• 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

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, your not a servant your a businessman. You are not there to serve me but to conduct business.
Click to expand...

'excuse", but how do you get around the 13th amendment ,....when i mention it to you?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Nope. I opposed segregated government services. The government must treat all people equally.

Regarding your comment on ethics, do you feel that you have the right to violate the body or property of your fellow man in order to coerce him to trade with someone against his will?
Click to expand...

Guy, it does. not. matter. what YOUR ethical beliefs are. The worst mistake people make is, "well, everything would be better if"...and then they go using whatever rhetoric to back up what they think is eminently logical.

Problem is, there IS such a thing as "too much freedom". Yes, now that your head has stopped exploding, there IS such a thing as "too much freedom". You can't go shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the word "bomb" when you're about to go on a plane, and you can't say "My restaurant won't serve you because you're black"...because in all three examples, Very Bad Things happen when you do.

You can have your "right to discriminate" and the Very Bad Things (like riots, lynchings, etc.) that would go along with it...or you can have your "freedom from discrimination" and the relative peaceful society that comes with it. But you CANNOT have both.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
you cant make a federal law, which takes away a right.....or do you think government can take away rights whenever they wish to.
Click to expand...

Law is about balancing rights against each other. That's where the saying "your rights end where mine begin" comes from.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
'excuse", but how do you get around the 13th amendment ,....when i mention it to you?
Click to expand...

If a business person views himself as a slave than he has has a persecution issue.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

joG said:
I can distinguish between what I find a just opinion and a just expression thereof and what I find disturbing. I can distinguish between what i think is wrong or right. But no. In an objective sense within a relatively broad band, I do not think that we are capable of distinguishing objectively. So if someone is to be allowed to make the decision? Otherwise I don't think I want people or, God forbid, the government holding such power.
Click to expand...

Your difficulty with analysis and understanding pushes you to absolutism? That's sad.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...

Lets see 80-85% or blacks normally vote liberal or further left, making the traitors.

During the Obama elections, an additional 5-10%+ showed themselves to racist also.

Hmm, race war that rids America of so many racist traitors. Sure, I could live with out them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
If a business person views himself as a slave than he has has a persecution issue.
Click to expand...

the 13th says involuntary servitude, that is not the same as being a slave, its not chattel slavery.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

It certainly is destructive and bad for people to have bad manners and prejudice. I also understand the hurt it causes. I also think that in the 1960s it was necessary for the government to act. But large areas and segments of the population sick in those days and it required a number of remedial measures. Now, I would have thought the society is healthy enough in that respect to allow idiots to say and do idiotic things. It is necessary, all the more important, however, that everyone speaks out against xenophobic nut cases.
 
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...

sorryy l misread it and missed the " business"and thought it was the black customer who had to call the cops.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
wrong...that is incorrect, the Constitution states the power to regulate..AMONG the states.....not inside them.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't know if you realize this...but even at the time of the Founding Fathers, ALL interstate commerce took place INSIDE states. Why? Because the deals were made inside one state, and they were completed in other states. It's not as if the federal government set up "regulation booths" on all the roads and trails to 'regulate' that interstate commerce.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
i dont have to , here is the Constitution itself...


article 4 section 4



The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

Cherry-picking, are we?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
the 13th says involuntary servitude, that is not the same as being a slave, its not chattel slavery.
Click to expand...

You're not working for me. You're conducting a transaction with me.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Your difficulty with analysis and understanding pushes you to absolutism? That's sad.
Click to expand...

I don't know I would call applied Kant absolutist.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

DVSentinel said:
Lets see 80-85% or blacks normally vote liberal or further left, making the traitors.

During the Obama elections, an additional 5-10%+ showed themselves to racist also.

Hmm, race war that rids America of so many racist traitors. Sure, I could live with out them.
Click to expand...

And for those who really wonder why much of America is seeing conservatives and Republicans in general - and Tea Partiers and libertarians in particular - as either racist or (in MLK's words) "giving aid and comfort to racists"...the above post is all they need to see.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Um, I don't know if you realize this...but even at the time of the Founding Fathers, ALL interstate commerce took place INSIDE states. Why? Because the deals were made inside one state, and they were completed in other states. It's not as if the federal government set up "regulation booths" on all the roads and trails to 'regulate' that interstate commerce.
Click to expand...


if you read the founders, and why commerce was turned over to the federal government, you will see i am correct!

i know reading the founders and constitutional convention notes, is dry read, however it the only way to find truth.

the states give over power to the federal government which are national powers, not internal powers.

federalist 45-The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

joG said:
I don't know I would call applied Kant absolutist.
Click to expand...

Ideological absolutism is pathetic.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
if you read the founders, and why commerce was turned over to the federal government, you will see i am correct!

i know reading the founders and constitutional convention notes, is dry read, however it the only way to find truth.

the states give over power to the federal government which are national powers, not internal powers.

federalist 45-The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order[, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Ideological absolutism is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Pathetic? I don't think that is the right term. But I just pointed out, that you are confronted here with something quite deifferent.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.
Click to expand...

no.. but it is written by the man who laid the foundation of the constitution, MONTHS before the convention.

it is written by the man who wrote the bill of rights.

it is written by the man, who got to the convention before anyone else, put more into the constitution then anyone else, took the notes of the convention, worked on the committee of style and put the constitution together, stayed after the convention was over to work on it, wrote the federalist papers, wrote more works on the constitution.

i would say that makes him an authority on the constitution!
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

joG said:
Pathetic? I don't think that is the right term. But I just pointed out, that you are confronted here with something quite deifferent.
Click to expand...

You're just being an absolutist as a result of limited capacity for analysis and understanding. You admitted such.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
no.. but it is written by the man who laid the foundation of the constitution, MONTHS before the convention.

it is written by the man who wrote the bill of rights.

it is written by the man, who got to the convention before anyone else, put more into the constitution then anyone else, took the notes of the convention, worked on the committee of style and put the constitution together, stayed after the convention was over to work on it, wrote the federalist papers, wrote more works on the constitution.

i would say that makes him an authority on the constitution!
Click to expand...

Um, I hate to tell you this...but even though he did write the Constitution, he did NOT write what he felt was right, but instead, he had to write what was AGREED UPON by those who voted in the majority in the Constitutional Convention. I hope you understand the difference.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tacomancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think people can truly be at peace until they are truly free and by extension the society can not truly be at peace until all people are truly free. This cannot be done under a system that relies on government or relies on community or promotes collectivism, but only under one that promotes individuality and voluntary exchange that allows individuals to practice their sovereignty at a cost they decide on. If however, you allow society or government to be the tool that decides the cost people are willing to pay for their lives then people will combat amongst themselves and the society itself will be in a constant state of war due to the individual desire for personal liberty being undermined by hostile forces. This will not only make individuals that wish to maintain their just liberty fight, but people that wish to use the government or society to gain more liberty than they are justly permitted to fight, and thus, as society moves forward conflict and war will only grow until the society itself crumbles at its feet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom