• 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!

Is this unreasonable/illegal discrimination?

Questions regarding discrimination

  • Is he discriminating against white power rallies?

    Votes: 13 76.5%

  • Is he discriminating against white people?

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • If there is discrimination, should it be legally allowed?

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Total voters
    17
Redress said:
Some have mentioned a bakery refusing to cater a same sex wedding. I will use that as an example here. To my mind, businesses should be allowed to do that because it is not discriminating against gay people per se, but against an event they disapprove of. While they may disaprove of it based on the fact the people getting married are gay, that is one of those impossible to prove things.
Click to expand...

Gipper said:
Last I checked, a gay wedding is an event.

Yeah...not at all hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not at all making retarded assumptions that could have been avoided simply by reading...
 
Lachean said:
1. No
2. Very No
3. N/A



I am certain this business owner would allow service to white people who are not members of the KKK, and has in the afformentioned events he regularly caters for. He is not denying service based on race (or age/sex) he's denying service for what they say and have a history of which is violence.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying that a business owner gets to apply his own judgement on what he believes that group stands for? Obviously the KKK is a bunch of dirt-bags, but just having a viewpoint no matter how detestable it is (and I agree they are detestable) does not make them criminals individually or even in a group, unless they have committed any specific crimes for which they can be found guilty of. If the "history" or any other subjective point of view matters, then you have to allow all subjective points of view to be allowed for the business owner don't you, just like the flower shop owner not servicing a gay wedding? Because based on that standard, the business owner could refuse to provide services for a Army veterans group because there is a "history" of the Army using violence against Native Americans long ago for which that the business owner takes issue with, right?

The OP asked if a Black business owner should be able to deny services to this KKK group. I believe the assumption would be that he is not denying them service because he believes there are going to be crimes committed at their rally; of course he doesn't have to participate in that. But the assumption is that this group is having a rally under their 1st amendment rights. In my opinion the answer is: The KKK can have their rally under their first amendment rights, and the BBQ owner can deny them service under his first amendment rights. Has nothing to with "history". The business owner (unless bound by a contract) should be able to do whatever he wants--- including go out of business for making bad business decisions. Government needs to just stay out of it, and let the marketplace remedy these situations.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
Regardless, if the end result is refusal to serve white people, or any other specific group, it is discrimination in the result of his policies and he is liable.
Click to expand...

no thats not how it works, the discrimination has to be shown to be illegal and in this case its not unless the KKK is a recognized religion in his state, county or manciplity
 
Zyphlin said:
Since people are (naturally) tieing this to Arizona, I'll explain what caused me to think about this in a very generalized way...but I'd like to actually try to keep the discussion on the hypothetical as opposed to becoming another topic fully focused on Arizona (since there's already dozens of those on it).

Something I read today put forward an interesting notion to me regarding some things happening in Arizona (which I'm admittedly not very well versed on). Essentially, pondering the difference between refusing service to a GAY person for being gay because you have a religious issue with it...and refusing service to an EVENT because it's something you have a religious issues with.

Essentially, that there's a bit of a grey area between discriminating against a person for their orientation, and discriminating against an event or action. And because this is such a wedge issue, and like all wedge issues both sides get deeply entrenched and are afraid of any middle ground for fear of losing an inch, that grey area doesn't really get talked about.

That's kind of what led me to this notion.

Undoubtably, if someone walked into a shop and wants to buy some BBQ something and they went "No, I don't sell to white people" that'd be a problem.

And undoubtably, if someone walked into a shop and wants to buy catering services for an event celebrating Charley Mansen and they went "No, I don't want to sell my services to such an event" that there'd probably not be a problem.

HOWEVER...I do think you get into a grey area when you're talking about an event that's tied to a protected status. On one hand, the Business Owner has rights as to what he does with his time and energy and what things his business's name and product will be attached to. On the other hand, the basis for his disagreement is tied in some fashion or degree to the protected class.

It's a sticky issue that I think is missed out on a significant and legitimate discussion because discrimination issues are such an emotional wedge in nature that people are afraid of even exploring.

As it comes to Arizona...do I think a person should be able to discriminate against a customer because they're gay and that's against their religion? No. Do I think they should be able to discriminate against an event because the events purpose is against their religion? I have a bit harder time coming down definitively on that one.

For my example....

Black business owner refuses to sell his BBQ to a a white guy. Problem.

Black business owner refuses to cater a motorcycle rally of a white guy because he has an issue with white people. Problem.

Black business owner refuses to cater a motorcycle rally of a white guy because he has an issue with motorcycles after his son died on one? No problem.

Black business owner refuses to cater a white power rally of a white guy because he has an issue with white power rallys? A lot harder for me to say "problem".
Click to expand...
An owner has a right to boycott ideologies, not personal preferences. So unless the KKK has an ideology that is different than I am currently aware of, it would not be discrimination. If a member of the KKK came to his BBQ shack for sandwich, and he refused to sell it, then that is discrimination. The organized KKK meeting is clearly about active ideological event, not passive personal preference such as sexuality or individual service at an open establishment.
 
Zyphlin said:
A black man owns a barbeque joint and caters for events regularly; christmas parties, birthdays, weddings, etc.

A local KKK outfit is having an annual "White Power" Rally and cookout and actually seeks to hire said black man to cater their event.

The business owner, realizing that the event he'd be catering is a "White Power Rally", doesn't want the groups business and refuses to cater the event.

A few questions here...

1. Is the owner discriminating against catering "White Power" events?

2. Is the owner discriminating against white people?

3. If there is discrimination, is it discrimination that should be legally allowed?
Click to expand...

Since the KKK (and white people in general) are not considered a "protected class" in the eyes of the govt, the answer would have to be "no" this would not be discrimination.....
 
Summerwind said:
The organized KKK meeting is clearly about active ideological event, not passive personal preference such as sexuality or individual service at an open establishment.
Click to expand...

to apply your example to the bakery issue. If a gay person came into the bakery for a cake, and they refused to sell it, then that is discrimination. An organized gay wedding is clearly about active idealogical event......
 
OscarB63 said:
Since the KKK (and white people in general) are not considered a "protected class" in the eyes of the govt, the answer would have to be "no" this would not be discrimination.....
Click to expand...

However, protected or not, if one of the KKK members simply entered into the same person's BBQ establishment, caused no trouble, and was refused service, that would be discrimination. Yes? So isn't what we're saying really that it isn't discrimination when it's refusal of an ideology, which a KKK meeting is? That regardless of color, even whites, discrimination for no reason but that fact that someone holds an ideology, is still discrimination.
 
OscarB63 said:
Since the KKK (and white people in general) are not considered a "protected class" in the eyes of the govt, the answer would have to be "no" this would not be discrimination.....
Click to expand...
????????????
white people are in fact a protected class under race, national origin and color
we all belong to "protected classes"

the KKK no unless they have a recognized religion somewhere
 
OscarB63 said:
to apply your example to the bakery issue. If a gay person came into the bakery for a cake, and they refused to sell it, then that is discrimination. An organized gay wedding is clearly about active idealogical event......
Click to expand...
Catering one would certainly fall into that category, but entering, ordering, and picking up wouldn't be any different than any other patron in his public establishment.

I personally don't have a problem with the religious exemption for direct services to weddings, or gay parades, or gay protests. But anything else, I have a problem. Those laws like AZ is trying to pass are way too broad.
 
OscarB63 said:
to apply your example to the bakery issue. If a gay person came into the bakery for a cake, and they refused to sell it, then that is discrimination. An organized gay wedding is clearly about active idealogical event......
Click to expand...
No it has to do with physical location firstly, as in so long as all exchanges are at a public establishment, and no wedding or organized group is entering or disturbing the business, then they have to sell the cake. If they are required to deliver or cater the event, ie be a part of the event, then no it's not discrimination to refuse to participate. Offer the food, but not the additional service.
 
Summerwind said:
Catering one would certainly fall into that category, but entering, ordering, and picking up wouldn't be any different than any other patron in his public establishment.

I personally don't have a problem with the religious exemption for direct services to weddings, or gay parades, or gay protests. But anything else, I have a problem. Those laws like AZ is trying to pass are way too broad.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like any of these laws are forcing businesses to not serve gays. and any businesses that would take advantage of these laws will suffer the consequences of their actions.
 
