• 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

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...

Discrimination on the basis of skin color IS racism.
 
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...

And how does this judge acquire the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will. Is this judge a person, like you and I am?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
...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."
Click to expand...

Yes, I have done so. And I've explained that my reason for such a stance is that I regard it as unjust to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aww, poor babies. You do realize that at one point in time some race or another has been enslaved. Including whites. Blacks do not hold a monopoly on being enslaved. Stop acting like they do.

Besides, this has nothing to do with slavery. Nor Jim Crow laws. As I said, blacks have just as much Right to discriminate as all other races.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

horsecrap

Jews were persecuted for centuries in most of europe. millions killed. most of those sold into slavery from Africa were sold by other BLACKS
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jews were kept as slaves in Egypt.
Chinese were slaves in their own country.
Whites were sold as slaves in the Arab slave trade.

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

Federalist said:
And how does this judge acquire the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will. Is this judge a person, like you and I am?
Click to expand...

The judge decides whose personal rights were violated. Under the law no individual's rights should be limited due to discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
The judge decides whose personal rights were violated. Under the law no individual's rights should be limited due to discrimination.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights supercede any federal law granting a priviledge. No matter what a judge says.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
Constitutional rights supercede any federal law granting a priviledge. No matter what a judge says.
Click to expand...

What in the Constitution says property rights trump personal liberties?

Definition of liberties:

: the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to regulate his action to secure the public health, safety, or morals or of other recognized social interests
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
What in the Constitution says property rights trump personal liberties?

Definition of liberties:

: the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to regulate his action to secure the public health, safety, or morals or of other recognized social interests
Click to expand...

When posting a definition you should probably include all of the definition that pertains to what you are talking about.

1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice

2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster ~ Liberties

A natural Right will always trump a civil right or priviledge.

But aside from that a persons Right ends where another persons Right begins. No Right can trump another Right. And since no one has the Right to buy another persons property...or even be on another persons property, a buyers Right ends at the property owners private properties edge.
 
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...

I think you have a good point. What has been lost is the reason why anti discrimination laws were needed in the first place. It wasn't simply to change society and the attitudes of individuals, it was to battle the institutional oppression of the day. Now the power of the institutions are overwhelming liberties and oppressing in the opposite direction. IE courts telling free people that they must serve. It's the institutional aspect that deserves battle, not individual choices of free people.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
When posting a definition you should probably include all of the definition that pertains to what you are talking about.



Merriam-Webster ~ Liberties

A natural Right will always trump a civil right or priviledge.

But aside from that a persons Right ends where another persons Right begins. No Right can trump another Right. And since no one has the Right to buy another persons property...or even be on another persons property, a buyers Right ends at the property owners private properties edge.
Click to expand...

Yep, and natural rights are also human rights. Civil rights are human rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Yep, and natural rights are also human rights. Civil rights are human rights.
Click to expand...

You still did not address the last part of my post. You seem to ignore that part quite a bit. And just so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about....

"But aside from that a persons Right ends where another persons Right begins. No Right can trump another Right. And since no one has the Right to buy another persons property...or even be on another persons property, a buyers Right ends at the property owners private properties edge."
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
You still did not address the last part of my post. You seem to ignore that part quite a bit. And just so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about....

"But aside from that a persons Right ends where another persons Right begins. No Right can trump another Right. And since no one has the Right to buy another persons property...or even be on another persons property, a buyers Right ends at the property owners private properties edge."
Click to expand...

The founders cared about natural rights to ensure that tyranny did not take over. No one said a property owner has to sell his property. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't want to sell it he simply can keep it, but he can't discriminate who he sells to. To call that tyranny, rather than the control of property itself, is insidious.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
The founders cared about natural rights to ensure that tyranny did not take over. No one said a property owner has to sell his property. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't want to sell it he simply can keep it, but he can't discriminate who he sells to. To call that tyranny, rather than the control of property itself, is insidious.
Click to expand...

And you still did not address what I said. Why are you avoiding it? Do you agree with it or not?

A property owner can at anytime withdraw something for sell. They can also put it back up for sell at any time they want.

And you're the one calling it tyranny. I'm the one saying that the owner has control of the property itself.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
And you still did not address what I said. Why are you avoiding it? Do you agree with it or not?

A property owner can at anytime withdraw something for sell. They can also put it back up for sell at any time they want.

And you're the one calling it tyranny. I'm the one saying that the owner has control of the property itself.
Click to expand...

I agree. He can withdraw the sale if he doesn't want to sell it and keep it or decide to sell it at a later time.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
I agree. He can withdraw the sale if he doesn't want to sell it and keep it or decide to sell it at a later time.
Click to expand...

Even if he decides to sell it 1 second after the person he didn't want to sell it to leaves his property?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
Even if he decides to sell it 1 second after the person he didn't want to sell it to leaves his property?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to do with time. If it was a time reason, sure. If it was because he didn't want to sell to a black person then that is a different story.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
It doesn't have to do with time. If it was a time reason, sure. If it was because he didn't want to sell to a black person then that is a different story.
Click to expand...

Now I'm going to put this as a direct question to you since you have continueally avoided responding to it.

Do you believe that one persons Rights end where another persons Rights begin? Yes? Or no?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
Now I'm going to put this as a direct question to you since you have continueally avoided responding to it.

Do you believe that one persons Rights end where another persons Rights begin? Yes? Or no?
Click to expand...

Yes I sure do.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes I sure do.
Click to expand...

Then you just agreed that the consumers rights ended at the owners property rights. You also just agreed that the consumers right to association ended where the property owners right to association begins. You also just agreed that the consumers so called "right" (there really isn't one but i'll let you have it for this instance) to not be discriminated against ended where the property owners rights began with both his property and his right to association.

For this very reason there is no such thing as a "Right to not be discriminated against". All Rights can be exercised. You cannot exercise a right to not be discriminated against without violating other peoples rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
Then you just agreed that the consumers rights ended at the owners property rights. You also just agreed that the consumers right to association ended where the property owners right to association begins. You also just agreed that the consumers so called "right" (there really isn't one but i'll let you have it for this instance) to not be discriminated against ended where the property owners rights began with both his property and his right to association.

For this very reason there is no such thing as a "Right to not be discriminated against". All Rights can be exercised. You cannot exercise a right to not be discriminated against without violating other peoples rights.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said. That is what you said. I say no individual has a right to trump another individuals liberty based on discrimination and that applies to all individuals including property owners.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, that is not what I said. That is what you said. I say no individual has a right to trump another individuals liberty based on discrimination and that applies to all individuals including property owners.
Click to expand...

You're right. That is not what you said. But that is the consequence of agreeing that one persons rights end where another persons rights began.

But lets go ahead and address your attempt at twisting the word "Liberty" to try and support your arguement. There is a reason that I posted the definition of "liberties" along with the link of where I got it from.

The definition of liberties makes two very important distinctions that directly relate to our conversation.

1: The first distinction is that it lists "Rights" as part of its discription. You cannot have any liberty if there are no Rights. That statement should be self evident and as such needs no explanation. And as you just agreed, one persons rights end where another persons rights begin.

2: The second distinction that it made is that of privilege. A privilege is something that is allowed to some people but not others. Or if you wish I'll also post the pertinant definition here....

a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others
Click to expand...

Mirriam-Webster ~ privilege

And of course as everyone knows, rights trump privileges any day of the week, month, or year. As such the property owners rights cannot be violated by a privilege. And again, you just agreed that a right ends where another persons rights begin. So that part of the definition does not help you either.

All this explained, it is obvious that a persons "liberties" will still not be able to violate the property owners rights to their property or to association.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
You're right. That is not what you said. But that is the consequence of agreeing that one persons rights end where another persons rights began.

But lets go ahead and address your attempt at twisting the word "Liberty" to try and support your arguement. There is a reason that I posted the definition of "liberties" along with the link of where I got it from.

The definition of liberties makes two very important distinctions that directly relate to our conversation.

1: The first distinction is that it lists "Rights" as part of its discription. You cannot have any liberty if there are no Rights. That statement should be self evident and as such needs no explanation. And as you just agreed, one persons rights end where another persons rights begin.

2: The second distinction that it made is that of privilege. A privilege is something that is allowed to some people but not others. Or if you wish I'll also post the pertinant definition here....



Mirriam-Webster ~ privilege

And of course as everyone knows, rights trump privileges any day of the week, month, or year. As such the property owners rights cannot be violated by a privilege. And again, you just agreed that a right ends where another persons rights begin. So that part of the definition does not help you either.

All this explained, it is obvious that a persons "liberties" will still not be able to violate the property owners rights to their property or to association.
Click to expand...

Does my employer have a right to sexual harass me if he owns the property? How about a merchant who owns a business? Is sexually harassing someone a right or a privilege? How about the act of discriminating someone? Is that a right or a privilege? The answer to both questions is those acts are neither. You are infringing on another person's right. It shouldn't matter if you are accessing public resources are private or employed by a public place or private. The accessing of goods and services is irrelevant. The act of discrimination is the violation as is the act of sexual harassment. Otherwise, what you create is oppression if we allow certain people the right to violate other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom