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

Glen Contrarian said:

Wrong...because as soon as the racist business owner calls up the cops to enforce his no-blacks-allowed store policy, and the cops are forced by law to remove those blacks, we suddenly have state-enforced racism.

Which was once known as Jim Crow.

Sure, it's not quite the same...but the moment this starts, you're going to see violence across America like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. Why? Blacks have had a taste of equality, and they're not going to give it up...and they're armed, too.

Is that the kind of future you want for America? Is it really?

Click to expand...

No. That's not state-enforced racism. It's state-enforced property rights and rights of free association, which is a proper function of the government in a free society. Jim Crow was state-mandated and enforced racism. They are not the same at all.

Some examples:

It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other in any game of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers.

Click to expand...

Any white woman who shall suffer or permit herself to be got with child by a negro or mulatto...shall be sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than eighteen months.

Click to expand...

Any person...presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

Click to expand...

Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school.

Click to expand...

If a shop owner in today's USA denies service to a black man openly due to the color of his skin, there might very well be violence on that shop owner, but it's much more likely he'll be out of business in the not too distant future. The general public has open disdain for racism, which is pretty much the future I want for America. We're not going to get there by mandating that people serve other people that they don't like.

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

maquiscat said:

The rules of a place of business is what the business owner decides they are. Real simple concept.

Click to expand...

Except when it interferes with another's rights. That is why they have sexual harassment and discrimination laws.

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

FederalRepublic said:

No. That's not state-enforced racism. It's state-enforced property rights and rights of free association, which is a proper function of the government in a free society. Jim Crow was state-mandated and enforced racism. They are not the same at all.

Click to expand...

Now just to be clear, what we are indeed arguing in favor of state enforced racism, which we already have right now anyway. I can't say how many times I've heard where people have said things, like Bundy recently and others, and have had their speech called racism. Now I challenge our opponents to show where their free speech rights should not be upheld, even while engaging in such racism.

You can whine all about what might happen, but you don't know. You are projecting your own feelings here. Granted so are we; we can't be sure that people won't riot when such discrimination occurs. But it still comes down to it is all a direct violation of freedom of association and private property rights. There is no getting around that.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Except when it interferes with another's rights. That is why they have sexual harassment and discrimination laws.

Click to expand...

There is no right to not be discriminated against. Otherwise it would be illegal to say that someone can't shop my store because they are a redhead or they wear punk style clothing. Currently that is not illegal. There is no right to commerce, there is only the right, under freedom of association, to seek someone who wished to do commerce with you. There are no rights interfered with. It is all "I don't like what your freedom allows so I will violate your rights and call the prohibited action a violation of other's rights." Take your pig Maybelline and come back with a better argument. And once again, no we are not saying that racism and discrimination are proper and good and just. Quite the opposite. But you don't violate one's freedoms and rights because you don't like what that allows them to do. It is you and the others who are interfering with another's rights, or rather advocating for it.

And let me ask you the question that Glen and the others have been avoiding. Maybe you actually have the 'nads to answer. Shouldn't it be illegal for a business owner to say that they will shut down their business in order to not serve a certain group (i.e. discrimination)? Why or why not? Oh and leave your sexual harassment red herring out of this argument. We've already shown that sexual harassment is not isolated to businesses and thus are not a part of this issue. It would be equivalent if we were allowed to engage in sexual harassment on our residential properties but not in our businesses. But it's not, so it is not an equivalent argument.

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

maquiscat said:

Now just to be clear, what we are indeed arguing in favor of state enforced racism, which we already have right now anyway. I can't say how many times I've heard where people have said things, like Bundy recently and others, and have had their speech called racism. Now I challenge our opponents to show where their free speech rights should not be upheld, even while engaging in such racism.

You can whine all about what might happen, but you don't know. You are projecting your own feelings here. Granted so are we; we can't be sure that people won't riot when such discrimination occurs. But it still comes down to it is all a direct violation of freedom of association and private property rights. There is no getting around that.



There is no right to not be discriminated against. Otherwise it would be illegal to say that someone can't shop my store because they are a redhead or they wear punk style clothing. Currently that is not illegal. There is no right to commerce, there is only the right, under freedom of association, to seek someone who wished to do commerce with you. There are no rights interfered with. It is all "I don't like what your freedom allows so I will violate your rights and call the prohibited action a violation of other's rights." Take your pig Maybelline and come back with a better argument. And once again, no we are not saying that racism and discrimination are proper and good and just. Quite the opposite. But you don't violate one's freedoms and rights because you don't like what that allows them to do. It is you and the others who are interfering with another's rights, or rather advocating for it.

And let me ask you the question that Glen and the others have been avoiding. Maybe you actually have the 'nads to answer. Shouldn't it be illegal for a business owner to say that they will shut down their business in order to not serve a certain group (i.e. discrimination)? Why or why not? Oh and leave your sexual harassment red herring out of this argument. We've already shown that sexual harassment is not isolated to businesses and thus are not a part of this issue. It would be equivalent if we were allowed to engage in sexual harassment on our residential properties but not in our businesses. But it's not, so it is not an equivalent argument.

Click to expand...

There are laws to protect groups of people from being discriminated against and the law is not finite to any particular group. If red heads are finding themselves being denied services in place after place, they can go to their representative. And, sexual harassment IS part and parcel to the argument because it is specific to a place of business. Give me an example of sexual harassment in a residential place. Commerce does has its rules and regulation. It does not allow for whatever the hell I please.

An owner can shut down their doors if they don't want to follow the rules.

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

haymarket said:

Yes it is when authorized by the greater society and the government of the people.

Click to expand...

Majority sanction does not change anything. It is still taking other people's stuff.

And since that violates your personal principle of belief - it is ample evidence provided directly by you that your ideas are NOT those of the real world we live in. If you disagree, feel free how you could run the USA, the fifty states, and local areas WITHOUT compulsory taxation.

Lets hear it how it would work in Libertarian Lala Land.

People have much much more than simple property rights. They have all kind of rights including many other individual rights as well as the rights that the collective society has top have the type os society they want to have for their community, their state nd their nation as long as it is constitutional.

Click to expand...

Apparently you feel they have the right to take other people's stuff. You'll never convince me to get on board a plan that violates the body or property of my fellow Americans.

Of course you will not leave. You have good thing here and do not have the courage of your principles to leave a system you find so abhorrent and wrong. Instead, you will stay and keep on with your own hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Yep. Not leaving. Deal with it.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

There are laws to protect groups of people from being discriminated against and the law is not finite to any particular group. If red heads are finding themselves being denied services in place after place, they can go to their representative.

Click to expand...

Are there now? Not finite? Last I looked the law referred to race, age, gender (identity), religion, and orientation. I don't remember hair color or clothing choices as being protected classes. But please feel free to show me a law that states otherwise.

And, sexual harassment IS part and parcel to the argument because it is specific to a place of business. Give me an example of sexual harassment in a residential place. Commerce does has its rules and regulation. It does not allow for whatever the hell I please.

Click to expand...

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Aside from the "do this or lose your job/get crap assignments" type of harassment, pretty much any kind of sexual harassment that can happen in the workplace can happen on the street or in a home or any other setting. Sexual harassment is not isolated to the workplace. Obviously you are way behind on your sexual harassment training.

An owner can shut down their doors if they don't want to follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Ah so you will allow for some kinds of discrimination from a business but not others....how inconsistent of you.

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

maquiscat said:

Are there now? Not finite? Last I looked the law referred to race, age, gender (identity), religion, and orientation. I don't remember hair color or clothing choices as being protected classes. But please feel free to show me a law that states otherwise.



Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Aside from the "do this or lose your job/get crap assignments" type of harassment, pretty much any kind of sexual harassment that can happen in the workplace can happen on the street or in a home or any other setting. Sexual harassment is not isolated to the workplace. Obviously you are way behind on your sexual harassment training.



Ah so you will allow for some kinds of discrimination from a business but not others....how inconsistent of you.

Click to expand...

Not being finite means that the law can amend. As I stated, if red heads are finding themselves being discriminated in place after place, they can contact their representative.

Sexual harassment is not isolated to the workplace.

Click to expand...

Neither is discrimination but neither is legal in a place of business.

Ah so you will allow for some kind of discrimination from a business but not others

Click to expand...

How is a business deciding that they rather close down than follow the rules discrimination?

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

Glen Contrarian said:

So if people can't eat or can't see the doctor because the only places in town won't serve them because of their skin color or religion, that's fine with you.

Click to expand...

What happens to the people in town if the only doctor keeled over and dies? What would they do?

I would suggest that whatever they would do if the doctor were to die, they could do the exact same thing if the doctor were to refuse to do business with them.

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

Federalist said:

What happens to the people in town if the only doctor keeled over and dies? What would they do?

I would suggest that whatever they would do if the doctor were to die, they could do the exact same thing if the doctor were to refuse to do business with them.

Click to expand...

Yet, if a doctor refused to treat because of some bigotry, and the person refused treatment died due to the lack, I could see a lawsuit happening.

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

AlbqOwl said:

I think you missed the point. I was not saying there should be no taxation.

Click to expand...

Do you or do you not support compulsory taxation?

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

haymarket said:

Do you or do you not support compulsory taxation?

Click to expand...

I support each citizen contributing what is NECESSARY for government to perform its constitutionally authorized functions. And yes, I think that should be compulsory. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of taxation, but that is the most practical and least regressive way to do it.

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

Federalist said:

What happens to the people in town if the only doctor keeled over and dies? What would they do?

I would suggest that whatever they would do if the doctor were to die, they could do the exact same thing if the doctor were to refuse to do business with them.

Click to expand...

And that would apply to the do-it-the-liberal-way-or-you-have-the-right-to-not-do-business crowd. How is the protected class better off if the business owner closes up shop and/or goes elsewhere to do business?

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

Federalist said:

What happens to the people in town if the only doctor keeled over and dies? What would they do?

I would suggest that whatever they would do if the doctor were to die, they could do the exact same thing if the doctor were to refuse to do business with them.

Click to expand...

Isn't the sense of entitlement of our lefties something to behold?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Sexual harassment is not isolated to the workplace.

Click to expand...

Neither is discrimination but neither is legal in a place of business.

Click to expand...

But sexual harassment is illegal outside the workplace, discrimination is not.

How is a business deciding that they rather close down than follow the rules discrimination?

Click to expand...

If the reason that they are shutting down is so that they don't have to serve the group that they are discriminating against? "I'm the only doctor in town and I'm shutting down so that I don't treat any blacks!" How is that not discrimination?

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

maquiscat said:

But sexual harassment is illegal outside the workplace, discrimination is not.

Click to expand...

Mind giving an example?

If the reason that they are shutting down is so that they don't have to serve the group that they are discriminating against? "I'm the only doctor in town and I'm shutting down so that I don't treat any blacks!" How is that not discrimination?

Click to expand...

That is by choice.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Mind giving an example?

Click to expand...

Sure. on my residential property I can discriminate against you for being a woman and stop you from entering onto my property purely on that basis. Or on any other basis that is discrimination as detailed by law. At no point can I sexually harass you, not even on my own property. Sexual harassment is illegal outside the workplace, discrimination is not.

That is by choice.

Click to expand...

So you support some forms of discrimination and not others. So back to my original question. How is it different for the discriminated against group if he shuts down not to serve them or he doesn't serve them while running the business? Ignore the law ATM, as I am asking what is the difference between the two actions, not about the legality of the actions.

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

maquiscat said:

Sure. on my residential property I can discriminate against you for being a woman and stop you from entering onto my property purely on that basis. Or on any other basis that is discrimination as detailed by law. At no point can I sexually harass you, not even on my own property. Sexual harassment is illegal outside the workplace, discrimination is not.

Click to expand...

If your renting the property because there are very specific laws about that which also apply to discrimination. It does not apply if a person is merely on your property or visiting you.

So you support some forms of discrimination and not others. So back to my original question. How is it different for the discriminated against group if he shuts down not to serve them or he doesn't serve them while running the business? Ignore the law ATM, as I am asking what is the difference between the two actions, not about the legality of the actions.

Click to expand...

A business owner can shut down his business anytime he wishes including because he doesn't want to follow the rules. That is not discrimination.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

If your renting the property because there are very specific laws about that which also apply to discrimination. It does not apply if a person is merely on your property or visiting you.

Click to expand...

Renting/leasing is a business, therefore by your own words that is supposed to be a no no area of discriminating. However, sexual harassment is still illegal no matter what the location; private or public, residence or business. Discrimination is not.

A business owner can shut down his business anytime he wishes including because he doesn't want to follow the rules. That is not discrimination.

Click to expand...

Question avoidance. Reread the question. We've already moved on past the shutting down part. You've stated that you are alright with that kind of discrimination. I asked you, for the group that is discriminated against, what is different for them if the business owner refuses them service as opposed to the business owner shutting down in order that they not be served? And to refresh, because I forgot it in the last post, although I noted it before when I asked the question: this is the only business if it's kind in town, such as the doctor.

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

maquiscat said:

Renting/leasing is a business, therefore by your own words that is supposed to be a no no area of discriminating. However, sexual harassment is still illegal no matter what the location; private or public, residence or business. Discrimination is not.

Click to expand...

Please quote me that part of the law:roll:

Question avoidance. Reread the question. We've already moved on past the shutting down part. You've stated that you are alright with that kind of discrimination. I asked you, for the group that is discriminated against, what is different for them if the business owner refuses them service as opposed to the business owner shutting down in order that they not be served? And to refresh, because I forgot it in the last post, although I noted it before when I asked the question: this is the only business if it's kind in town, such as the doctor.

Click to expand...

Um, the point is it's not discrimination:roll: A person can shut down his business for any reason. Your other question has zip to do with the discussion of discrimination and a very typical strawman.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Please quote me that part of the law:roll:

Click to expand...

Which part of which law? We've got a couple of different laws tied up in this one sub-issue

Um, the point is it's not discrimination:roll: A person can shut down his business for any reason. Your other question has zip to do with the discussion of discrimination and a very typical strawman.

Click to expand...

So what is discrimination then? I agree that a person can shut his business down for any number of reasons. You are still avoiding the question. What are you afraid of when it come to the answer? Quite simply, what is the difference in the result to the discriminated group if the business owner shuts down as opposed to the business owner simply not serving them?

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

maquiscat said:

Which part of which law? We've got a couple of different laws tied up in this one sub-issue

Click to expand...

No sub-issue. I want you to quote me the part of the law that forbids sexual harassment non related to work or rental property. TIA

So what is discrimination then? I agree that a person can shut his business down for any number of reasons. You are still avoiding the question. What are you afraid of when it come to the answer? Quite simply, what is the difference in the result to the discriminated group if the business owner shuts down as opposed to the business owner simply not serving them?

Click to expand...

Um, the person won't get treatment either way. Price of tea in China.....

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

No sub-issue. I want you to quote me the part of the law that forbids sexual harassment non related to work or rental property. TIA

Click to expand...

First what is "TIA"?

