employment else where and all of the above still applies. At will companies are authoritarian. There is no getting around it.

Click to expand...

Well given that the job itself is their property, it is indeed theirs to do with as they wish. They can fire you because you looked at someone crossed eye. They can fire you simply because they felt like firing someone today. I agree that it's not right, but it is within their rights. Rights that you no doubt wish to have violated.

Kal'Stang said:

The commerce clause was abused in that situation. The commerce clause is supposed to only allow the government to regulate sales between the states and sales with other countries. It was never meant to regulate private businesses. It's not the first time its been abused.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree here only because private businesses would be the ones engaging in sales between states, therefore there would be some regulation on such private businesses. However, that regulation is only supposed to be on actual interstate commerce. For example, if my company makes a widget, if I am selling it only within my state, then any applicable state laws apply, and the federal level isn't supposed to make any regulation over it. Now if I want to sell my widget in other states, then per the commerce clause they can make regulations regarding my widgets. However those regulations would only apply to the widgets I want to sell out of state. All of my in-state commerce is still only covered by state regulations. Similarly, if I am selling my widgets to another company that is within my state and that company wishes to sell them out of state, the regulations apply to them and not me. So if the regulation was, say no more than 5 manufactured holes in the widget, if I was the one selling them out of state, I would have to manufacture them to that spec. If I'm only selling to the other businesses, then I can still make widgets with 6 holes and he can buy them if he wants, but he'll not be able to sell them out of state due to the federal regulations.

ernst barkmann said:

let me be clearer....you have rights which can be exercised, however you cannot exercise them on my property If I do not want you to, I can ask you to leave at anytime. if you seek to disrupt I will can call the police, if you use force, I can return force

Click to expand...

Yes I can. That's the point that you are not getting. As I said, you can't legally stop my exercising of those rights in and of itself. All you can do is revoke my privilege to be on your property. Reread the example. If I am already on your property by your permission and then I say something you don't like, I am still exercising my free speech rights even if it is against your wish. Even in the process of my moving the 50 yards (for argument's sake) it takes for me to leave the property upon you revoking my privilege to be on it, you still cannot stop my exercising my rights. I can still be yammering away. If you have a reasonable expectation that I will exercise my rights in a manner that you do not wish on your property, you can certainly head it off at the pass by never granting me the privilege of being on your property. But you will not always know that such things will happen in advance. Do you understand the key difference?

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

maquiscat said:

Due process is what you are discussing with someone else. Keep up. You claim that no one should deny another business or resource based on unchangeable attributes, but you then turn around and allow the buyer to deny business or resource to the seller due to unchangeable attributes. Face it, it's bloody hypocritical.



Well given that the job itself is their property, it is indeed theirs to do with as they wish. They can fire you because you looked at someone crossed eye. They can fire you simply because they felt like firing someone today. I agree that it's not right, but it is within their rights. Rights that you no doubt wish to have violated.



I'll disagree here only because private businesses would be the ones engaging in sales between states, therefore there would be some regulation on such private businesses. However, that regulation is only supposed to be on actual interstate commerce. For example, if my company makes a widget, if I am selling it only within my state, then any applicable state laws apply, and the federal level isn't supposed to make any regulation over it. Now if I want to sell my widget in other states, then per the commerce clause they can make regulations regarding my widgets. However those regulations would only apply to the widgets I want to sell out of state. All of my in-state commerce is still only covered by state regulations. Similarly, if I am selling my widgets to another company that is within my state and that company wishes to sell them out of state, the regulations apply to them and not me. So if the regulation was, say no more than 5 manufactured holes in the widget, if I was the one selling them out of state, I would have to manufacture them to that spec. If I'm only selling to the other businesses, then I can still make widgets with 6 holes and he can buy them if he wants, but he'll not be able to sell them out of state due to the federal regulations.



Yes I can. That's the point that you are not getting. As I said, you can't legally stop my exercising of those rights in and of itself. All you can do is revoke my privilege to be on your property. Reread the example. If I am already on your property by your permission and then I say something you don't like, I am still exercising my free speech rights even if it is against your wish. Even in the process of my moving the 50 yards (for argument's sake) it takes for me to leave the property upon you revoking my privilege to be on it, you still cannot stop my exercising my rights. I can still be yammering away. If you have a reasonable expectation that I will exercise my rights in a manner that you do not wish on your property, you can certainly head it off at the pass by never granting me the privilege of being on your property. But you will not always know that such things will happen in advance. Do you understand the key difference?

Click to expand...

your taking things down to, too fine a point......I can stop you, not 99.9 % of the time physically... I ask you to leave, if you refuse I call the police. it you start to use force I feel is a threat in exercising a right [privilege while your on my property], I can use force back.

I have no way to read your mind, while on my property, so you can engage in exercising a right, until I put and end to it, by one of the examples which would apply I listed above. so your going down to a fine point, which I am using generality....because i feel it i go to fine in my message, its goes over people heads, which it does sometimes in using general terms.

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

ecofarm said:

The reason some do not care about freedom from unjust discrimination is they're white and suffer no such threat on a societal level. The world ends at their nose.

Click to expand...

That and we're just tired of you people complaining about every damn thing, yeah.

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

Freedom From Discrimination! Who wants to be discriminated here???

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Due process is
: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question of in what way these other people are different and special.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

No no no...come now - you're telling them how oh-so-non-violent you are, but are you telling them word-for-word that you believe that you believe business owners have a right to deny business to them because of their race?

Are you really?

Somehow I'm pretty sure of what your answer will be....

Click to expand...

I have communicated very clearly to them that i don't think I have the right to violate the body or property of my fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will. I state this very, very clearly.

So, in your mind, does a person engaged in public shopping walking on a public sidewalk have the right to refuse to do business with a shopkeeper because of the color of the shopkeeper's skin?

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

maquiscat said:

I'll disagree here only because private businesses would be the ones engaging in sales between states, therefore there would be some regulation on such private businesses. However, that regulation is only supposed to be on actual interstate commerce. For example, if my company makes a widget, if I am selling it only within my state, then any applicable state laws apply, and the federal level isn't supposed to make any regulation over it. Now if I want to sell my widget in other states, then per the commerce clause they can make regulations regarding my widgets. However those regulations would only apply to the widgets I want to sell out of state. All of my in-state commerce is still only covered by state regulations. Similarly, if I am selling my widgets to another company that is within my state and that company wishes to sell them out of state, the regulations apply to them and not me. So if the regulation was, say no more than 5 manufactured holes in the widget, if I was the one selling them out of state, I would have to manufacture them to that spec. If I'm only selling to the other businesses, then I can still make widgets with 6 holes and he can buy them if he wants, but he'll not be able to sell them out of state due to the federal regulations.

Click to expand...

The reason why it was directed at commerce between the states is to prevent one state from putting a tarriff on another states goods while keeping it low for another state for the same goods. It was meant to prevent the States from bickering with each other. That is also why the Federal government was meant to be the official arbiter between the states. The Founders wanted to hold everyone together in case another country wanted to invade and take over. And what better way to invade than to divide and conquer? The Founders tried to put in things that would help keep that to a minimum. The States themselves were the ones that were supposed to regulate businesses.

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

jesshymann said:

Freedom From Discrimination! Who wants to be discriminated here???

Click to expand...

:shrug: I get discriminated against all the time. :shrug: Do you see me complaining about it?

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

jesshymann said:

Freedom From Discrimination! Who wants to be discriminated here???

Click to expand...

How far are you willing to take the principle? Keep in mind that the OP gave no qualifiers or limiters on the two principles. Only a single example.

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

Kal'Stang said:

:shrug: I get discriminated against all the time. :shrug: Do you see me complaining about it?

Click to expand...

Of course you do. Klingons are one of the most misunderstood and discriminated races in the Alpha quadrant, followed right behind by Romulans and Cardassians.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?

Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.

Is that really what we want?

Click to expand...

I think that you have a major equivocation in your argument. In my dictionary discrimination does not equal racism. One may discriminate against a multitude of behaviors and cultural practices without holding a bit of racist animosity. Secondly, there should be a distinction in the question between institutional discrimination (enforced by governmental statute or power) and an individual who discriminates.

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

Kal'Stang said:

No actually its not. Its historical fact. Read up on the Founders Notes. The States did not want the Federal government interfereing with what happened inside the States.

Click to expand...

Others had a different opinion.

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

Federalist said:

That doesn't answer the question of in what way these other people are different and special.

Click to expand...

Point is under due process all are treated the same. The property owner who feels he has a right to violate another person due to race can have his day in court along with the person who was refused service. The judge will decide.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Point is under due process all are treated the same. The property owner who feels he has a right to violate another person due to race can have his day in court along with the person who was refused service. The judge will decide.

Click to expand...

Or he can work on having the law corrected legislatively. Also due process in this context.

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

maquiscat said:

Or he can work on having the law corrected legislatively. Also due process in this context.

Click to expand...

Sure, the law can be challenged. I'm sure Alec will model a bill if they already haven't. Something along the line of property owners have the right to violate another's persons right due to a Civil Right's violation because all power should lie with them. Anything else is a conflict of interest.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Others had a different opinion.

Click to expand...

How can historical facts be opinions? You can't change history. It's there for all to see.

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

Kal'Stang said:

How can historical facts be opinions? You can't change history. It's there for all to see.

Click to expand...

