• 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

Refusing to allow another person a business transaction due to their race etc... is allowing them to be superior over another.

Thats a two way street bud. You do realize that don't you? That allowing a person to force a business transaction with someone that doesn't want to do so is allowing that person to be superior over another.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

A business owner is not a King or a lord whose desires should trump every other human being.

Of course not. Just on his private property as is everyone's right on their private property.

Refusing to allow another person a business transaction due to their race etc... is allowing them to be superior over another.

So if a black person as the buyer refuses to allow a business transaction to occur with a white seller, based purely on race, then the black is being superior to the white?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I never said people don't have a right to be racist. I said people don't have a right to shut others out of business transactions due to their prejudices.

You forgot the "Freedom of Association" part of my post. Between the two, yes, people do have a right to shut others out of business transactions due to their prejudices.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Refusing to allow another person a business transaction due to their race etc... is allowing them to be superior over another.

Both parties have the right to refuse to commence in commerce for any reason. How is treating both parties the same making one superior to the other?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Thats a two way street bud. You do realize that don't you? That allowing a person to force a business transaction with someone that doesn't want to do so is allowing that person to be superior over another.

How am I forcing you when I'm willing to pay?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Tell me how I'm acting like a lord if I am waiting in line to purchase a bottle of water?

What if you get to the front of the line and decide to not buy the bottle of water because you notice the seller is black?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Of course not. Just on his private property as is everyone's right on their private property.

Sounds more like modern day feudalism to me.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Tell me how I'm acting like a lord if I am waiting in line to purchase a bottle of water?

If the owner does not wish to serve you because of your skin color, and he refuses to do so what are you going to do? Sue him right? The fact that you would win such a case proves that you would be the lord in such a situation.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You forgot the "Freedom of Association" part of my post. Between the two, yes, people do have a right to shut others out of business transactions due to their prejudices.

No, freedom of association doesn't mean freedom to shut people out of business activities.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

How am I forcing you when I'm willing to pay?

Being willing to pay has nothing to do with it. The fact that if that owner refused to give you service based on your skin color you would sue him and you would win is forcing him to serve you. You know that you would win such a case. You can lord that over the owner quite easily.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If the owner does not wish to serve you because of your skin color, and he refuses to do so what are you going to do? Sue him right? The fact that you would win such a case proves that you would be the lord in such a situation.

Why? Because I wanted to purchase an item? Wanting to purchase something does not mean I am a king.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No, freedom of association doesn't mean freedom to shut people out of business activities.

It means that you can associate with whomever you want to. There is no qualifications or exception to it. You are the one trying to add exceptions to the Right.

The only time an exception can be allowed is if said right can interfere in someone elses right in some way. No ones right is violated if you refuse to provide service to someone because of thier skin color. No one has a right to not be discriminated against.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

It means that you can associate with whomever you want to. There is no qualifications or exception to it. You are the one trying to add exceptions to the Right.

The only time an exception can be allowed is if said right can interfere in someone elses right in some way. No ones right is violated if you refuse to provide service to someone because of thier skin color. No one has a right to not be discriminated against.

Sure, and in medieval times lords and those deemed nobel didn't have to associate with the serfs at all, but we don't live in medieval times. People are still allowed to act like lords and kings but not in a place of business and send the serfs away. We have evolved. I've no desire to regress because libertarians think in absolutes.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why? Because I wanted to purchase an item? Wanting to purchase something does not mean I am a king.

Did you not read what I wrote? It is the fact that you could sue the owner and win, and you know you would win, if they refused service to you based on your skin color that is putting you above, not equal to, the owner. It has nothing to do with your willingness to purchase an item. It has everything to do with what would happen if they refused you service based on your skin color. Once again, since you seemed to ignore it.

If a consumer walks into a store and sees that the owner of the store is of a race that they are racist over they are free to leave, no legal course exists to prevent that. If the owner sees a person of a race they are racist against and refuses service then there is legal recourse for that consumer. Who here is favored? Who here is being treated in a superior way? Who here is the lord? The king?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Did you not read what I wrote? It is the fact that you could sue the owner and win, and you know you would win, if they refused service to you based on your skin color that is putting you above, not equal to, the owner. It has nothing to do with your willingness to purchase an item. It has everything to do with what would happen if they refused you service based on your skin color. Once again, since you seemed to ignore it.

If a consumer walks into a store and sees that the owner of the store is of a race that they are racist over they are free to leave, no legal course exists to prevent that. If the owner sees a person of a race they are racist against and refuses service then there is legal recourse for that consumer. Who here is favored? Who here is being treated in a superior way? Who here is the lord? The king?

So, if there was no law to protect a person from discrimination, they could still take resource by boycotting your store. People are going to seek resource if they are unfairly treated. Would that make the owner a victim?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Sure, and in medieval times lords and those deemed nobel didn't have to associate with the serfs at all, but we don't live in medieval times. People are still allowed to act like lords and kings but not in a place of business and send the serfs away. We have evolved. I've no desire to regress because libertarians think in absolutes.

You're right, we have evolved. We recognize that everyone has rights. Including business owners. But what you are doing is reversing who are the lords and who are the serfs. You want the serfs to be the lords and the lords to be the serfs. I want everyone to have equal rights. Which means I don't want lords or serfs to exist.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You're right, we have evolved. We recognize that everyone has rights. Including business owners. But what you are doing is reversing who are the lords and who are the serfs. You want the serfs to be the lords and the lords to be the serfs. I want everyone to have equal rights. Which means I don't want lords or serfs to exist.
And, the only way to have equal rights is to treat people as equal under the law which is why we have civil right laws.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So, if there was no law to protect a person from discrimination, they could still take resource by boycotting your store. People are going to seek resource if they are unfairly treated. Would that make the owner a victim?

Of his own stupidity. :shrug: People have a right to boycott. Its called freedom of speech, and Right to a peaceful assembly. The owner of a business has no right to not be boycotted.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

And, the only way to have equal rights is to treat people as equal under the law which is why we have civil right laws.

If you wanted people to be treated equally then you would support punishing a person that refused to buy from a business owner due to their race. Do you? I personally don't. That violates freedom of speech and their right to association.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Of his own stupidity. :shrug: People have a right to boycott. Its called freedom of speech, and Right to a peaceful assembly. The owner of a business has no right to not be boycotted.

But with your logic, isn't he being forced by the public to act decently if he wants business?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you wanted people to be treated equally then you would support punishing a person that refused to buy from a business owner due to their race. Do you? I personally don't. That violates freedom of speech and their right to association.

Wouldn't a boycott punish this poor victim of an owner?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm talking about racism (real racism, by the majority, not white people crying like little babies about crap with no impact at the societal level). I don't know what you're talking about. From what I can tell, you're denying that real racism exists.


ummm what???? having a few drinks and blunts tonight?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

But with your logic, isn't he being forced by the public to act decently if he wants business?

Its one thing to force someone via laws and government intervention. Its quite another when its done by private individuals. The government has no right to force someone to serve another. Individuals have rights (which I already outlined previously) which can allow them to try to force them to. Note the word "try" there. Just because private individuals try to boycott something does not mean that they will succeed. Abortion clinics are proof of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom