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:

–Prejudice is an ATTITUDE and Discrimination is an ACTION.

The important distinction here is you are free to be prejudice but once you discriminate your action is directly harming another person or group of people. If you own several gas stations in town, or if a person lives in a place where many people dislike you because of your skin color your actions of not granting permission for a group of people to engage in trade of goods and services is extremely powerful. What you are creating is a society of the powerful vs insubordinate and that is what we had in certain places in the US. Places like Nazi Germany also practiced this form of discrimination. There is NOTHING free about that kind of society. If you think that is not the definition of oppression, I don't know what is!

Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone here has ever said that discrimination is always a good thing, or that racial discrimination is ever a good thing. I agree that not agreeing to engage in trade of goods and services with someone is extremely powerful. Well-executed boycotts work. Forcing someone by law to engage in trade against their will is also extremely powerful, and much more like Nazi Germany than an individual racist's actions. If everyone in town banded together and refused to sell food to the blacks, I would concede your point. That would be approaching the definition of oppression and a situation where I would advocate economic isolation and ruination of the town and everyone in it. Black people who stayed in that town (particularly if they had a job) would be contributing to a bunch of racist assholes by trading with them...it's extremely powerful, you know. Could you tell me why, again, you want black people to trade with racist assholes rather than simply denying the racist assholes the business?

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

FederalRepublic said:

I don't believe anyone here has ever said that discrimination is always a good thing, or that racial discrimination is ever a good thing. I agree that not agreeing to engage in trade of goods and services with someone is extremely powerful. Well-executed boycotts work. Forcing someone by law to engage in trade against their will is also extremely powerful, and much more like Nazi Germany than an individual racist's actions. If everyone in town banded together and refused to sell food to the blacks, I would concede your point. That would be approaching the definition of oppression and a situation where I would advocate economic isolation and ruination of the town and everyone in it. Black people who stayed in that town (particularly if they had a job) would be contributing to a bunch of racist assholes by trading with them...it's extremely powerful, you know. Could you tell me why, again, you want black people to trade with racist assholes rather than simply denying the racist assholes the business?

Click to expand...

We really don't need to set up a situation where certain groups of people only engage with trade with each other. That creates a rather segregated society in itself. There is really no reason people can't put their prejudices aside when it comes to any kind of business transaction whether it's making a bank deposit, filling a gas tank or buying food. The other way was done before and it made for an oppressive society. The current civil right's laws have been far less oppressive than the alternative.

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

Henrin said:

That is a different argument. In that case anyone that is looking to open a business must acquire a business license and once acquired must follow certain rules that are open to change at any point in time from the government. In effect, when the government requires someone to acquire a business license they are not only requiring people take action to take part in their rights, which by itself is a right violation, but are forcing individuals to forfeit their right to operate their business in the way they desire.

Offering people a choice on how much freedom they will have is rather stupid argument on your part.

Click to expand...

Any community will have its own rules re the sort of society it wishes to have. This is how the Founders intended it to be. Those who want to be super religious, morally rigid, a very proper ordered society can have that. Those who want a wide open, no rules, no restrictions kind of lawless "Deadwood type" society can have that. Carmel CA passed a law that no ice cream or other such foods could be consumed outside of buildings or designated eating areas in the downtown area--this to prevent unsightly spills from marring their pristine historic image. That is their right to have.

What the Founders did not intend the USA to ever be is a country in which one citizen can be forced to serve another. Yes, slavery was legal in all states when the Constitution was ratified but black people were not full citizens. And in the spirit of liberty that the Constitution provided, and with no involvement of the federal government, one by one the original 13 colonies and other states began abolishing slavery which would have become universal eventually had there been no bloody civil war. The federal government did not encourage slavery and as new territories opened up--most especially the great northwest--it was done so that any new settlements would not have slavery. The pressures against and opposition to slavery would have ended it in this country as it did in Canada and Mexico and elsewhere with or without government pressure. Just as women would be given the vote; just as all other immigrants who first met with resistance here would be assimilated into the whole society, the people themselves chose to eliminate all sorts of artificial barriers. Give people their freedom, and sooner or later, they will choose the right thing.

The Founders knew that a free people would make mistakes just as un-free people do. But they would eventually figure things out and choose the best path which, while we were still a free people, we mostly did. A business that discriminates against certain groups of people because of who they are, not because of what they do, would likely find disfavor with large groups of people and via publicity or word of mouth will almost always suffer much more loss of business than any advantage that can be gained. That generally is enough to convince the hardest heart to do things differently.

But when I, Citizen A, is told by my government that I must provide service to Citizen B, for whatever reason, then I no longer have any rights at all.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, I'm not assuming that at all. Making a group of people have to search in hopes to find someone willing to sell to them due to something they have zero power to change is not freedom.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as collective freedom. An individual telling a group of people he won't do business with them because of something they have zero power to change is a ****ty thing to do, but it is actually freedom. Bringing another woman home for sex while your wife is in the hospital dying of cancer is a ****ty thing to do, also freedom. Personally, I'd like to see John Edwards hung by his toenails for being a terrible person, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw being a complete dick. Why? Because it can't be done while still having equal protection under the law.

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

Kal'Stang said:

A person that owns a buisness owns the property also. As such it is still private property. Just because he/she opens it up to the public does not change that. Public property are things like parks, city hall, etc etc. Things that are government owned and that the government allows the general populace in.

I personally believe that the right to association does not stop just because you own a buisness. As such if an owner wishes to discriminate against someone because of their skin color then that is their right to do so. However it is also the right of people to decline to go to that buisness. Its an open street that goes both ways. If you cannot force people to go to a certain buisness then you cannot force buisness's to accept customers that they do not want. Personally I think that AA laws should be gotten rid of. It will show us who are the real racists and as such they can be shunned.

Click to expand...

Ah. The almighty market would drive the racists out of business. Sounds good, doesn't it? Sounds really reasonable, doesn't it?

The problem with your theory - which I've heard espoused many times before - is that it wouldn't work that way because we have something called the Deep South, where racism is still strong. All it takes is ONE racist business to succeed to start the vicious circle. That business which wouldn't allow blacks attracts enough racists (and there ARE enough racists in the Deep South) to succeed...and what happens? Sooner or later the blacks get ticked off, and open their own blacks-only business. THEN the racist whites point to the blacks doing that, and say, "See? It was the blacks who were racist all along" and so the whites-only business gets more business, and more businesses like that open, and more blacks-only businesses open in retaliation...

...and suddenly we're on our way down that vicious circle to a market-enforced Jim Crow era.

Not only that, but when the blacks decide to come in and sit down at the counter in the whites-only business (just like they did in the Civil Rights struggle), the whites would call the police and say, "We don't allow blacks in our business" and so the police are forced to enforce the law...

...and suddenly we have government-enforced racism...and you know as well as I do that this would be all over the media. There would be riots - particularly in the black community - and innocent people would die.

Is this really where you want America to go?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Neither of those examples are preventing a person from engaging in trade which any person willingly to follow rules they can control (like behavior) should do with a business, otherwise all that is being produced is oppression.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense.

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

shrubnose said:

Wrong. At that moment you are headed for court, where it will get sorted out.

Click to expand...

Wrong. At that moment it's all over the media. In case you haven't noticed, the media does NOT wait for the court to decide...

...and what could the court do anyway, if the LAW allows businesses to refuse business to those of a different color? The court, sir, is NOT there to decide right or wrong - the court is there to enforce the LAW.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

There are plenty of lessons to be learned from history if we are willing to listen. No society that shuns people due to attributes they have no control of changing has been a free society. It has been the exact opposite. It has been an extremely oppressive and repressive one. On the other hand, civil rights laws exist now and I'm not seeing merchants oppressed because they have to put their prejudices aside in order to conduct business.

Click to expand...

So there has never been a free society. I might agree with that to a certain extent, but to say that all societies have been extremely oppressive and repressive is a bit over the top.

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

Medusa said:

you are being racist ,not government

Click to expand...

Really? How am I being racist for supporting the right to be free from discrimination based on race?

And nice to see someone from Turkey - Istanbul's one of the top ten places I'd like to see in the world...and I'd love to walk the battlefields of Gallipoli where the Turks threw off the English in their aborted forcing of the Dardanelles.

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

FederalRepublic said:

There's no such thing as collective freedom. An individual telling a group of people he won't do business with them because of something they have zero power to change is a ****ty thing to do, but it is actually freedom. Bringing another woman home for sex while your wife is in the hospital dying of cancer is a ****ty thing to do, also freedom.

Click to expand...

That is faulty logic because what you are saying is people are oppressed if they can't act the way they please. Sorry, but we do have restrictions on how we conduct ourselves whether you find that oppressive or not.

Personally, I'd like to see John Edwards hung by his toenails for being a terrible person, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw being a complete dick. Why? Because it can't be done while still having equal protection under the law.

Click to expand...

People most often have legal recourse when someone does wrong. It's a fact of life. We have laws for reasons. There is no law that would hang him by his toenails, but she could have still went after him legally. Many divorce cases end that way. Very rarely do people walk Scott free.

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

ecofarm said:

No one can be that dense.

Click to expand...

I don't know why anybody would do such a thing, but it wasn't my idea either.

ecofarm said:

Remedial logic. As they do not create rights, their explicit recognition is not an exhaustive list.

Click to expand...

No **** sherlock holmes. :slapme:

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

FederalRepublic said:

This doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Was it the way I wrote it or the concept?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

We really don't need to set up a situation where certain groups of people only engage with trade with each other. That creates a rather segregated society in itself. There is really no reason people can't put their prejudices aside when it comes to any kind of business transaction whether it's making a bank deposit, filling a gas tank or buying food. The other way was done before and it made for an oppressive society. The current civil right's laws have been far less oppressive than the alternative.

Click to expand...

We really don't need to set up a situation where certain people are forced to trade against their will. That creates a rather oppressed society in itself. There really is no reason why people can't be free to trade their property as they please. The other way was done before and it was devastating for minorities. The current civil rights laws do not offer equal protection under the law, which is more oppressive than if there were not in existence.

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

FederalRepublic said:

So there has never been a free society. I might agree with that to a certain extent, but to say that all societies have been extremely oppressive and repressive is a bit over the top.

Click to expand...

The times societies have been most oppressive has been when people have been perceived by a society as less than and they've been refused to participate in basic everyday activities including business transactions like their counterparts which were perceived more Nobel or just plain superior.

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

FederalRepublic said:

We really don't need to set up a situation where certain people are forced to trade against their will. That creates a rather oppressed society in itself. There really is no reason why people can't be free to trade their property as they please. The other way was done before and it was devastating for minorities. The current civil rights laws do not offer equal protection under the law, which is more oppressive than if there were not in existence.

Click to expand...

How was it devastating to minorities? Please explain?

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

FederalRepublic said:

No **** sherlock holmes. :slapme:

Click to expand...

Then demanding the right be recognized by the USSC, as if it doesn't exist otherwise, is BS.

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

Everyone is overthinking this.

People do business all the time (I sold stuff on ebay the other day, for example), but if they acquire a business license (which gives certain rights, like limited liability) then they have to conform to some laws such as no discrimination against certain classes.

That's it, its no big deal and nobody is losing anything since they don't have to volunteer to get a business license anyway. That's life, there is a trade off and people act like its some sort of horrible thing that they have to make a trade off.

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

Couldnt answer the poll.

I believe that individuals have the right to discriminate and to be discriminated against by other individuals. (I think it's generally wrong, but should not be illegal).

I believe that govt-supported discrimination is wrong and should continue to be illegal.

I believe that people who sign a contract/license with a state or other govt. affiliated organization for a business must conform to the standards of that contract/license....including non-discrimination.

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

DVSentinel said:

I love the whole "white people in the deep south are racist" meme there. Got any proof that all of them are? Or that only "white people" in the deep south are prejudiced?

Also, very progressive of you to point out the reason for the racist reaction of Business B, but you don't even consider the possibility that business A might also have a reason.

Click to expand...

I guess the fact doesn't matter that I was raised there, that I was one of them, and that I know them better than most who didn't grow up there.

I guess EXPERIENCE doesn't count as 'proof'.

And btw, I never said that ONLY the whites in the South are prejudiced - try to find someplace that I've said that! You can't. But you CAN find many times that I've said that there's prejudice to be found in every culture, every nation on the planet...and that in almost every case in history all the way to the modern day, the racism by the more powerful race/ethnicity/religion will be worse, more egregious than that of the weaker race/ethnicity/religion.

Concerning the businesses, when in your eyes someone does something bad to you, what do you want to do? It's only human to want to do something bad in return. That's the same dynamic of vengeance that plays out on scales grand and small. And that's what business B would be doing (at which point "right" and "wrong" are of no consequence), and then there would be more A's as a result, then more B's...

And like I said - at that point, "right" and "wrong" no longer matters. All that would matter is sticking with one's race. Is that really the kind of America that you want to see?

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

maquiscat said:

By that logic, short of calling for violence we have government enforced hate speech, since cops could be called in to enforce someone's right to free speech.

Government enforced freedom, even if it results in racism by an individual, is never a blight upon our country. Government mandated racism, however, is. There is a major difference.

Click to expand...

SPEECH is not the same thing as "You can't eat in this restaurant because you're black".

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

1750Texan said:

your example lacks reason.

what was the reason the person was asked to leave? the police officer is not condoning racism if he asks the person to leave. All the police officer knows is that the person is tresspassing. The officer is not there to judge the validity of a civil rights claim.

the courts decide if the action of the owner was a violation of the person's constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap. The cop knows why. So does the black. So does the business owner. And so do the reporters filming it for all the world to see.

You can pretend behind "the cop only knows this or that"...but you know better...and so would everyone else.

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

tacomancer said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

People do business all the time (I sold stuff on ebay the other day, for example), but if they acquire a business license (which gives certain rights, like limited liability) then they have to conform to some laws such as no discrimination against certain classes.

That's it, its no big deal and nobody is losing anything since they don't have to volunteer to get a business license anyway. That's life, there is a trade off and people act like its some sort of horrible thing that they have to make a trade off.

Click to expand...

No society should ever accept their government taking away their sovereignty.

I will give you a like for every post you make in the next week if you know who said that originally. :mrgreen:

Anyway, if the individual wants to open a business they will need to agree to a business license and unless they want a club, it will need to be a public accommodation. There really isn't much choice available.

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

mpg said:

Even if they could prove that they were refused service, how would they prove that it was racially motivated?

Click to expand...

If the guy makes a racist statement to several of them...OR if they can document (on paper or on video) that he is serving only whites and refuses service to blacks.

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

Henrin said:

No society should ever accept their government taking away their sovereignty.

I will give you a like for every post you make in the next week if you know who said that originally. :mrgreen: Hint: It was an anarchist.

Anyway, if the individual wants to open a business they will need to agree to a business license and unless they want a club, it will need to be a public accommodation. There really isn't much choice available.

Click to expand...

Well, luckily for us, most of the US society has much more reasonable and balanced beliefs.

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

joG said:

Do we really want a society that prevents freely voiced opinion? And isn't it discriminatory to give someone a place in a university in preference to another, who is much better at such work simply because the person comes from a minority?
Should a gay woman be treated first in an emergency room simply because she is gay?
I guess it's a matter of one's point of view.

Click to expand...

OPINION is not the same thing as "We won't serve you here because you're black". You can have any OPINION you want...but you cannot take any physical action that you want.