Sure, if it absolute, feel free to change the law. Should be a cake walk.

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

johndylan1 said:

I think that you have a major equivocation in your argument. In my dictionary discrimination does not equal racism. One may discriminate against a multitude of behaviors and cultural practices without holding a bit of racist animosity. Secondly, there should be a distinction in the question between institutional discrimination (enforced by governmental statute or power) and an individual who discriminates.

Click to expand...

Except they really don't care about individuals. Go back and look at all of their avoidance when asked simple up or down answers. They post a premise that no one should deny another business or resource due to an unchangeable attribute, but then they do two things that directly oppose that premise. First they include changeable attributes, such as religion and marital status (not that I believe that such are proper basis for discrimination but when you claim that unchangeable is the criteria...), and more importantly, they turn around and allow the buyer to deny the seller business and resource based upon the exact same attributes. This isn't about equality and racism. It's about them not liking what one's rights allows them to do, and instead of using their rights to impose social pressure, they instead take rights from others with laws that are hypocritical to their claimed goals.

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

ernst barkmann said:

yes, we is were we can find agreement, some companies are getting involved in your personal life which has nothing to do with the company you work for, ..one of the reasons I want contract law, you and your company come to terms on employment, as long as you fulfill your end of the written contract, they cannot fire for things they just don't like.

Click to expand...

You do know that property owners, when you work for them, consider you their property, on and off their property. That is what we are dealing with. These people think their rights trump all others.

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

maquiscat said:

Except they really don't care about individuals. Go back and look at all of their avoidance when asked simple up or down answers. They post a premise that no one should deny another business or resource due to an unchangeable attribute, but then they do two things that directly oppose that premise. First they include changeable attributes, such as religion and marital status (not that I believe that such are proper basis for discrimination but when you claim that unchangeable is the criteria...), and more importantly, they turn around and allow the buyer to deny the seller business and resource based upon the exact same attributes. This isn't about equality and racism. It's about them not liking what one's rights allows them to do, and instead of using their rights to impose social pressure, they instead take rights from others with laws that are hypocritical to their claimed goals.

Click to expand...

Nah, Civil Rights Laws don't just apply to property owners but every single individual.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Nah, Civil Rights Laws don't just apply to property owners but every single individual.

Click to expand...

So then by law a buyer cannot deny a seller business or resource due to unchangeable attributes?

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

Yes. Any individual can use the Civil Rights Law if they fell their rights are violated based on personal attribute.

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

TurtleDude said:

Jews have-how much violent crime is committed by young men wearing Yarmulkes?

You weren't talking about fighting discrimination-you talked about VIOLENCE

Click to expand...

Jews weren't kept as slaves throughout most of the white world for centuries, were they? And in most of the white world, they were seen as equals. In the Far East, they were valued, even protected in Shanghai during the war between Japan and China (look up the Sassoon family sometime). And have you ever heard of the Rothschilds?

Dude, you cannot point to the Jews and say they had it worse than the blacks. The Jews were persecuted for centuries and sometimes were the victims of genocide, yes - but they were NOT slaves, were NOT seen automatically as slaves because of the color of their skin. The Jews never had to stand by and watch their little girls being sold on the auction block. Was genocide worse? Yes, of course it was...but the genocide was an EVENT that lasted for several years. Slavery, on the other hand, lasted for CENTURIES.

Your claims about the blacks, btw, is no different from the views of Americans when the Irish and the Italians were coming to America in droves.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Out of curiosity why are you making this about whites vs every other race out there? You do realize that the rights we are talking about applies to them as business owners right? A black business owner has just as much Right to refuse service to a white person as any other race, including whites.

Click to expand...

You may not realize this, but blacks have a centuries-long history of being enslaved by whites, followed by a century of Jim Crow (which itself was followed by thirty years of support for Apartheid in South Africa by politicians who have only recently left the scene). When blacks are denied business by whites, they will remember what they just came out of...and it's really naive of you to not expect them to react violently, because they will see their rights taken away that they suffered so long to get.

All your arguments to the contrary are the height of naivete.

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

Federalist said:

I have communicated very clearly to them that i don't think I have the right to violate the body or property of my fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will. I state this very, very clearly.

So, in your mind, does a person engaged in public shopping walking on a public sidewalk have the right to refuse to do business with a shopkeeper because of the color of the shopkeeper's skin?

Click to expand...

You're working REALLY hard to avoid what I said, huh? In other words, you may have told them, "I don't have the right to violate you"...which, if that's what you said, must have made you look pretty silly...

...but you have NOT told them, "I believe it's a human right to refuse to do business with you because of the color of your skin." And why haven't you done so? Because you know better than to do so. And if I were a betting man, I'd bet a lot of money that none of your non-white friends read what you post here...because you know better than to let them do so.