• 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

Aww, shucks. Now I can't get mad. ;) ;)

I guess I'm not concerned by what constitutional authority we have civil rights laws. I would be ashamed of my country if we still had signs on businesses that said, "Blacks not welcome here." That was a dark period in our history, in my opinion. The famous fact that Jackie Robinson couldn't stay with the rest of his team (until they stood up for him) because the team hotels wouldn't admit blacks was pretty low down. And even that we had Negro Baseball Leagues. That, during the second world war, blacks had to move off the sidewalks in the south when whites were going by...I mean, really??


i agreed with the history part.....however ...when there is Liberty, there are going to be people who do things you don't like.

i see things i don't like all the time, however i have no right or government has no authority to stop people from doing them.

if we as a people start picking and choosing rights, depending on how we FEEL, we will not have any right left.

Miley Cyrus is an example for me of things i don't like.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So long as you don't refuse to work for a colored (any color other than white Caucasian) person in an area where you would work for a white, and visa versa, ... refuse to work for a white in the same area you feel is unsafe and predominantly colored.... so long as that is true, you're not discriminating based on race. The same would hold true for any protected class of people.

And if you aren't a member of a protected class?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The argument was about how the labor that Edison provided towards the creation of the light bulb gave him a right to the light bulb he created. Patents are another matter all together.

He gets to decide to market it or not but he can't say "I will only sell my light bulb to white people."
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

My question is not necessarily about civil rights laws. It's more fundamental. I'm asking if you think that you, personally, have the right to violate the body or property of your neighbor in order to force him to do business against his will.

I guess I'd have to say that, regardless of whether I knew someone or not, I'd support laws that prevented them from discriminating on the basis of someone's religion or sex or marital status or race. If he sees fit not to do business with these people and gets caught? He deserves what he gets.

When did we, as a people, turn so callous toward our fellow man?

You ought to know I'm a Realtor. Knowing and respecting civil rights laws is the difference between jail, a quarter-million-dollar lawsuit, and a successful career.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The idea of the light bulb is entirely different from the light bulb he created. You're purposely missing the point here it seems.

no she stated government created the right to property.........if Edison created the blub.......was it his?........or did he have to get government approval for it to be his property?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

...because they don't have a history of discrimination.

Are you quite certain of that? Blond jokes have been around for a long time...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Are you quite certain of that? Blond jokes have been around for a long time...

If there is a need, they can certainly see their representative to make a case.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That property came from an idea and then he needed to buy the goods to make it. He then was able to protect his idea but needs to pay to have those bulbs manufactured.

that is not what i am asking......dont go off track.

you stated government created the right to property.

Edison created the blub.....thru his own means..........did government own the blub after it was created, and then government give its right to that property to Edison?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I guess I'd have to say that, regardless of whether I knew someone or not, I'd support laws that prevented them from discriminating on the basis of someone's religion or sex or marital status or race. If he sees fit not to do business with these people and gets caught? He deserves what he gets.

So, just to be crystal clear, you're saying that you would support violating the body or property of your fellow man in order to force him to do business with someone against his will?

If that's the case, I can't agree with violating the body or property of anyone who hasn't (or is in the process of) violating the body or property of anyone else. That would constitute an initiation of aggression, and I don't feel I have the right to initiate aggression against my fellow man.

When did we, as a people, turn so callous toward our fellow man?

Speaking for myself, I don't feel I'm callous toward my fellow man. I love my fellow man, and refuse to initiate aggression against him, even when I think he's being a dick.

You ought to know I'm a Realtor. Knowing and respecting civil rights laws is the difference between jail, a quarter-million-dollar lawsuit, and a successful career.

Appreciate you letting me know. Thx.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

He gets to decide to market it or not but he can't say "I will only sell my light bulb to white people."

Edison lived before such laws, so legally he could have decided to not sell to whomever he pleased.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Statist? In what way? I don't approve of giving a centralized government control over commerce.

Okay, so do you feel you have the right to violate the person or property of one your neighbor in order to force him to do business with someone against his will?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Names are not a protected class:roll:

Why not? What if I'm uncomfortable working with someone named Sanchez? Why shouldn't the Sanchez's have equal protection under the law?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

that is not what i am asking......dont go off track.

you stated government created the right to property.

Edison created the blub.....thru his own means..........did government own the blub after it was created, and then government give its right to that property to Edison?

Sorry, but you're off track because land is not the same as intellectual property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why not? What if I'm uncomfortable working with someone named Sanchez? Why shouldn't the Sanchez's have equal protection under the law?

Then quit. No one said you have to work with him.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Sorry, but you're off track because land is not the same as intellectual property.

wrong........ everything about a person is PROPERTY.

JAMES MADSION ....CREATOR OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS


James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

wrong........ everything about a person is PROPERTY.

JAMES MADSION ....CREATOR OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS


James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

Feel free to throw in as many strawman you please. I can't just go out and claim land.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So, just to be crystal clear, you're saying that you would support violating the body or property of your fellow man in order to force him to do business with someone against his will?

If that's the case, I can't agree with violating the body or property of anyone who hasn't (or is in the process of) violating the body or property of anyone else. That would constitute an initiation of aggression, and I don't feel I have the right to initiate aggression against my fellow man.



Speaking for myself, I don't feel I'm callous toward my fellow man. I love my fellow man, and refuse to initiate aggression against him, even when I think he's being a dick.

Appreciate you letting me know. Thx.

I had two occasions as a Realtor when clients made asses of themselves and only civil rights laws stopped them from being the dicks they most certainly were.

"Maggie, here's the thing," my client said as I was filling out the Listing Agreement on his home. "I want you to know that I'm not going to sell my home to a black. I just couldn't do that to my neighbors."

Maggie pauses, pen in hand, deliberately and ceremoniously pushing back from the kitchen table...."Frank, here's my thing. I have no intention of defending myself against a HUD lawsuit that would take everything I own and everything you owned by joining you in your intention to violate the civil rights laws of the United States of America."

What I couldn't say was what I really thought: dickhead.

Another jerk-times-five refused to sign a full-price offer because the buyers were a mixed-race couple. Well, at least not until I'd had a come-to-Jesus talk with him.

What I couldn't say was what I really thought: dickhead.

:lol: :lol:

So. If I have no sympathy for someone who wants to discriminate with the largest asset he's likely to own in his lifetime (his home), how much sympathy would I be likely to have for someone who refuses to sell a guy a ham sandwich?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I had two occasions as a Realtor when clients made asses of themselves and only civil rights laws stopped them from being the dicks they most certainly were.

They have the right to choose who they will sell property to. It doesn't matter at all that it is their home, a cake, medical treatment, or anything else you can imagine. It just doesn't. You have all the right in the world to protect yourself from the law, but that doesn't make the law right.

Just in case anyone is not paying attention Maggie just admitted that anti-discrimination laws reach into matters dealing with the home.

I wonder when someone will admit that anti-discrimination laws reach into transactions made on the street corner.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You didn't but I was talking about land. Then you bring this up which had zip to do with my discussion.


really?......your quote

Sorry, but you're off track because land is not the same as intellectual property.

whether its land or intellectual ...its all property.

i clearly stated...everything about you is property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

really?......your quote



whether its land or intellectual ...its all property.

i clearly stated...everything about you is property.

It's mine because either I or someone else bought it and put it in my name. It's not naturally mine.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

What do you think all government force is ultimately backed by?

Again, you should really understand the philosophy you exalt.

He probably believes that taxes are voluntary too...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It's mine because either I or someone else bought it and put it in my name. It's not naturally mine.

oh?......i will let you be very clear on the subject.

is there a natural right to property.....yes or no.

does government give us right to property ...yes or no...
 
Back
Top Bottom