• 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

Henrin said:
Actually, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate business. They have the power to keep trade regular between the states, but they don't have the power to control business activities. The states on the other hand, never granted themselves the power to regulate business either in any of their constitutions, so in effect, no one has the power to regulate business.
Click to expand...

I have to hand it to you. You made me laugh harder than I have in a very long time. Thank you for that. My life has been full of heartache and pain lately, and I needed that.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
You can't deal with it as a hypothetical, can you? That's because it illustrates where the racists are going with their BS about 'freedom to associate' in public business.

Hey, blacks can get some firewood to boil water. That's really not much more of an inconvenience than having to go to a store slightly farther away.

And if the local vet will not serve blacks, they can always just go to the next town.

These small inconveniences are nothing compared to the evil government protecting everyone from such practice - right?
Click to expand...

does freedom of association exist?

does right to property exist?

then why do you believe you can take away peoples rights...because their actions are offensive to you.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
really?

13th--Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th amendment was original written for slaves only giving them civil rights[privileges], this confirmed by the slaughterhouse case of 1873. however in the 20th century, the court applied it to every citizen.

so federal, state, and local governments cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying making a transaction with someone whose race you may not like is like slavery?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
I have to hand it to you. You made me laugh harder than I have in a very long time. Thank you for that. My life has been full of heartache and pain lately, and I needed that.
Click to expand...

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Click to expand...

Notice how business and consumers are not included as parties that the congress can regulate commerce among? They can keep trade regular between states, but that has nothing to do with business or their customers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
does freedom of association exist?

does right to property exist?

then why do you believe you can take away peoples rights...because their actions are offensive to you.
Click to expand...

So then you think it's ok if blacks are denied service by the power company.

They can use lanterns and boil water with firewood, right? That's not much more inconvenient than going to a store that's farther away.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
So, you're saying making a transaction with someone whose race you may not like is like slavery?
Click to expand...

If I'm forced into that transaction, yes, it's like slavery.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tres borrachos said:
If private clubs have a right to discriminate, why are they getting sued to let person x in or person y in?
Click to expand...

I do not know of a completely private club getting successfully sued for not letting someone in. AFAIK the discrimination suits against private clubs that have been successful won in court because the club was a recipient of government contracts or privileges.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
Notice how business and consumers is not included as parties that the congress can regulate commerce among? They can keep trade regular between states, but that has nothing to do with business or their customers.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the SCOTUS. Maybe they'll take your interpretation and change all the laws. Even when I disagree with the SCOTUS, and I do at times, I know that they are the final word on what is and isn't Constitutional. Not me, not you, and not anyone else. When a question arises, a case is brought before them. Again, maybe that's what you should do.

And as to the statement made earlier about the states not having the power to regulate business, have you looked at all the state statutes regarding regulations regarding commerce? If they don't have the power to do so, why have no cases been brought before the several state's Supreme Courts or the SCOTUS to rule as such?

I see your argument. The problem is that it just doesn't hold up to true scrutiny under the US Constitution, the Constitutions of the several states and of the laws of the Union, the states and the municipalities within the states.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Tell that to the SCOTUS. Maybe they'll take your interpretation and change all the laws. Even when I disagree with the SCOTUS, and I do at times, I know that they are the final word on what is and isn't Constitutional. Not me, not you, and not anyone else. When a question arises, a case is brought before them. Again, maybe that's what you should do.

And as to the statement made earlier about the states not having the power to regulate business, have you looked at all the state statutes regarding regulations regarding commerce? If they don't have the power to do so, why have no cases been brought before the several state's Supreme Courts or the SCOTUS to rule as such?

I see your argument. The problem is that it just doesn't hold up to true scrutiny under the US Constitution, the Constitutions of the several states and of the laws of the Union, the states and the municipalities within the states.
Click to expand...

The intent of the commerce clause was to handle trade disputes among the listed parties. It was not to grant the government the power to control business operations and force into labor businesses to meet the requirements of whatever regulation the congress decides it wants to pass. Even if we go with the modern definition of the word regulate, that would grant the government the power to control whatever they are regulating, there is still the issue of business not being listed as a party they can regulate. What actually happened is that the Supreme Court first used the modern definition of the word regulate and then added all the people of the nation under the commerce clause, when in reality, it was not a power to act on any of the citizens of the country and the word regulate meant to keep regular or in working order.

I will openly challenge any Supreme Court justice on the matter if given the chance, but I won't waste my time dealing with them in the court room.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
if you not your own property, then who do you belong to?...you are physical matter....do you just float in space, and exist and thats all?

rights are an absolute, FOR THE PEOPLE AT LARGE.

rights of a single individual can be curtailed, if that person commits a crime, or violates health or safety.

the bigot line, is nothing more than a poor rebuttal, ...to something to don't like......laws cannot be CREATED ON AN EMOTIONAL BASIS.
Click to expand...

Its the same song with different words - but the old line segregationists were far more honest with their views half a century ago. Not all this BS about property and you own yourself and all sort of nonsense and pure BS designed to do the same thing - allow bigotry.

When you guys on the far right scream against people with emotions it boggles the mind to think of the right wing like lobotomized Mr. Spocks completely devoid of any human feeling. I guess that explains so many of your issue positins as the consideration for the problems and situations of real people never into your theory and abstract BS.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
The intent of the commerce clause was to handle trade disputes among the listed parties. It was not to grant the government the power to control business operations and force into labor businesses to meet the requirements of whatever regulation the congress decides it wants to pass. Even if we go with the modern definition of the word regulate, that would grant the government the power to control whatever they are regulating, there is still the issue of business not being listed as a party they can regulate. What actually happened is that the Supreme Court first used the modern definition of the word regulate and then added all the people of the nation under the commerce clause, when in reality, it was not a power to act on any of the citizens of the country and the word regulate meant to keep regular or in working order.

I will openly challenge any Supreme Court justice on the matter if given the chance, but I won't waste my time dealing with them in the court room.
Click to expand...

Commerce and businesses go hand in hand. Anyone involved in commerce is acting as a business. Either as a separate entity or as a DBA.

I understand the Commerce clause. That was not the sole law I discussed, but rather one of many.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Commerce and businesses go hand in hand. Anyone involved in commerce is acting as a business. Either as a separate entity or as a DBA.
Click to expand...

Even if we change the word commerce to business my statement on the issue holds true as it would still only be talking about trade among the listed parties.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
Even if we change the word commerce to business my statement on the issue holds true as it would still only be talking about trade among the listed parties.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Never said it didn't. The states and the municipalities take over from there. And, then there's the Equal Protection Clause that also gives Congress certain powers to enact laws regarding discrimination, to mention just one, as well.

This subject is not just dealt with under a singular viewpoint of commerce.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Its the same song with different words - but the old line segregationists were far more honest with their views half a century ago. Not all this BS about property and you own yourself and all sort of nonsense and pure BS designed to do the same thing - allow bigotry.
Click to expand...

When the CRA was being debated there was an entire faction making the same arguments you're seeing here.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Agreed. Never said it didn't. The states and the municipalities take over from there. And, then there's the Equal Protection Clause that also gives Congress certain powers to enact laws regarding discrimination, to mention just one, as well.
Click to expand...


The states never granted themselves the power to regulate business either and I fail to see how the equal protection clause gives the government the power to regulate business. The amendment deals with states, not business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
The states never granted themselves the power to regulate business either and I fail to see how the equal protection clause gives the government the power to regulate business. The amendment deals with states, not business.
Click to expand...

The states have laws regulating commerce. If they didn't grant themselves the power to do so, how could they have done so?

I just don't know how to help you understand how the Equal Protection Clause can effect commerce if you don't see the obvious correlation yourself. Commerce - businesses - licensed to grant the right to enter into commerce - laws regulating commerce - businesses by law must provide services and products to everyone legally eligible to enter into commerce with the business as a part of their license - - - and so on. Equal Protection Clause - laws regulate commerce - each person is guaranteed equal protection under those laws.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
The states have laws regulating commerce. If they didn't grant themselves the power to do so, how could they have done so?
Click to expand...

The same way the federal government did. They just passed a law and then got the courts to agree it was constitutional.

I just don't know how to help you understand how the Equal Protection Clause can effect commerce if you don't see the obvious correlation yourself. Commerce - businesses - licensed to grant the right to enter into commerce - laws regulating commerce - businesses by law must provide services and products to everyone legally eligible to enter into commerce with the business as a part of their license - - - and so on. Equal Protection Clause - laws regulate commerce - each person is guaranteed equal protection under those laws.
Click to expand...

The equal protection clause only applies to government, not private citizens. You can't rule the government has the power to regulate commerce with the equal protection clause, but you can argue that such and such law has to apply to everyone under the equal protection clause. In order to make that argument however you first have to rule that the government has the power to do whatever that law does, which would require another clause.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
The same way the federal government did. They just passed a law and then got the courts to agree it was constitutional.



The equal protection clause only applies to government, not private citizens. You can't rule the government has the power to regulate commerce with the equal protection clause, but you can argue that such and such law has to apply to everyone under the equal protection clause. In order to make that argument however you first have to rule that the government has the power to do whatever that law does, which would require another clause.
Click to expand...

Bless your heart. The states have the power to enact any law that the legislatures deem salient to their state; as ling as that law doesn't conflict with the US Constitution or the supremacy of federal law.

And, this includes regulating commerce. In fact, regulating commerce is one of the cornerstones of a state's function.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...
you are being racist ,not government
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Bless your heart. The states have the power to enact any law that the legislatures deem salient to their state; as ling as that law doesn't conflict with the US Constitution or the supremacy of federal law.

And, this includes regulating commerce. In fact, regulating commerce is one of the cornerstones of a state's function.
Click to expand...

So where is this power in any of the state constitutions?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Where are the prohibitions to do so?
Click to expand...

What? State Constitutions grant powers to the state governments to do certain things, and like it is with the US Constitution and the federal government, anything not listed they can't do.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
So, you're saying making a transaction with someone whose race you may not like is like slavery?
Click to expand...

no... forcing a person to serve another person is like slavery
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
So then you think it's ok if blacks are denied service by the power company.

They can use lanterns and boil water with firewood, right? That's not much more inconvenient than going to a store that's farther away.
Click to expand...

did not say that, I said, there is no justification for taking a person rights......unless they committing a crime, or causing a health or safety issue.

the idea you believe can put constitutional law to one side because you don't like what is says is dangerous.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Its the same song with different words - but the old line segregationists were far more honest with their views half a century ago. Not all this BS about property and you own yourself and all sort of nonsense and pure BS designed to do the same thing - allow bigotry.

When you guys on the far right scream against people with emotions it boggles the mind to think of the right wing like lobotomized Mr. Spocks completely devoid of any human feeling. I guess that explains so many of your issue positins as the consideration for the problems and situations of real people never into your theory and abstract BS.
Click to expand...


and your words are the same, take away rights of bigots, racist or what ever cause they have I don't like.

you are statist, who believes everything comes from state......even rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom