• 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

FederalRepublic said:
The backhanded point I was trying to make is that there have always been, and will always be those who are perceived by society as less than themselves. It's true of every society. It's not something you can fix, and it's not necessarily even a bad thing. If a society shuns an asshole, well there's a lesson to be had in that.
Click to expand...

No kidding, but we can prevent people from being shunned from doing everyday tasks because someone doesn't like them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
So the Jim Crow era is just fine to you?
Click to expand...

There is a good example of an illogical conclusion to my statement.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
The laws may be different, but the end effect is the same. A racist business refuses to serve blacks, and blacks will come in and sit at the counter and demand to be served - just like they did in the Civil Right struggle. The business will call the cops...and the cops - being forced to enforce the law - will physically remove the blacks...

...which means we now have government-enforced racism. Back to Jim Crow.

Is that really the America you want to see?
Click to expand...

No. The end effect is not the same. You do not have the right to be on private property if the owner does not want you to be there. Forcing your will on someone regarding their own property is not a recipe for civil society. Do you really want to see a society where I can demand that you trade with someone you hate? As if that's going to cure hatred...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Here's the problem: If business A can tell blacks "I refuse to serve you because you're black", what will happen? Just like in the Civil Rights struggle, the blacks WILL sit at the counter (with reporters recording the whole thing) demanding to be served. The cops will be called by the business, and the cops will be forced to enforce the law and physically remove the blacks...

...at which time we have government-enforced racism.
Click to expand...

That would be government enforced property rights.

Not only that, but some whites-only businesses will succeed, particularly Down South. Once those succeed, some blacks will get ticked off (and rightly so), and so they will retaliate by opening blacks-only businesses...at which point the racist whites will feel justified by saying, "See - it was those racist blacks all along!" And more whites-only businesses will open and succeed, and so will more blacks-only businesses...

...and the whole vicious circle spirals downhill to a market-enforced Jim Crow era.

You might think it's not right to force someone to do business with someone else based on race...but first think carefully as the effect that libertarian view would have on our society as a whole. Is that really the kind of America you want to see?
Click to expand...

I don't think the scenario you paint would happen. But nevertheless, no individual has the right to violate (or threaten to violate) the body or property of his fellow man in order to coerce him into engaging in trade with someone against his will.

What you are condoning (violating another person's body or property without the right to do so) is unjust. One cannot achieve justice by employing unjust means.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

joG said:
True. We are speaking freedom of expression of an opinion. I dislike the opinion and the means of expression. I also think that in a half way healthy community or country it will do more harm to bar this freedom than the hurt it causes. Again, it is discrimination by the individual not the state I am talking about. If it were the state we are speaking about something else.
The only argument I could see would be a requirement that businesses must supply the public without exception. But that can run into problems as well.
Click to expand...

But if the state is forced to enforce a business' "right" to refuse service to those of a different color/ethnicity/religion, then it becomes state-enforced.

Look, my whole point is that while YES, we can refuse to do business with someone if, say, that person can't pay, or if that person's naked, or if that person's a felon, or if that person's unable to reasonably decide for himself or herself...

...but it's flat wrong (and VERY destructive to society as a whole) to be able to refuse to do business with someone on the basis of how they were born.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
So the Jim Crow era is just fine to you?
Click to expand...

those laws are passed by governments, and that's illegal,governments cannot discriminate by constitutional law.

constitutional law does not apply to the people ,it applies to government only, ....no federal law, or state law is above the rights of a citizen.

the bill of rights restricts the federal government and states from taking any action which violates.... right to property
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
Seen "12 Years a Slave" yet?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is most definitely a lesson to be learned in that movie. These white wealthy men felt it was there right to treat people like property. People are not property and should not be treated as such. What exactly is your point?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
SAID IT BEFORE:

nothing can be a right, if it lays a cost or burden, on a fellow citizen.
Click to expand...

And you don't think it doesn't place a burden on a person if they are forbidden to conduct business due to another person's prejudices?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Your HOUSE is not a BUSINESS that is open to the PUBLIC.

You can do or say whatever the heck you want inside your HOUSE. But in a business open to the public? No.
Click to expand...

Open to the public does not equal public. Besides, the philosophy holds for both if you are going to be consistent.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
No. The end effect is not the same. You do not have the right to be on private property if the owner does not want you to be there. Forcing your will on someone regarding their own property is not a recipe for civil society. Do you really want to see a society where I can demand that you trade with someone you hate? As if that's going to cure hatred...
Click to expand...

Is your HOUSE open to the PUBLIC? No. Is your BUSINESS open to the PUBLIC? Except for private clubs, YES. It might be a person's private property, but a person's business is open to the public, while that person's house is private. Do you see the difference? Yes, you do.

How many people here have lived in a town where there was a business with a whites-only entrance? As far as I can tell, only me. And that town did have a whites-only private club. I really don't want to see America to go back to days like that.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tacomancer said:
It puts people out of their natural settings. Humans are social creatures and the urge to build societies in a manner we have seen historically is a part of us. If you take that away, people are less and will seek to fulfill their urges in more volatile ways.
Click to expand...

It is personal liberty that is the incentive to sustained individual effort and it is personal liberty that is the chief initiative to personal responsibility. When the community or the government decides on the affairs of individuals incentive to sustained individual effort is lacking, and each individual is more inclined to blame the faults of the system or the shortcomings of his neighbors for his problems than to place blame on the faults of themselves.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
And you don't think it doesn't place a burden on a person if they are forbidden to conduct business due to another person's prejudices?
Click to expand...


no!....because your coming to me for something, i am not coming to you wanting something.

you are the one MAKING THE DEMAND......PLACING THE BURDEN.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
That would be government enforced property rights.

I don't think the scenario you paint would happen. But nevertheless, no individual has the right to violate (or threaten to violate) the body or property of his fellow man in order to coerce him into engaging in trade with someone against his will.

What you are condoning (violating another person's body or property without the right to do so) is unjust. One cannot achieve justice by employing unjust means.
Click to expand...

And you can hide behind legal rhetoric if you want...but legal rhetoric is not what would be driving the tectonic shift in society. Your rhetoric is just like what the racists used when they supported "separate but equal" for schools and access to public places. Sure, the "separate but equal" rhetoric SOUNDED nice...but in REALITY, the 'equality' was anything but equal.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
no!....because your coming to me for something, i am not coming to you wanting something.

you are the one MAKING THE DEMAND......PLACING THE BURDEN.
Click to expand...

There is no right for a buissness to designate lunch counters as "whites only" or "blacks only".

"Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
It is personal liberty that is the incentive to sustained individual effort and it is personal liberty that is the chief initiative to personal responsibility. When the community or the government decides on the affairs of individuals incentive to sustained individual effort is lacking, and each individual is more inclined to blame the faults of the system or the shortcomings of his neighbors than to place blame on the faults of themselves for whatever problem they might be suffering from.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. A sense of achievement and ability to take life by the horns is very motivating. I agree with that.

The rest of your statement, I agree that someone must take responsibility (whether that responsibility is deserved or not, often its just life being crappy for no specific reason and morally, responsibility should not have to be taken as there is no fault, but this is another discussion) to gain the ability to say "I will fix that" and then do the actions necessary to resolve an issue. But I disagree that this is a default or a should, it is based on whether an issue is a big enough problem that someone thinks they should address it and there aren't other alternatives available. It's just a mindset necessary to solve a problem sometimes.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
You mean like when a business owner uses his body and mind to build a product, he has the right to refuse service to whomever they choose? That's pretty much the opposite of everything you've argued thus far on this thread.
Click to expand...
Nope, then they are using their body to create a product which at no time is part of the creator's body. I'm strictly talking about direct sale of one's actual body, not the same at all.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Your HOUSE is not a BUSINESS that is open to the PUBLIC.

You can do or say whatever the heck you want inside your HOUSE. But in a business open to the public? No.
Click to expand...

Even though he may have some sort of justification for doing so,no individual has the right to violate (or threaten to violate) the body or property of his fellow man in order to coerce him into engaging in trade with someone against his will. Saying, "well, I consider your business to be 'open to the public'" makes no difference. No person has the right to initiation such aggression against someone just to force them to trade with someone against their will.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Unitedwestand13 said:
There is no right for a buissness to designate lunch counters as "whites only" or "blacks only".

"Seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. PERTAINS TO GOVERNMENTS ONLY.....NOT THE PEOPLE.

there i nothing higher than a RIGHT, it is why government is created in the first place to secure them......if rights did not need to be secure....."no government would be necessary"

you are saying that federal law, and state laws, are higher than a RIGHT, and can rule over them, and that is false, the bill of rights, restricts government from creating ANY LAW, which would violate a right......that includes right to property.

are you going to stay on your position that all RIGHTS are subject to government approval?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I think there are three kinds of people who believe we should repeal parts of the civil rights act and allow businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. You've got:

A. Libertarians who believe that if we give businesses the right to discriminate, that's not only what our founding fathers would want but also everything will work itself out anyway because of free market or supply and demand or freedoms and liberty something.

B. Racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted people who own a business or wouldn't want to serve black/female/gay people if they did own a business.

C. People who have no understanding of history or how horrible and racist and bigoted some people are.

You can't argue with A, because they either understand what they're advocating for and don't care or they don't understand what they're advocating and cannot be told. The ghost of Christmas future would have to visit them and show them what would happen if the civil rights act were repealed for them to understand that anti-discrimination laws are a large part of what is preventing black Americans (among others) from be treated as lesser people and suffering greatly in large portions of the country.

You can't argue with B, because they want an America where black people are treated as sub-human. Or gay people, or Jewish people, or in rare cases, everybody except themselves.

You can argue with C, because their opinion is usually not well formed enough to make them immune to developing a cohesive point of view on the subject. It is to this group that I remind them that my ancestor died because of discrimination. The only reputable hospital he could get to for an emergency appendectomy refused to treat him because he was a Jew. He went to the only hospital that would treat Jews and they "accidentally" killed him. I put that in quotations because they killed a lot of people they were trying to save. Just business as usual.

So many people are mistaken about the effects of discrimination. Multiple posts have referred to the effects of discrimination as being merely "offensive," implying that the only reason we have these laws are so that minorities won't be upset about not being served. No, discrimination would literally destroy lives. So believe whatever you want, but remember that when you argue that we should do away with anti-discrimination laws, you're advocating for a system under which people are allowed to die when they would be saved if they were white, or christian, or straight. Is that a system you'd call just?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
Open to the public does not equal public. Besides, the philosophy holds for both if you are going to be consistent.
Click to expand...

Maybe in your world "open to the public doesn't equal public", but in America, "open to the public" means that ANYONE can walk in there.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Mustachio said:
I think there are three kinds of people who believe we should repeal parts of the civil rights act and allow businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. You've got:

A. Libertarians who believe that if we give businesses the right to discriminate, that's not only what our founding fathers would want but also everything will work itself out anyway because of free market or supply and demand or freedoms and liberty something.

B. Racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted people who own a business or wouldn't want to serve black/female/gay people if they did own a business.

C. People who have no understanding of history or how horrible and racist and bigoted some people are.

You can't argue with A, because they either understand what they're advocating for and don't care or they don't understand what they're advocating and cannot be told. The ghost of Christmas future would have to visit them and show them what would happen if the civil rights act were repealed for them to understand that anti-discrimination laws are a large part of what is preventing black Americans (among others) from be treated as lesser people and suffering greatly in large portions of the country.

You can't argue with B, because they want an America where black people are treated as sub-human. Or gay people, or Jewish people, or in rare cases, everybody except themselves.

You can argue with C, because their opinion is usually not well formed enough to make them immune to developing a cohesive point of view on the subject. It is to this group that I remind them that my ancestor died because of discrimination. The only reputable hospital he could get to for an emergency appendectomy refused to treat him because he was a Jew. He went to the only hospital that would treat Jews and they "accidentally" killed him. I put that in quotations because they killed a lot of people they were trying to save. Just business as usual.

So many people are mistaken about the effects of discrimination. Multiple posts have referred to the effects of discrimination as being merely "offensive," implying that the only reason we have these laws are so that minorities won't be upset about not being served. No, discrimination would literally destroy lives. So believe whatever you want, but remember that when you argue that we should do away with anti-discrimination laws, you're advocating for a system under which people are allowed to die when they would be saved if they were white, or christian, or straight. Is that a system you'd call just?
Click to expand...

this is what happens when people think they create rights, and can give or abolish them, whenever they choose...........ohhhhhhh! the evils of democratic forms of government
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
And you can hide behind legal rhetoric if you want...but legal rhetoric is not what would be driving the tectonic shift in society. Your rhetoric is just like what the racists used when they supported "separate but equal" for schools and access to public places. Sure, the "separate but equal" rhetoric SOUNDED nice...but in REALITY, the 'equality' was anything but equal.
Click to expand...

It's not legal rhetoric. It's simple ethics.

Nobody has the right to violate the body or property of his neighbor to coerce him to do business against his will. It's unjust. One cannot achieve justice by acting unjustly.

That's why, despite the fact that I abhor discrimination, I can't justify choosing to initiate aggression in order to prevent it. The initiation of aggression is not the answer. I would choose another way.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
no!....because your coming to me for something, i am not coming to you wanting something.

you are the one MAKING THE DEMAND......PLACING THE BURDEN.
Click to expand...

I'm coming to complete a business transaction not anything else. You can hate me all you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom