• 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

Does my employer have a right to sexual harass me if he owns the property?

Nope, that violates her right to her property...which is herself. And it violates her right to be secure.

How about a merchant who owns a business? Is sexually harassing someone a right or a privilege?

Same as above.

How about the act of discriminating someone? Is that a right or a privilege?

Doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege. Rights trump privileges and rights end at another persons rights. But for the record, it's 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.

There is no right to not be discriminated against. I've already told you why. Rights must be able to be exercised or they do not exist (in fact I challenge you to point out one single right that exists in the Constitution that cannot be exercised). As you cannot exercise a "right to not be discriminated against" without violating another persons right it in effect does not exist. And it does matter if you are accessing private resources because those private resources are owned by an individual that has rights to those resources where the consumer does not have a right to those resources. As for the oppression statement...no ones right is being violated...because there is no right to not be discriminated against.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Nope, that violates her right to her property...which is herself. And it violates her right to be secure.



Same as above.



Doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege. Rights trump privileges and rights end at another persons rights. But for the record, it's a privilege.



There is no right to not be discriminated against. I've already told you why. Rights must be able to be exercised or they do not exist (in fact I challenge you to point out one single right that exists in the Constitution that cannot be exercised). As you cannot exercise a "right to not be discriminated against" without violating another persons right it in effect does not exist. And it does matter if you are accessing private resources because those private resources are owned by an individual that has rights to those resources where the consumer does not have a right to those resources. As for the oppression statement...no ones right is being violated...because there is no right to not be discriminated against.

Your whole argument falls apart because discrimination is a human right violation just like sexual harassment.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Your whole argument falls apart because discrimination is a human right violation just like sexual harassment.

As you agreed to above, one persons right ends where another persons right begins. As such I point you to post 1622.

Anyways...

If my arguement had fallen apart then you could defend your stance as easily as I have defended mine. Instead you are reduced to basically just making statements and not arguements. Making such a statement with no arguement points or addressing or disproving points in an arguement is the equivalent of saying "NUH UH!"
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

As you agreed to above, one persons right ends where another persons right begins. As such I point you to post 1622.

Anyways...

If my arguement had fallen apart then you could defend your stance as easily as I have defended mine. Instead you are reduced to basically just making statements and not arguements. Making such a statement with no arguement points or addressing or disproving points in an arguement is the equivalent of saying "NUH UH!"

No, in debate it is logical to point out flaws in another's argument. I did present an argument on more than one post on this thread. You just disagree with the premise that like sexual harassment, discrimination is a violation to a human right. Yes, one person's right ends where another person's begins.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, in debate it is logical to point out flaws in another's argument. I did present an argument on more than one post on this thread. You just disagree with the premise that like sexual harassment, discrimination is a violation to a human right. Yes, one person's right ends where another person's begins.

Bold: But you didn't point out any flaws. You just made a statement that did not even address anything that I said in that post.

As for the rest....2 problems here.

1: A right is a right is a right. Doesn't matter if you call it a "human" right or not. It is still a right. This is the third time that you have attempted to use a different word or phrase in conjunction with your arguement that there is a right to not be discriminated against. Why is that? Is it perhaps because there is no right to not be discriminated against? If there was then surely you would have been able to use the correct word or phrase the first time... or even the second...but the third? That should tell you that your arguements are falling.

2: There is no right to not be discriminated against. I have shown you why. Repeatedly. But I'll phrase it again. You cannot exercise a right to not be discriminated against without violating another persons right. As such there is no right to not be discriminated against because you cannot legally violate another persons right.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Bold: But you didn't point out any flaws. You just made a statement that did not even address anything that I said in that post.

As for the rest....2 problems here.

1: A right is a right is a right. Doesn't matter if you call it a "human" right or not. It is still a right. This is the third time that you have attempted to use a different word or phrase in conjunction with your arguement that there is a right to not be discriminated against. Why is that? Is it perhaps because there is no right to not be discriminated against? If there was then surely you would have been able to use the correct word or phrase the first time... or even the second...but the third? That should tell you that your arguements are falling.

2: There is no right to not be discriminated against. I have shown you why. Repeatedly. But I'll phrase it again. You cannot exercise a right to not be discriminated against without violating another persons right. As such there is no right to not be discriminated against because you cannot legally violate another persons right.

You keep saying that if people have a right to not be discriminated against then the person who discriminates right is being violated. That could easily be said about a women's right not to be sexually harassed. Isn't that taking away someone's right to sexually harass that women? Your flaw is saying that discrimination isn't a human rights violation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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.

Seems like a silly response, frankly.
It is a matter of practicality. All people probably discriminate. "Smart" businesses discriminate but are smart enough to not publicly admit to discriminating against a protected class. It benefits an open society to have people honestly express their views and not hide them.
Powerful groups have gotten the political support to their cause and have their people included in civil rights statutes while the less powerful groups have not and can legally be discriminated against.
2 examples. My father was accused of being an communist during the Red Scare and was discriminated against. Perfectly legal since communists did not have the political clout to get themselves in on some civil rights legislation. My brother has been refused entry into a store for years because of some fear that he may make some employees uncomfortable. Of course this is probably legal discrimination as well although since he is on psychiatric care perhaps this discrimination may be illegal under ADA. Other people are refused entry to stores based on body odor or "creepy" behavior. This is legal since "creepiness" is not a protected class. Some people are refused entry because of offensive language on shirts or tattoos. Completely legal.
There is something offensive in allowing discrimination in some cases but not in the case of more politically powerful groups.

And there is something offensive in knowing that the "smart" businesses are able to discriminate as long as they are "smart" enough to make up legal reasons while the more open and honest businesses get punished for their honesty and their beliefs that contrast with current social norms.

EDIT: Just found another example. Chase Bank is refusing to serve people who work in the porn industry. Legal discrimination since porn performers don't have the political clout to get special government rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You keep saying that if people have a right to not be discriminated against then the person who discriminates right is being violated. That could easily be said about a women's right not to be sexually harassed. Isn't that taking away someone's right to sexually harass that women? Your flaw is saying that discrimination isn't a human rights violation.

The one who discriminates may indeed be a scumbag on moral grounds. But he or she is doing absolutely nothing to the person he/she discriminates against if it is only the discriminator's person or property involved. He/she requires no contribution or participation by the other person. The one who sexually molests another is absolutely requiring contribution or participation by the other. And therein is the difference.

Should you be able to discriminate against one you believe to be a child molester. A person who consider corrupt, unethical, immoral, a detriment to society? I think we all would agree that in such cases anybody ought to be able to refuse service to anybody. The problem comes, however, in determining who it is okay to discriminate against and who it is not. Who should be authorized to determine that? And the issue is whether one person can be forced to serve another with his own person or property or whether liberty requires that to be sacrosanct.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You keep saying that if people have a right to not be discriminated against then the person who discriminates right is being violated. That could easily be said about a women's right not to be sexually harassed. Isn't that taking away someone's right to sexually harass that women? Your flaw is saying that discrimination isn't a human rights violation.

As I said before, a womans right to not be sexually harrassed stems from her right to property (herself) and her right to be secure. Sexual harrassment is not discrimination. It is a violation of property and security. As such no one has a right to sexually harrass anyone. Your "right" to not be discriminated against does not stem from any right. You're making a very bad analogy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Discrimination on the basis of skin color IS racism.

Discrimination isn't limited to skin color as the criteria. You are the one who is focusing only on skin color. BTW if a white person denied another white person because their skin was too pale, would that be racism?

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.

You obviously disagree because by the above statement any reason can be the basis of withdraw of sale, which includes all the so called protected classes. As you proved with your response two posts later.

No, in debate it is logical to point out flaws in another's argument. I did present an argument on more than one post on this thread. You just disagree with the premise that like sexual harassment, discrimination is a violation to a human right. Yes, one person's right ends where another person's begins.

I need to point out here that the "sexual" part of sexual harassment is irrelevant. Harassment is the rights violation and it doesn't matter whether it is sexual or not. You are using the term sexual to add an emotional appeal fallacy to the context
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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.

yes, i have heard of some companies, they try to assert that because you work for them, act as if they can control your actions, away from work [like telling you, you cant smoke even at home].....if you make no contract to such activity, then they really have no legal standing.

however look it from a different angle also...i have heard of people who have made comments about a subject,...which has nothing to do with their company they work for..........and outside forces, such as individuals and organizations try to get the person fired because of those comments....in other words......people who have no natural right or legal rights trying to use force /coercion on a business to take action against that person.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

This thread should be mandatory reading for anyone in a position of power in the Republican party who may have a voice in who will be their 2016 nominee. When you see all the complicated and convoluted mental gymnastics predicated on axioms and beliefs that the justifiers of discrimination have to go through to even pretend to make a point while screaming loudly to anyone who will hear that they are NOT defending bigotry - and consider they can take all the space and time they need to do it - now project such a discussion with its quick sound bites and attack ads in the middle of a Ron Paul presidential campaign if he gets the GOP nod - and you can see what a major train wreck it would be.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

This thread should be mandatory reading for anyone in a position of power in the Republican party who may have a voice in who will be their 2016 nominee. When you see all the complicated and convoluted mental gymnastics predicated on axioms and beliefs that the justifiers of discrimination have to go through to even pretend to make a point while screaming loudly to anyone who will hear that they are NOT defending bigotry - and consider they can take all the space and time they need to do it - now project such a discussion with its quick sound bites and attack ads in the middle of a Ron Paul presidential campaign if he gets the GOP nod - and you can see what a major train wreck it would be.
There are no mental gymnastics involved. It does not matter what we think personally of another person's values or morals. The issue is not whether discrimination is good or bad or whether we should or should not promote it or justify it or condone it.The issue is whether liberty is a fundamental unalienable right or not so long as nobody else's rights are violated. If it is not, then anybody can be forced to make his person and his property available to whomever the law decrees is entitled to it. If it is, then a person's right to his own person and property is sacrosanct and that would include the ability to be discriminatory as the person chooses.Nobody here is justifying or approving discrimination against others for ANY reason. I'm pretty sure all of us would say it would be immoral to refuse to accommodate those who come to our place of business for no other reason than race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. But setting issues of morality involved in discrimination aside, it is also immoral to force another person to serve another with his/her person or property against his/her will.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There are no mental gymnastics involved. It does not matter what we think personally of another person's values or morals. The issue is not whether discrimination is good or bad or whether we should or should not promote it or justify it or condone it.The issue is whether liberty is a fundamental unalienable right or not so long as nobody else's rights are violated. If it is not, then anybody can be forced to make his person and his property available to whomever the law decrees is entitled to it. If it is, then a person's right to his own person and property is sacrosanct and that would include the ability to be discriminatory as the person chooses.Nobody here is justifying or approving discrimination against others for ANY reason. I'm pretty sure all of us would say it would be immoral to refuse to accommodate those who come to our place of business for no other reason than race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. But setting issues of morality involved in discrimination aside, it is also immoral to force another person to serve another with his/her person or property against his/her will.

You missed the point. Tell us how Rand Paul or someone similar who has opposed the civil rights laws that are on the books could combat the charge that he is supporting discrimination or even racism - even in the holy name of the great god LIBERTY?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You missed the point. Tell us how Rand Paul or someone similar who has opposed the civil rights laws that are on the books could combat the charge that he is supporting discrimination or even racism - even in the holy name of the great god LIBERTY?

I don't speak for Rand Paul though I think he probably only opposes civil rights laws that violate other rights that he believes essential for a free people. So you'll have to ask him why he holds the opinions that he holds. That is not for me to say.

And no, I am not missing the point. The point is whether the right to discriminate is more important than a right to be free from discrimination. If we do not have a right to discriminate in who shall have rights to our person and property, wouldn't you agree that would then actually have no rights at all, but only permission to do whatever the authorities allow us to do?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I don't speak for Rand Paul though I think he probably only opposes civil rights laws that violate other rights that he believes essential for a free people. So you'll have to ask him why he holds the opinions that he holds. That is not for me to say.

And no, I am not missing the point. The point is whether the right to discriminate is more important than a right to be free from discrimination. If we do not have a right to discriminate in who shall have rights to our person and property, wouldn't you agree that would then actually have no rights at all, but only permission to do whatever the authorities allow us to do?

yes you are indeed missing the point. The minute rand Paul opens his mouth to defend your cherished right to discriminate because of the sanctity of property rights he is dead in the water politically.

I am NOT a propertytarian and do NOT believe that property rights triumph all other rights nor am i a Halloween costume designer who can drape all manner of objectionable behaviors in the costume of LIBERTY.

And if you think you have rights that your government does not recognize - you are living in fantasy land.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Without the right to discriminate you can't very well have human rights, so obviously the correct choice here is the right to discriminate.

I agree, but the first interest of any business is to stay profitable. Discrimination against anyone, apart from being ignorant, is just bad for business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Seems like a silly response, frankly.

And I care what you think. Really. I'll be reading your post.

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

yes you are indeed missing the point. The minute rand Paul opens his mouth to defend your cherished right to discriminate because of the sanctity of property rights he is dead in the water politically.

I am NOT a propertytarian and do NOT believe that property rights triumph all other rights nor am i a Halloween costume designer who can drape all manner of objectionable behaviors in the costume of LIBERTY.

And if you think you have rights that your government does not recognize - you are living in fantasy land.

What Rand Paul does or does not do in the interest of his political health is again his choice, and not something over which I have any control whatsoever.

But what is your motive here? Is it to trash Rand Paul? Or me? Or to discuss the fundamental concept of discrimination in general. I agree that governments can and do recognize rights. Our Constitution was written on the concept that the people would assign the powers government would have and government would protect, but not assign us, the rights that we have. That is the whole point of this discussion in this thread is it not? What the government recognizes as liberty, i.e. unalienable, as far as our right to our own person and property is concerned?

So where do you draw the line. What can the government rightfully force you to do with your person, and what should be considered inviolate? What can the government rightfully force you to do with your property, and what should be considered inviolate? Who should have the authority to decide this? And how does that person or persons acquire that authority?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

yes you are indeed missing the point. The minute rand Paul opens his mouth to defend your cherished right to discriminate because of the sanctity of property rights he is dead in the water politically.

I am NOT a propertytarian and do NOT believe that property rights triumph all other rights nor am i a Halloween costume designer who can drape all manner of objectionable behaviors in the costume of LIBERTY.

And if you think you have rights that your government does not recognize - you are living in fantasy land.


my property rights trump your exercisable rights.......WHEN YOU ARE ON MY PROPERTY..THEY DO.

when you enter my property, your exercisable rights becomes privileges, that i can allow you to exercise or not.........if i chose you hand bear a firearm on my property, and if i chose not.......you cant, without running afoul of the law.

we are not a nation were "the people" get to determine what rights, or the when and where the individual citizen can exercise his own rights on his own property....IF he has committed no crime, of endangered the health /safety of the public.

you discrimination concerns , are based on of your own emotions, and not based on the securing of rights which is why we have government.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

This thread should be mandatory reading for anyone in a position of power in the Republican party who may have a voice in who will be their 2016 nominee. When you see all the complicated and convoluted mental gymnastics predicated on axioms and beliefs that the justifiers of discrimination have to go through to even pretend to make a point while screaming loudly to anyone who will hear that they are NOT defending bigotry - and consider they can take all the space and time they need to do it - now project such a discussion with its quick sound bites and attack ads in the middle of a Ron Paul presidential campaign if he gets the GOP nod - and you can see what a major train wreck it would be.

No mental gymnastics happened here. :shrug: My position has been the same through out the thread. That there is no right to not be discriminated against because in order for such a right to exist it would violate peoples rights to property, speech, and association. A persons Rights end where another persons Rights begin. That is simple fact.

However the main person that I have been discussing this with has had to change his wording 3 different times to try and make his arguement stick. Failing each and every time. That is where the mental gymnastics are coming from.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

yes you are indeed missing the point. The minute rand Paul opens his mouth to defend your cherished right to discriminate because of the sanctity of property rights he is dead in the water politically.

I am NOT a propertytarian and do NOT believe that property rights triumph all other rights nor am i a Halloween costume designer who can drape all manner of objectionable behaviors in the costume of LIBERTY.

And if you think you have rights that your government does not recognize - you are living in fantasy land.

So you don't think people have a right to control access to the property they own? Great, I'll be right over. Hope you have lots of beer in your fridge.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No mental gymnastics happened here. :shrug: My position has been the same through out the thread. That there is no right to not be discriminated against because in order for such a right to exist it would violate peoples rights to property, speech, and association. A persons Rights end where another persons Rights begin. That is simple fact.

However the main person that I have been discussing this with has had to change his wording 3 different times to try and make his arguement stick. Failing each and every time. That is where the mental gymnastics are coming from.

That's BS. You asked me a question and I answered it. My direct answer was no one has a right to trump another's. Even on your property, you still don't have a right to harass or discriminate against me as a person. All people have inalienable right's.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That's BS. You asked me a question and I answered it. My direct answer was no one has a right to trump another's. Even on your property, you still don't have a right to harass or discriminate against me as a person. All people have inalienable right's.

please name the exercisable right which is recognized by the constitution....since you stated inalienable....which the constitution follows those principles of the DOI

which is life.....liberty and PROPERTY.

name the right,...please do not give me federal law..like the 1964 civil rights act......because that is not inalienable.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

please name the exercisable right which is recognized by the constitution....since you stated inalienable....which the constitution follows those principles of the DOI

which is life.....liberty and PROPERTY.

name the right,...please do not give me federal law..like the 1964 civil rights act......because that is not inalienable.

Property doesn't just mean tangibles, but it also encompasses a person's body and whole being as his property.
 
Back
Top Bottom