Secondly, Since there is no one law on sexual harassment, it would be hard to quote law. However, this is what I have found so far:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rights-of-those-accused-of-sexual-harassment.html said:

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual harassment is a kind of sex discrimination occurring in the workplace as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Traditionally, sexual harassment could not occur outside of the workplace. However, new laws are finding it in certain relationships of trust, such as one with a doctor, an attorney, a social worker, a real estate agent, a banker, a contractor, an executor, a landlord, a teacher, and so on.
However, sexual advances become sexual harassment when they are “unwelcome.” In the context of criminal law, sexual harassment can become criminal when sexual battery or stalking is committed. Sexual battery is the un-consented sexual touching of another person in a way which is harmful or offensive. The exact definition of criminal sexual harassment will differ from state to state since criminal law is largely a domain of state law. The basic idea remains the same though.

Click to expand...

http://www.discriminationattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1287338.html said:

(note: this quote is applying to CA law only)
The law has recently been changed to allow people to sue others for sexual harassment, even when the harassment isn't at the job.

The following people can be sued for sexual harassment, when they have a business, service, or professional relationship with the person they harassed:

A person's physician, psychotherapist, or dentist
Attorneys
Marriage, family or child counselors, licensed clinical social workers, and those with a Masters Degree in Social Work (MSW)
Real estate agents and real estate appraisers
Accountant bankers, trust officer, financial planners and loan officers
Collection services
Contractors
Escrow loan officers
Executors, trustees, or administrator beneficiaries
Landlords and property managers
Teachers
People who are in a relationship that is substantially similar to any of the above

The sexual harassment must occur in the context of the relationship. For example, just because a person is a doctor does not mean he can never legally sexually harass anyone. The law says that he can't sexually harass his patients. Teachers can't sexually harass their students, etc.

What Counts As Harassment?

Sexual harassment by someone in one of the positions listed above is when he or she does the following:

Makes sexual advances
Makes solicitations
Makes sexual requests
Makes demands for sexual compliance

Click to expand...

That bold part there shows that sexual harassment can occur outside of the business/trust/work context. In some parts of the country, previously unbeknownst to me, it's actually legal.

I am making inquires in some other areas. It may well be that what I have been told is sexual harassment uses a different legal term outside of the workplace. But most of the classes and seminars I have attended have taught that these actions are illegal period, regardless of location.

And yes it is a sub issue. The main issue is discrimination not sexual harassment.

Um, the person won't get treatment either way. Price of tea in China.....

Click to expand...

Or the person goes to another location to see the service, assuming someone else doesn't fulfill the need in that location. Either way then what's the issue if the results are the same?

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

albqowl said:

i support each citizen contributing what is necessary for government to perform its constitutionally authorized functions. And yes, i think that should be compulsory. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of taxation, but that is the most practical and least regressive way to do it.

Click to expand...

this is were we disagree, to make taxes complusary...is force....to the founders, your money is your property not to be taken by force.

Taxes unders the founders was voluntary, you will find after taxes become complusry, ...government expanded outside the constutution.

Income taxes, ...was a progressive idea of the late 1800's as was democracy for America...two great evils

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

maquiscat said:

First what is "TIA"?

Secondly, Since there is no one law on sexual harassment, it would be hard to quote law. However, this is what I have found so far:





That bold part there shows that sexual harassment can occur outside of the business/trust/work context. In some parts of the country, previously unbeknownst to me, it's actually legal.

I am making inquires in some other areas. It may well be that what I have been told is sexual harassment uses a different legal term outside of the workplace. But most of the classes and seminars I have attended have taught that these actions are illegal period, regardless of location.

And yes it is a sub issue. The main issue is discrimination not sexual harassment.



Or the person goes to another location to see the service, assuming someone else doesn't fulfill the need in that location. Either way then what's the issue if the results are the same?

Click to expand...

Your proof verifies that the person can be charged outside the workplace if "they have a business, service or professional relationship with the person they harassed". It's about power. It is not a sub issue because it is from the same law as discrimination (Civil Right's Act). It is a violation of a human right. Your rights end where another person's begins.

As far as the second part of your post, the issue is people are not allowed to violate another's right. If they prefer to shut down rather than follow the law, it at least protects the rights of individuals. That is the point.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

It's about power.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is.