• 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

Federalist said:
Okay, so Lincoln may have been a hypocrite. So far I seem to be in good company.
Click to expand...

AHA!!!! So that is what this is about. A poor and pathetic attempt to again justify your own hypocrisy. Don't you see that its rather self defeating for you to walk down that path as an attempt to justify your own personal hypocrisy?

And so far, you have not provided the information necessary for me to answer the question about Lincoln that you posed. So not so fast including yourself in the company of Lincoln.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
AHA!!!! So that is what this is about. A poor and pathetic attempt to again justify your own hypocrisy. Don't you see that its rather self defeating for you to walk down that path as an attempt to justify your own personal hypocrisy?

And so far, you have not provided the information necessary for me to answer the question about Lincoln that you posed. So not so fast including yourself in the company of Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Yes, you consider me a hypocrite, just as I'm sure you consider Lincoln, Wilburforce, the Moscow bread line citizen, and the Haymarket anarchists to be hypocrites. I consider myself in good company.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Yes, you consider me a hypocrite, just as I'm sure you consider Lincoln, Wilburforce, the Moscow bread line citizen, and the Haymarket anarchists to be hypocrites. I consider myself in good company.
Click to expand...

Your own hypocrisy is not excused nor mitigated by you claiming that others may have been. That is just a tremendously weak argument that in no way shape or from denies your own hypocrisy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Your own hypocrisy is not excused nor mitigated by you claiming that others may have been. That is just a tremendously weak argument that in no way shape or from denies your own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I don't give a crap whether you excuse my hypocrisy or not. I consider myself in good company. I'd rather be Wilburforce than those who were supporting slavery. I'd rather be Federalist than those supporting the taking of others' property by force.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Um, no it doesn't. A person can still be sexually harassed and not have anyone lay a hand on them. That means, NO participation or contribution needed by the victim. Sexual harassment has more to do with power than sex. That is the whole point. The same goes with discrimination. It has to do with power. When someone is running a business, they should treat all humans as humans unless that human decides not to act like a human. At that point, a business owner has every right to kick them off their property.
Click to expand...

Sexual harassment that directly or implies that a person could lose his/her job or possibly be passed over for promotion or otherwise creating an uncomfortable or toxic workplace is requiring participation by a person in a way the person cannot avoid or choose not to participate.

When running a business, a smart business owner will of course treat everybody well. But what a business owner should do and what we can force a business owner to do without violating that business owners unalienable right to be who and what he is are two separate things. And what a business owner chooses to do on or with his own private property should be his unalienable right unless he agrees in advance, via social contract in his community, to provide certain services in return for a business license.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
Sexual harassment that directly or implies that a person could lose his/her job or possibly be passed over for promotion or otherwise creating an uncomfortable or toxic workplace is requiring participation by a person in a way the person cannot avoid or choose not to participate.
Click to expand...

So does discrimination.

When running a business, a smart business owner will of course treat everybody well. But what a business owner should do and what we can force a business owner to do without violating that business owners unalienable right to be who and what he is are two separate things. And what a business owner chooses to do on or with his own private property should be his unalienable right unless he agrees in advance, via social contract in his community, to provide certain services in return for a business license.
Click to expand...

A smart business person should be ethical when running a business. If not, there are laws to protect others.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
So does discrimination.



A smart business person should be ethical when running a business. If not, there are laws to protect others.
Click to expand...

Being racist or a bigot or discriminatory does not make a person unethical. It is what a person does in practice that makes a person ethical or unethical. A person can be 100% politically correct and say all the right things considered 100% virtuous by the most discriminating leftist, and still be an entirely unethical person.

But how about discriminating against the racist or bigot? Is that okay?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
Being racist or a bigot does not make a person unethical. It is what a person does in practice that makes a person ethical or unethical.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is the essence of this argument.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes. That is the essence of this argument.
Click to expand...

So please respond to my question. Is it okay to discriminate against somebody you believe to be a racist or a bigot or somebody who discriminates?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
So please respond to my question. Is it okay to discriminate against somebody you believe to be a racist or a bigot or somebody who discriminates?
Click to expand...

No. If I own a business, I'm in the business to sell my product, not decide if people are moral enough to buy my stuff. Quite frankly, it's none of my business what they do on their free time.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No. If I own a business, I'm in the business to sell my product, not decide if people are moral enough to buy my stuff. Quite frankly, it's none of my business what they do on their free time.
Click to expand...

Nor is it their business what you do in your free time, right?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Your own hypocrisy is not excused nor mitigated by you claiming that others may have been. That is just a tremendously weak argument that in no way shape or from denies your own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


What you should give concern about is that your hypocrisy on the issue of eminent domain destroys any credibility your professed views may have since your action speak so loudly in the opposite direction.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
What you should give concern about is that your hypocrisy on the issue of eminent domain destroys any credibility your professed views may have since your action speak so loudly in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be wrong for someone use force to take what belongs to you?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Do you think it would be wrong for someone use force to take what belongs to you?
Click to expand...

that would greatly and significantly depend on who that someone is and the other important details of the event.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
that would greatly and significantly depend on who that someone is and the other important details of the event.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So you think it might be just for someone to use force to take what belongs to you. Under what circumstances would you think this would be just?
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
What you should give concern about is that your hypocrisy on the issue of eminent domain destroys any credibility your professed views may have since your action speak so loudly in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

If you are friends with a person who, unbeknownst to you, commits murder, are you an accessory to murder or otherwise a supporter of murder?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

mak2 said:
Government enforced racism is a blemish on the history of a great country. I hope it never returns.
Click to expand...

Government enforced racism is still going on. Affirmative action.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, AA is a symptom of racism, but is not it.
cpgrad08 said:
Government enforced racism is still going on. Affirmative action.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I chose the first option, but I was thinking in terms of thoughts rather than actions...

I'm not entirely sure on this one...

On the one hand, I think everyone should have the right to be an asshole.
But on the other hand, we can't have any legal support acting like one.

In the OP's example, I would say that the police would have no business enforcing someone's discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The Mark said:
In the OP's example, I would say that the police would have no business enforcing someone's discrimination.
Click to expand...

So if I don't want a person to be on my home lawn simply because that person is Jewish, the police shouldn't be enforcing my discrimination?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

mak2 said:
Yes, AA is a symptom of racism, but is not it.
Click to expand...

Government treating people differently due to skin color is Government Racism.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

mak2 said:
Yes, AA is a symptom of racism, but is not it.
Click to expand...

In most forms AA is racism. Having different standards based on race is racism. Encouraging participation (recruiting?) is OK, for example running add campaigns in minority heavy media or geographic areas. Adding "diversity" points based on race is not OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom