• 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

You don't assume ownership of anything. You still have to pay for whatever good or service you buy. The government 'forces' people to act humanly for a reason. People don't have a right to treat another person like sh*t because they have a right to be sh*tty because they own a business.

No, you assume ownership the moment you claim entitlement to the property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It is not, it's Fiddy's beloved boot coming into play. All government force is ultimately backed by the gun. It is just a mere statement of fact.

Well that is extreme 'all or nothing' thinking.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I thought we were all equal? Now I'm being told it would be okay to refuse service to someone strictly because she is blonde (like myself, for instance). What law protects me? And please don't pretend people don't dislike people from all walks of life. I know people here in New England who detest white men from Alabama, call them stupid, rednecks and losers. Is that okay?

If someone admits to denying service due to discrimination, it's illegal. If they do it for another admitted reason or no particular reason and discrimination cannot be proven, it's legal.

An act of illegal discrimination is some act that is violating your rights based on your religion, race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, age, sexual orientation or family status. Anytime these reasons are used as a cause to deny a public facility or service it can be deemed illegal discrimination.

The Human and Civil Rights laws cover most forms of discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You don't assume ownership of anything. You still have to pay for whatever good or service you buy. The government 'forces' people to act humanly for a reason. People don't have a right to treat another person like sh*t because they have a right to be sh*tty because they own a business.

Do you feel as if you have the right to initiate aggression against someone 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

Then we are in agreement that the failure to provide someone a service does not worsen someones condition, but simply does not act to better it.

Yeah, if someone is having a heart attack and dies the doctor who refused to treat him just didn't better his condition:roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Well that is extreme 'all or nothing' thinking.

That all government force is ultimately backed by the gun? No, it's not. It's just reality. Push hard enough, the gun comes out. Just because it may be masked behind fines and misdemeanors doesn't mean the force isn't ultimately backed by the gun.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yeah, if someone is having a heart attack and dies the doctor who refused to treat him just didn't better his condition:roll:

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

Individual freedom is key, the rights and liberties of the individual do reign supreme. We're all responsible in a free society to uphold the responsibilities and repercussions of freedom else you lose it. Consequences aren't necessarily self-inflicted either.

Any other trite, dismissive statement that doesn't actually deal with anything I have said left? Or are you done?

In a public venue, more than one person's individual freedom, rights, and liberties are involved, period. Your right to discriminate in a public venue should not overrule someone else's right to the service or product. To imagine that individual freedoms is the end of the discussion is irresponsible. Yes, it's a part of the discussion, but not the entire discussion.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

In a public venue, more than one person's individual freedom, rights, and liberties are involved, period. Your right to discriminate in a public venue should not overrule someone else's right to the service or product. To imagine that individual freedoms is the end of the discussion is irresponsible. Yes, it's a part of the discussion, but not the entire discussion.

Explain to me how you have a right to someone else's labor and property? You do realize you're describing the right to slaves, right?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Depends on the setting and how one defines and views the "discrimination."
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, you assume ownership the moment you claim entitlement to the property.

No, property owners don't have the right to act like lords.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That all government force is ultimately backed by the gun? No, it's not. It's just reality. Push hard enough, the gun comes out. Just because it may be masked behind fines and misdemeanors doesn't mean the force isn't ultimately backed by the gun.

Exactly. Don't pay the fine and watch the government use guns against you.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That all government force is ultimately backed by the gun? No, it's not. It's just reality. Push hard enough, the gun comes out. Just because it may be masked behind fines and misdemeanors doesn't mean the force isn't ultimately backed by the gun.

So, all laws are backed by the government gun?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, property owners don't have the right to act like lords.

They are not. But the only way you can be entitled to the property is if you were somehow part owner of the property. Thus the entitlement in and of itself is proof of your usurpation of property. You're actually not entitled to another's property nor their labor.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So, all laws are backed by the government gun?

Ultimately, yes. Try not following a few, and see what happens.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

In a public venue, more than one person's individual freedom, rights, and liberties are involved, period. Your right to discriminate in a public venue should not overrule someone else's right to the service or product. To imagine that individual freedoms is the end of the discussion is irresponsible. Yes, it's a part of the discussion, but not the entire discussion.

But private business is not public. The government, of course, cannot discriminate.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Explain to me how you have a right to someone else's labor and property? You do realize you're describing the right to slaves, right?
No it's nothing akin to slavery. You're not being harmed. You get the same pay as any other person would pay for the same service or product. Slaves were harmed and not paid. You are simply being required to not stop the flow of the economy unless there is potential harm to you or your business. Since there is none, you can't. For them to have to get the product of service elsewhere is a hardship, even if it's a tiny hardship in some cases, it's a huge hardship in others, so it's best to draw the line cleanly where it is at.

If you want to discriminate, have a private, by appointment only business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

They are not. But the only way you can be entitled to the property is if you were somehow part owner of the property. Thus the entitlement in and of itself is proof of your usurpation of property. You're actually not entitled to another's property nor their labor.

No one's claiming the property. The good or service will be paid for so your argument is not "taking" someone's property away.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But private business is not public. The government, of course, cannot discriminate.
If you are open to the general public, you are a public business. If you are a government entity, you are not a public business, as you are not a business, you are the government.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No one's claiming the property. The good or service will be paid for so your argument is not "taking" someone's property away.

Yes, you are claiming the property and the labor. If a man has a cupcake, that's his cupcake. You are claiming it.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, you are claiming the property and the labor. If a man has a cupcake, that's his cupcake. You are claiming it.

No, if he decides he wants to keep it and not sell it he doesn't have to put it out for sale.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you are open to the general public, you are a public business. If you are a government entity, you are not a public business, as you are not a business, you are the government.

Private business can discriminate, refuse service, etc. It happens a lot. You have no right to their property or labor. Public is only public if it's public. But if someone else is paying the bills, it's his, not yours.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So, are you saying we should have no laws?

Nope, some government force is justified. But it is backed by a gun.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No one's claiming the property. The good or service will be paid for so your argument is not "taking" someone's property away.

Eminent domain "pays" for the land too....and it's still taking someone's property away.
 
Back
Top Bottom