• 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

Getting back to your other question, what does that have yo do with the price of tea in a China?

What he created with his labor is his property. If you understood property you know why labor is important here.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?

Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.

Is that really what we want?

Actually, you can't have freedom from discrimination in any real sense of the words. If a business refuses to serve someone who is a complete dick, well that's discrimination. I discriminated against all the women out there who aren't married to me, for all sorts of reasons. For that matter, I discriminated against all the guys out there too. If a guy came into my house and demanded that I perform a service for him, and then refused to leave when I said no and I called the cops to enforce my right...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced discrimination.

Frankly, I can see a very good argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws, but generally if a law forcing a racist to associate with someone he didn't want to associate with is "necessary", wouldn't it be just as likely to increase racial tensions?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, there are laws against that.

Yes, there are laws against voluntary exchange, which is entirely shameful and embarrassing.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

What he created with his labor is his property. If you understood property you know why labor is important here.

People lose their property all the time because companies come in and force people off their land for their natural resources. That is wrong.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Yes, there are laws against voluntary exchange, which is entirely shameful and embarrassing.

No, it's shameful and embarrassing that without those laws people will and can be discriminated.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

People lose their property all the time because companies come in and force people off their land for their natural resources. That is wrong.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm going to ignore your post if you are going to act like an arse. I understood your post just fine. It was a rather silly one because in order for a government to decide who gets the land, it is all due to man made laws.

Getting back to your other question, what does that have yo do with the price of tea in a China?


tea?.......you stated government created a right to property........i asked if Edison created the light blub, ....did the light blub belong to government?................. until they turned the right over to Edison, even though he created it?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

those are, but i have a natural right to property, if government gave me the right [as you claim], then government could take away the right......government would in essence own all property in the u.s. making it a communist state in your mind.

Did the Native Americans have a natural right to property?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But that is the problem; the businessman says the reason was the slaughterhouse (work location/scope), the denied customer says the reason was personal (their religion). Who, if either, should the state believe (and why)?

The customer has to prove the reason was illegal discrimination. How would he do that, one might ask. He could show a pattern. He might have the testimony of an employee for the company that would testify to something the owner said. Or something the owner outright said to the customer. There are ways, but it's no slam dunk.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything?

I was responding to this "What he created with his labor is his property. If you understood property you know why labor is important here".
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, it's shameful and embarrassing that without those laws people will and can be discriminated.

Well, people have to agree to a transaction for it take place, and sometimes their reason for not agreeing to a transaction is justified and other times its not really. Then again, it's not up to me to say what terms they will agree to or not.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You don't have a right to have people accept or like or serve you even if they are in business. I discriminate in my business who I am going to serve and who I don't. For one I don't serve gang members or those I perceive to be gang members. They can sue all they want. They will NEVER be served by me or my business. My not serving you does nothing to any of your rights. Your forcing me to serve you infringes on my freedom to associate. Unless the business entity is a government made one such as a public corporation no business should cater to those they don't desire to. Its obvious as to why a government should be allowed to have its workers discriminate.

Gang members are not protected by virtue of civil rights laws. Discriminate all you want.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Gang members are not protected by virtue of civil rights laws. Discriminate all you want.

Why shouldn't they be?? Why aren't I protected?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Did the Native Americans have a natural right to property?

the Indians, at first did not lay claim to property, because the concept was alien to them.

later they sought to keep the land they were on, the government made promises to them but did not protect the land they were on.

they appealed to government.....but it did not protect their natural right.......another government failure.


please answer!.......you stated government created a right to property........i asked if Edison created the light blub, ....did the light blub belong to government?................. until they turned the right over to Edison, even though he created it?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tea?.......you stated government created a right to property........i asked if Edison created the light blub, ....did the light blub belong to government?................. until they turned the right over to Edison, even though he created it?

Government creates the right to patent too.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why shouldn't they be?? Why aren't I protected?

We've got a long way to go before our civil rights laws protect pirates.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

We've got a long way to go before our civil rights laws protect pirates.

That sucks. Pirates deserve love too. :(
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'd like to ask any supporter of anti-discrimination laws: Do feel you have the right to violate the person or property of 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

We've got a long way to go before our civil rights laws protect pirates.

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

Government creates the right to patent too.

wrong.......government protects people by patent.....

government is instituted to protect rights............IF rights did not need to be protected........government would not be needed.

DOI- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Madison- "if men were angels ,no government would be necessary"

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

I'd like to ask any supporter of anti-discrimination laws: Do feel you have the right to violate the person or property of your neighbor in order to force him to do business with someone against his will?

If someone is running a business that serves the general public, I have no problem with their right to discriminate being subjugated by laws against discrimination. They can discriminate to their heart's content at home, in the streets, in other businesses...but their own business? No. That's the little bit of freedom we must give up to be a civil society.

Or do you still think that blacks belong at the back of the bus?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

wrong.......government protects people by patent.....

government is instituted to protect rights............IF rights did not need to be protected........government would not be needed.

DOI- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Madison- "if men were angels ,no government would be necessary"

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.

That does not negate the fact government protects property with man made laws.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If someone is running a business that serves the general public, I have no problem with their right to discriminate being subjugated by laws against discrimination. They can discriminate to their heart's content at home, in the streets, in other businesses...but their own business? No. That's the little bit of freedom we must give up to be a civil society.

Or do you still think that blacks belong at the back of the bus?

so your saying government can violate a right, because other people don't like how a person exercises his rights.......even though no other person rights are being violated.
 
Back
Top Bottom