Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, a place of business is not the same thing as an exclusive club or your back yard.

Click to expand...

Upon what basis are you discriminating between a place of business and a home? What differentiates them in your mind?

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

Federalist said:

Upon what basis are you discriminating between a place of business and a home? What differentiates them in your mind?

Click to expand...

A place that is made for public accommodations.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

A place that is made for public accommodations.

Click to expand...

And why does the owner of a place made for public accommodations have less rights, in your mind, than any other owner of property? Why are you discriminating against that person but not others?

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

Federalist said:

And why does the owner of a place made for public accommodations have less rights, in your mind, than any other owner of property? Why are you discriminating against that person but not others?

Click to expand...

.....because of the nature of the power structure.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

.....because of the nature of the power structure.

Click to expand...

So you want to discriminate against some people and use force to take away their rights because of the nature of the power structure. Thanks for explaining. It's all perfectly clear now.

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

Federalist said:

So you want to discriminate against some people and use force to take away their rights because of the nature of the power structure. Thanks for explaining. It's all perfectly clear now.

Click to expand...

Due process is not using force.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Due process is not using force.

Click to expand...

Yes, government laws are enFORCED with force. If you can't acknowledge this you are being naive.

So the nature of the power structure I see is that the government is discriminating against a particular class of property owner, and is using force, um sorry, "due process" to deny them rights that all other property owners have.

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

Federalist said:

Yes, government laws are enFORCED with force. If you can't acknowledge this you are being naive.

So the nature of the power structure I see is that the government is discriminating against a particular class of property owner, and is using force, um sorry, "due process" to deny them rights that all other property owners have.

Click to expand...

Due process is not force. And, the property owner doesn't haven't limitless rights.

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

AlbqOwl said:

But what is your motive here? Is it to trash Rand Paul? Or me?

Click to expand...

To simply make an observation about the implications of advocating discrimination.

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

ernst barkmann said:

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

Click to expand...

Only is your sacred property is on your own island nation and you have no others with you. Otherwise - your obsession with your own property ends up the same way... YOUR PRETEND RIGHTS simply do not exist.

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

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

More from the church of the sacred property rights trumping all other rights.

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

Federalist said:

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.

Click to expand...

It seems that you also totally and completely miss the point. I wonder how that could happen? :roll::shock:

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

Grant said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's the natural consequence of wrong action. And I hope that every business that does discriminate goes down in flames or changes their stance due to public pressure, not from the violation of rights by a law.

ernst barkmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're still not getting it and your wording is only hurting the argument. I can execute each and every one of my executable rights on your property, if I am on the property with your permission. You're only recourse at that point where I execute a right that you didn't want me to is to have me leave your property, i.e. revoke my privilege to be on there. However, unless I refuse to leave (thus violating your property rights) if at any point during my egress you attempt to forcibly stop my executing my right (such as my continuing to engage in my free speech rights) then it will be you who are in violation of the law. I cannot execute my executable rights without running the risk of losing my privilege to be on your property, but I can execute them nonetheless. When I do so I am NOT in violation of your property rights. Your property rights only give you the ability to make the decision as to whether or not I am allowed upon said property. They do not cover my actions. That decision as to whether or not I am allowed on the property can be used as a consequence to my actions.

Mind you I am only referring to those parts of your property rights as they apply to our interactions. Your right to put whatever bloody tree you want on your property has nothing to do with me being or not being on your land. Nor am I allowed to do any damage on your property simply be cause that is not within my rights. Free speech, yeah. Freedom of religion, you betcha. Damage...not a right and in violation of yours. Now I know that you think that this is nitpicking or something along that line, but this is a very important distinction. Especially in this conversation where we are talking about what rights are where and when they can be countered.

rabbitcaebannog said:

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.

Click to expand...

So wait a minute? Are you telling me that I can't say that no oriental (had to change it up a bit) person is ever allowed to step foot on my land or in my house, purely on the reason that they are oriental?

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, a place of business is not the same thing as an exclusive club or your back yard.

Click to expand...

Oh now you are changing things. The bold part in the previous quote is not so limited and now you are putting up limiters. This flip flopping is not helping your argument any.

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, you are not using force but your power.

Click to expand...

You mean that same power that the customer has to not do business with the owner and thus denying the owner business and resource? Seems to work both ways quite nicely.

AlbqOwl said:

But the business owner has no right to demand that the customer buy his products or services...

Click to expand...

The ACA seems to disagree with you.

rabbitcaebannog said:

In the same vein, an employee has no right to have a job yet we have laws to protect employees from sexual harassment. So, yes, people have no right to a job or buying an item in a private place of business, but they are given protections against such things as sexual harassment and discrimination.

Click to expand...

We have laws that protect against sexual harassment in and outside the workplace. Thus it is an issue that is separate from personal property rights.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Due process is not force. And, the property owner doesn't haven't limitless rights.

Click to expand...

Nor does the customer.

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

maquiscat said:

So when blacks believed that they had rights that the US government did not recognize, they too were living in a fantasy land? Well then it just goes to prove that fantasies can come true!

Click to expand...

If you are a slave and you believe you are free because you "have rights' the result is the same as if you did not believe you had rights - you were still a slave and you were screwed. Unless the government agrees that you have rights - you may as well be the Mad Hatter at a Tea Party for the Insane.

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

haymarket said:

Only is your sacred property is on your own island nation and you have no others with you. Otherwise - your obsession with your own property ends up the same way... YOUR PRETEND RIGHTS simply do not exist.

Click to expand...

Property and labor are indeed rights. A man has right to his property and his labor.

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

haymarket said:

If you are a slave and you believe you are free because you "have rights' the result is the same as if you did not believe you had rights - you were still a slave and you were screwed. Unless the government agrees that you have rights - you may as well be the Mad Hatter at a Tea Party for the Insane.

Click to expand...

Nice avoidance. Try again. Did the blacks have rights that were being violated by the law and the government pre-civil war era?

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

haymarket said:

More from the church of the sacred property rights trumping all other rights.

Click to expand...

*sigh* Here we go again.

1: No where have I stated that property rights trump any other right. Try not to strawman k?

2: Where's this church you talk of?

3: There is no right to not be discriminated against. Such a Right would violate other peoples Rights. And as I have said repeatedly through out this thread that you supposedly read through one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. Not only does that mean that my property rights cannot violate other peoples rights it also means that this supposed "right" to not be discriminated against cannot violate my property rights. As such there is no right to be free of discrimination because it cannot be exercised without violating other peoples rights.

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

haymarket said:

Only is your sacred property is on your own island nation and you have no others with you. Otherwise - your obsession with your own property ends up the same way... YOUR PRETEND RIGHTS simply do not exist.

Click to expand...

so it comes out...you who have proclaimed yourself a constitutionalists:lol:......who does not believe in right to property....thanks again for your true statist side.

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

maquiscat said:

You're still not getting it and your wording is only hurting the argument. I can execute each and every one of my executable rights on your property, if I am on the property with your permission. You're only recourse at that point where I execute a right that you didn't want me to is to have me leave your property, i.e. revoke my privilege to be on there. However, unless I refuse to leave (thus violating your property rights) if at any point during my egress you attempt to forcibly stop my executing my right (such as my continuing to engage in my free speech rights) then it will be you who are in violation of the law. I cannot execute my executable rights without running the risk of losing my privilege to be on your property, but I can execute them nonetheless. When I do so I am NOT in violation of your property rights. Your property rights only give you the ability to make the decision as to whether or not I am allowed upon said property. They do not cover my actions. That decision as to whether or not I am allowed on the property can be used as a consequence to my actions.

Mind you I am only referring to those parts of your property rights as they apply to our interactions. Your right to put whatever bloody tree you want on your property has nothing to do with me being or not being on your land. Nor am I allowed to do any damage on your property simply be cause that is not within my rights. Free speech, yeah. Freedom of religion, you betcha. Damage...not a right and in violation of yours. Now I know that you think that this is nitpicking or something along that line, but this is a very important distinction. Especially in this conversation where we are talking about what rights are where and when they can be countered.

Click to expand...

since we seem to have a problem, ...start again,. and you tell me what you have on my property, and what youare able to do.

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

maquiscat said:

You're still not getting it and your wording is only hurting the argument. I can execute each and every one of my executable rights on your property, if I am on the property with your permission. You're only recourse at that point where I execute a right that you didn't want me to is to have me leave your property, i.e. revoke my privilege to be on there. However, unless I refuse to leave (thus violating your property rights) if at any point during my egress you attempt to forcibly stop my executing my right (such as my continuing to engage in my free speech rights) then it will be you who are in violation of the law. I cannot execute my executable rights without running the risk of losing my privilege to be on your property, but I can execute them nonetheless. When I do so I am NOT in violation of your property rights. Your property rights only give you the ability to make the decision as to whether or not I am allowed upon said property. They do not cover my actions. That decision as to whether or not I am allowed on the property can be used as a consequence to my actions.

Mind you I am only referring to those parts of your property rights as they apply to our interactions. Your right to put whatever bloody tree you want on your property has nothing to do with me being or not being on your land. Nor am I allowed to do any damage on your property simply be cause that is not within my rights. Free speech, yeah. Freedom of religion, you betcha. Damage...not a right and in violation of yours. Now I know that you think that this is nitpicking or something along that line, but this is a very important distinction. Especially in this conversation where we are talking about what rights are where and when they can be countered

Click to expand...

i could not wait!

you as a person have rights, exercisable and non exercisable.

when you enter my property, your exercisable rights become privileges, as your non exercisable remain your rights.

those rights which have now become privileges, cannot be exercisable by you fully without impunity[ ie. the police] unless i give you authority to exercise them on my property.

i myself cannot use any force on you, to stop you from praying, speaking, packing a firearm, assembling with people on my property [exercisable], i have to call the police if you refuse to leave my property if you exercise them, and i do not wish you to do so.

while your on my property and pose no threat to me or others, i cannot touch you, kill you, secure you, steal, or you defraud you [non exercisable],......again must call the police for any action you take, which poses no threat.

when you do threaten with force to life, i can respond with force.

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

MaggieD said:

No. It is at that point that we have a government-enforced right not to be discriminated against.

If you are serving the public, you do not have (and should not have) the right to discriminate. What you do in your home, on the sidewalk, in your car, at establishments other than your own public business/organization is completely up to you. Choose to associate, not to associate, to call names, to defend . . . whatever. But when you have a business or organization that serves the public? Your right to discriminate in your business or organization is over-ridden by my right not to be discriminated against.

Click to expand...

There is not a government endorsed right not to be discriminated against. Several catergories, 7 or so, had the political power to get this government endorsed right but there are numerous other discriminations. Height, weight, body odor, political views, boobs/sexiness, occupation (Chase bank is kicking out customers in the porn industry), behavioral ticks/mental disorders, tattoos/piercings, etc. Perhaps these don't rise to the level of racial discrimination but it is still discriminatory and legal. My father was discriminated against by the government during the Red Scare years due to suspected politics and my brother has been refused admittance to a store for years because apparently his psychiatric issues cause fear and suspicion from employees. His presence must contribute to a hostile work environment or something.

The line between public and private is nebulous. The Boy Scouts are considered a private organization, as are numerous social, sporting, or drinking clubs. Housing developments can be considered private. Not sure how a business gets recognized as such but I wonder whether getting organizations private simply to get around laws is a good thing. Openness and honesty is important. I would rather have an owner like Chick-fil-A who came out against SSM and faced the consequences in the marketplace than people like Donald Sterling who lived a lie, got a NAACP lifetime achievement award despite being a racist. Smart companies will continue to discriminate and lie about it while the honest people face the market forces. I prefer the openness and trust the market to do the right thing. Besides, why would, for example, a Black want to support a company owned by a racist but who has the sense to hid this feeling?

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

ernst barkmann said:

i could not wait!

Click to expand...

LOL. Sorry doing things with the wife.

those rights which have now become privileges, cannot be exercisable by you fully without impunity[ ie. the police] unless i give you authority to exercise them on my property.

Click to expand...

Or in other words consequences. There is a big difference between not having rights while on your property and having to risk expulsion from your property from exercising those rights. You keep saying that no one has executable right while on your property, which is an untrue statement. Even when you show you know better as you do below you go back to that same statement and collapse your whole argument. My right to free speech does not give me a right to be on your property, but neither does your property rights give you the right to silence me while on your property. For that matter, not even while I am refusing to leave, even as the cops are dragging me away. Even they are not allowed to silence me. The only real privilege I receive while on your property is the privilege on being on your property.

when you do threaten with force to life, i can respond with force.

Click to expand...

I think it's been made clear by several people that such is a violation of rights, regardless of what side of the discrimination line they are falling.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

In the same vein, an employee has no right to have a job yet we have laws to protect employees from sexual harassment. So, yes, people have no right to a job or buying an item in a private place of business, but they are given protections against such things as sexual harassment and discrimination.

Click to expand...

Sexual harassment requires participation and/or contribution by another person without agreement or consent of that person. This has been explained to you a number of times now why that is totally different that a person's right to his OWN person and property. Discrimination should be illegal ONLY if it requires participation or contribution by another person without that person's consent.

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

haymarket said:

To simply make an observation about the implications of advocating discrimination.

Click to expand...

Nobody I've read on this entire thread has advocated discrimination at least as related to how people are treated.

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

maquiscat said:

Agreed. It's the natural consequence of wrong action. And I hope that every business that does discriminate goes down in flames or changes their stance due to public pressure, not from the violation of rights by a law.




You're still not getting it and your wording is only hurting the argument. I can execute each and every one of my executable rights on your property, if I am on the property with your permission. You're only recourse at that point where I execute a right that you didn't want me to is to have me leave your property, i.e. revoke my privilege to be on there. However, unless I refuse to leave (thus violating your property rights) if at any point during my egress you attempt to forcibly stop my executing my right (such as my continuing to engage in my free speech rights) then it will be you who are in violation of the law. I cannot execute my executable rights without running the risk of losing my privilege to be on your property, but I can execute them nonetheless. When I do so I am NOT in violation of your property rights. Your property rights only give you the ability to make the decision as to whether or not I am allowed upon said property. They do not cover my actions. That decision as to whether or not I am allowed on the property can be used as a consequence to my actions.

Mind you I am only referring to those parts of your property rights as they apply to our interactions. Your right to put whatever bloody tree you want on your property has nothing to do with me being or not being on your land. Nor am I allowed to do any damage on your property simply be cause that is not within my rights. Free speech, yeah. Freedom of religion, you betcha. Damage...not a right and in violation of yours. Now I know that you think that this is nitpicking or something along that line, but this is a very important distinction. Especially in this conversation where we are talking about what rights are where and when they can be countered.




So wait a minute? Are you telling me that I can't say that no oriental (had to change it up a bit) person is ever allowed to step foot on my land or in my house, purely on the reason that they are oriental?



Oh now you are changing things. The bold part in the previous quote is not so limited and now you are putting up limiters. This flip flopping is not helping your argument any.



You mean that same power that the customer has to not do business with the owner and thus denying the owner business and resource? Seems to work both ways quite nicely.



The ACA seems to disagree with you.



We have laws that protect against sexual harassment in and outside the workplace. Thus it is an issue that is separate from personal property rights.



Nor does the customer.

Click to expand...

You know what? I don't look to the ACA to determine what my beliefs, opinions, values, or principles will be. I bet you don't either.