Summerwind said:
No it has to do with physical location firstly, as in so long as all exchanges are at a public establishment, and no wedding or organized group is entering or disturbing the business, then they have to sell the cake. If they are required to deliver or cater the event, ie be a part of the event, then no it's not discrimination to refuse to participate. Offer the food, but not the additional service.
Click to expand...

so, in the case of the OP, if the KKK wanted the black dude to provide the food and they were going to come to his shop and pick it up, it would be discrimination for him to refuse?
 
OscarB63 said:
IMHO, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like any of these laws are forcing businesses to not serve gays. and any businesses that would take advantage of these laws will suffer the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...
Well then you've not read the law, nor have you considered the irreversible problems that could be caused, particularly in small communities. But feel free to keep thinking that way so you can brush it off as nothing.... ie BE PART OF THE PROBLEM
 
OscarB63 said:
so, in the case of the OP, if the KKK wanted the black dude to provide the food and they were going to come to his shop and pick it up, it would be discrimination for him to refuse?
Click to expand...

Yes, so long as they entered and left without incident.
 
OscarB63 said:
so, in the case of the OP, if the KKK wanted the black dude to provide the food and they were going to come to his shop and pick it up, it would be discrimination for him to refuse?
Click to expand...

yes it would be LEGAL discrimination :shrug:
no laws were broken, no rights were infringed on
 
Summerwind said:
Well then you've not read the law, nor have you considered the irreversible problems that could be caused, particularly in small communities. But feel free to keep thinking that way so you can brush it off as nothing.... ie BE PART OF THE PROBLEM
Click to expand...

please cite me the applicable section of this law that FORCES businesses to discriminate against gays.

making it legal to do something in no way forces anyone to do it.
 
AGENT J said:
yes it would be LEGAL discrimination :shrug:
no laws were broken, no rights were infringed on
Click to expand...

well....so much for everyone being equal under the law......
 
AGENT J said:
no thats not how it works, the discrimination has to be shown to be illegal and in this case its not unless the KKK is a recognized religion in his state, county or manciplity
Click to expand...

So, the white caterer who refuses to cater for an NAACP function is well within his rights to do so in your estimation?
 
OscarB63 said:
well....so much for everyone being equal under the law......
Click to expand...

that KKK member has the same rights as me and you

NONE of us can be illegally discriminated against, that is exactly what equal rights is, thanks for proving my point :)
 
AGENT J said:
that KKK member has the same rights as me and you

NONE of us can be illegally discriminated against, that is exactly what equal rights is, thanks for proving my point :)
Click to expand...

but, unless you are a member of a special "protected class" you can be legally discriminated against. that's not "equal" rights. that's special rights, no matter how you try to slice it...
 
clownboy said:
So, the white caterer who refuses to cater for an NAACP function is well within his rights to do so in your estimation?
Click to expand...

LMAO this isnt rocket science, here i will help you figure it out

illegal discrimination is based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation

so ask yourself this, why is the caterer discriminating, who/what is he discriminating against?

wamo and now you have your answer

also FYI some other FACTS that might help you

the caterer's race race is 100% meaningless and the NAACP has many white, asian, latino etc members they also have gays and women too, crazy huh?! lol

let me know if you are still confused
 
Zyphlin said:
1. Is the owner discriminating against catering "White Power" events?

2. Is the owner discriminating against white people?

3. If there is discrimination, is it discrimination that should be legally allowed?
Click to expand...
1. At first glance, I don't think "discriminating" is the best word to use here, so no.
2. No
3. N/a
 
OscarB63 said:
1.)but, unless you are a member of a special "protected class" you can be legally discriminated against.
2.) that's not "equal" rights.
3.) that's special rights, no matter how you try to slice it...
Click to expand...

1.) nothing special about it we all belong to them, ALL OF US
2.) 100# false see #1
3.) fact already proved this wrong no matter how you try to slice it.

the the KKK member is a white man then he has a gender, a race/color and national origin, an age, ability or disability, religion or lack of one and he has a sexual orientation.
all the SAME protections that we all have


facts win again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom