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

Federalist said:

I don't see how you can deny that such a law would result in the violation of body and property. I think you are deluding yourself.

Click to expand...

No, you do know quite well what I mean. Yes, you do.

And as I asked the other guys, if you got a law passed allowing discrimination, with the knowledge that the state would have to physically back up a business' "right" to discriminate, the PERCEPTION among nonwhites - and among blacks in particular - is that white America is turning against them. You can stand there all day long using your "violation of body and property" line, but the PERCEPTION among tens of millions of minorities would be that we are returning to the days of Jim Crow...

...and they would not sit back and peacefully accept what they PERCEIVE as government-backed racism. Remember what happened when Rodney King got beat up by four cops? The riots weren't just in LA, if you'll recall. Now imagine what would happen when the minority population sees the federal government explicitly allowing racism. It would make the Watts riots a cakewalk in comparison...especially since a much greater percentage of minorities have firearms today than they did back in the 1960's.

Is this really where you want America to go? Is it really? Is your 'right' to racially discriminate really worth all the death and destruction and increased hatred that would last generations?

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

Glen Contrarian said:

And later when you're getting beat into the ground by a bunch of blacks that you refused to sell to because they are black, I guess it will be very comforting to tell yourself that you were just "standing up for your rights". I'm sure that is worth the broken bones, the blood spilling out onto the sidewalk, and the heartbreak your family would feel. But hey - at least your "property and body weren't getting violated", right?

Click to expand...

what he should do then is hunt them down and shoot them but I am glad you are claiming that blacks would act so violently for not being served. that sounds rather RACIST to me.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

No, you do know quite well what I mean. Yes, you do.

And as I asked the other guys, if you got a law passed allowing discrimination, with the knowledge that the state would have to physically back up a business' "right" to discriminate, the PERCEPTION among nonwhites - and among blacks in particular - is that white America is turning against them. You can stand there all day long using your "violation of body and property" line, but the PERCEPTION among tens of millions of minorities would be that we are returning to the days of Jim Crow...

...and they would not sit back and peacefully accept what they PERCEIVE as government-backed racism. Remember what happened when Rodney King got beat up by four cops? The riots weren't just in LA, if you'll recall. Now imagine what would happen when the minority population sees the federal government explicitly allowing racism. It would make the Watts riots a cakewalk in comparison...especially since a much greater percentage of minorities have firearms today than they did back in the 1960's.

Is this really where you want America to go? Is it really? Is your 'right' to racially discriminate really worth all the death and destruction and increased hatred that would last generations?

Click to expand...

if what you claim would come to pass, I suspect the outcome wouldn't be what you'd hope it would be.

I know in my neighborhood which has lots of Indians and Asians, if we were subjected to a Rodney King type race riot, the rioters would have the lifespan of a fruit fly

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

TurtleDude said:

what he should do then is hunt them down and shoot them but I am glad you are claiming that blacks would act so violently for not being served. that sounds rather RACIST to me.

Click to expand...

Of course that's what you would say...because in TD world, everything is magically hunky-dory for blacks, and it would be unthinkable that they would react violently government-approved racism because their parents remember life under Jim Crow....

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

TurtleDude said:

if what you claim would come to pass, I suspect the outcome wouldn't be what you'd hope it would be.

I know in my neighborhood which has lots of Indians and Asians, if we were subjected to a Rodney King type race riot, the rioters would have the lifespan of a fruit fly

Click to expand...

And you don't even realize that most of those Indians and Asians would be on the side of the Blacks...because the elders in every one of their families would remember the days when they faced white prejudice, too.

Tell you what, guy - I'm sure you've got lots of black friends, just like Romney had binders full of women. Why don't you go ask them how the black community would react to government-approved racism. You don't have to take my word for it - take theirs.

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

Boo Radley said:

No, someone else try to explain the difference. You didn't seem to follow it. I said said it wasn't the same thing. You said they were. I them explained the difference.

Now, if you'll concede the difference we can move on, as I said.

Click to expand...

:shrug: Don't know what to tell you. I used your own definition.

Boo Radley said:

And no, they have manly laws to follow when they choose to go into business. It's the nature if business. Now, you don't have to go into business. No one makes you. But when you choose to, as with many other professions, you accept that you will have to follow the rules. So, you have choice, and you get compensated. So in no way is it servitude.

Click to expand...

You're right, we do have many laws that business owners must follow. All of them, with this exception are about businesses not being able to interfere in other peoples rights.

Boo Radley said:

Btw, denying them service does interfere with their rights. We have a long history on this to draw from. We only have to look at it see the effect of such denials.

Click to expand...

No, we have a long history of government enforced segregation and rights violations.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

And THAT is where you are confusing your personal opinion with the reality of human nature. It does. not. matter. whether you are right are wrong - REPEAT, it does. not. matter. whether you are right or wrong.

Why?

Because you are forgetting that when it comes to human nature - particularly with the masses - perception IS reality. Pass a bill that allows discrimination, and the first time it occurs - and occur it will - the video of it will be spread across the planet in a matter of minutes. And what will happen then? Riots in the area of the discriminating business...and all the problems and danger that goes along with riots.

Hatred between the races will grow as a direct result. More people will die. And the hatred and spite that is ever-so-slowly going away from the time of Jim Crow will come roaring back. Do you think I'm exaggerating? We had more riots across the nation during the 1960's than at any other comparable period in American history. Think about it, guy - the PERCEPTION among nonwhites, and among blacks in particular, would be that we ARE going back to Jim Crow...and all your twisted logic to the contrary won't make a tinker's damn of a difference. The PERCEPTION is all that really matters...and suddenly you've got over ten million blacks - and tens of millions more of Hispanics - who will have the PERCEPTION that White America is turning against them...and they will not sit idly or peacefully by and allow it to happen.

But hey - as you and yours get shot at, at least you'll be able to tell your wife and children as they're ducking from bullets, "See? Now we've got REAL freedom!" I'm suuuure they'd much rather have that than being able to walk down the street in peace, huh?

Sometimes, guy, "freedom" ain't what you think it is.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

And later when you're getting beat into the ground by a bunch of blacks that you refused to sell to because they are black, I guess it will be very comforting to tell yourself that you were just "standing up for your rights". I'm sure that is worth the broken bones, the blood spilling out onto the sidewalk, and the heartbreak your family would feel. But hey - at least your "property and body weren't getting violated", right?

Click to expand...

:roll: Talk about over dramatizing things. Tell me, where were the riots when Rush Limbaugh said a racist statement (multiple times across the years)? Are there currently riots happening with Cliven Bundy?

And if there are riots? That's what the national guard and police are for. To keep the peace. People do not have a right to riot. Nor can they violate other peoples rights just because of some perception that they have.

And yes, it would be comforting that rights are being upheld even while I'm getting beat up.

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

Kal'Stang said:

:shrug: Don't know what to tell you. I used your own definition.



You're right, we do have many laws that business owners must follow. All of them, with this exception are about businesses not being able to interfere in other peoples rights.



No, we have a long history of government enforced segregation and rights violations.

Click to expand...

No you did not use mine. We took yours and tried to you your error.

And no, laws cover treatment of the customer in many of them. You are merely exaggerating what's being done.

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

Kal'Stang said:

1: People have a right to life, a doctor not treating them endangers that life. The government has a valid power in ensuring that people get medical attention.

2: Most private doctors do not have the tools necessary to carry out life saving surgury in their clinics. As such they must send the patient to the hospital if such is needed. Those hospitals are generally called "community hospitals" for a reason. They are funded in large part due to contributions and government monies. Which makes them public hospitals and therefore under the same mandate that any other government institution would be regarding discrimination. Not allowed to.

This applies to any privately owned business also. If you take money from the government then you are in essence employed by the government to provide a service, as such you are under the same mandate of non-discimination.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the rub. That is not true. Did you know that private schools that take public money are not mandated by law (like public schools) to service special needs students or any particular group of students? They still have a right to cherry pick.

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

Kal'Stang said:

They're not being asked. They're being forced. There is a difference.

There is also a difference between what happened Pre-Civil Rights era and what I am suggesting. Pre-Civil Rights they had laws that were made, supported, and enforced segregation by the government. That is something which you are failing to mention in your talks about the Civil Rights. It was government force that was creating an air of fear and hatred because a black would go to prison for violating the laws by sitting next to a white person. What I am suggesting leaves the government totally out of it. The government cannot support or enforce segregation.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I exposed big funded group(s) pushing this line of BS. The same group(s) that ironically want to take your liberty away on your own private property. I'm pretty much done with falling for their cr*p. If people like and feel this is all fair and wonderful that is fine with me. Just don't put the label freedom on oppression. I'm calling a spade a spade. No group of people should have that much power over individuals because it is not freedom. What I equally find ironic is these group(s) call themselves libertarian. They have bastardized the term. Now these people (I'm referring to big money pushing this line) want to be able to control people's actions based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc....You can label this freedom but I don't. It's oppression and it's about control. They just don't like the government drawing a line in the sand and putting in such laws to protect individuals unless of course it is them. They want to act in any manner they please without restraint because they are a privileged group. The moneyed group. After all, they own lots of property and resources. They should have full control of them. Everyday small business owners don't have a real desire for this unless they are racist or have a hatred for certain groups of people. I would like to think that is the minority but they are not the ones who own most of our resources that have been privatized into their hands like energy and such. Nor, would getting rid of Civil Rights Law really give them an advantage. The big advantage will go to those who own the most. Furthermore, the trend is for more and more resources to become privatized from fire and police services to all things energy related including many local municipalities. If people like to choose private resources don't let them choose you. It is not freedom to choose for you but for them. Imagine public safety infrastructure becoming privatized and they being able to select who they will service? That's pretty disturbing. At the very least buyer beware. It is no longer free market. It's selective market.

Rant over. That felt good

As far as Jim Crow laws, they were state and local. Even in places they were not enforced, black people were still oppressed. Make no mistake, Civil Rights Laws were needed as they continue to be needed.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

No, you do know quite well what I mean. Yes, you do.

And as I asked the other guys, if you got a law passed allowing discrimination, with the knowledge that the state would have to physically back up a business' "right" to discriminate, the PERCEPTION among nonwhites - and among blacks in particular - is that white America is turning against them. You can stand there all day long using your "violation of body and property" line, but the PERCEPTION among tens of millions of minorities would be that we are returning to the days of Jim Crow...

...and they would not sit back and peacefully accept what they PERCEIVE as government-backed racism. Remember what happened when Rodney King got beat up by four cops? The riots weren't just in LA, if you'll recall. Now imagine what would happen when the minority population sees the federal government explicitly allowing racism. It would make the Watts riots a cakewalk in comparison...especially since a much greater percentage of minorities have firearms today than they did back in the 1960's.

Is this really where you want America to go? Is it really? Is your 'right' to racially discriminate really worth all the death and destruction and increased hatred that would last generations?

Click to expand...

My answer to you is that I don't think for one second that there would be riots.

So I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine yet. Do you think 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?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Therein lies the rub. That is not true. Did you know that private schools that take public money are not mandated by law (like public schools) to service special needs students or any particular group of students? They still have a right to cherry pick.

Click to expand...

Like I have said all along, if any business takes government money then they should not be allowed to discriminate. What "is and isn't currently" does not concern me as much as what "should be".

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Yes, and I exposed big funded group(s) pushing this line of BS. The same group(s) that ironically want to take your liberty away on your own private property. I'm pretty much done with falling for their cr*p. If people like and feel this is all fair and wonderful that is fine with me. Just don't put the label freedom on oppression. I'm calling a spade a spade. No group of people should have that much power over individuals because it is not freedom. What I equally find ironic is these group(s) call themselves libertarian. They have bastardized the term. Now these people (I'm referring to big money pushing this line) want to be able to control people's actions based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc....You can label this freedom but I don't. It's oppression and it's about control. They just don't like the government drawing a line in the sand and putting in such laws to protect individuals unless of course it is them. They want to act in any manner they please without restraint because they are a privileged group. The moneyed group. After all, they own lots of property and resources. They should have full control of them. Everyday small business owners don't have a real desire for this unless they are racist or have a hatred for certain groups of people. I would like to think that is the minority but they are not the ones who own most of our resources that have been privatized into their hands like energy and such. Nor, would getting rid of Civil Rights Law really give them an advantage. The big advantage will go to those who own the most. Furthermore, the trend is for more and more resources to become privatized from fire and police services to all things energy related including many local municipalities. If people like to choose private resources don't let them choose you. It is not freedom to choose for you but for them. Imagine public safety infrastructure becoming privatized and they being able to select who they will service? That's pretty disturbing. At the very least buyer beware. It is no longer free market. It's selective market.

Rant over. That felt good

As far as Jim Crow laws, they were state and local. Even in places they were not enforced, black people were still oppressed. Make no mistake, Civil Rights Laws were needed as they continue to be needed.

Click to expand...

Feel better?

Personally I am poor, so money is obviously not driving me. I'm not a business owner either so that is not driving me. And if I did own a business I would not be one of those that I have been argueing on behalf of. I would let anyone and everyone purchase any property that I have for sell. So obviously racism and bigotry are not driving my arguement.

What IS driving my arguement is The Peoples Rights. No one has the Right to force me or anyone else to sell my/their property to anyone unless I/they want to. It is my/their property. I/They have the say in who it is sold to. No one else does. Not even the government.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Like I have said all along, if any business takes government money then they should not be allowed to discriminate. What "is and isn't currently" does not concern me as much as what "should be".

Click to expand...

Then in that particular respect, I am more of a realistic than an idealist. I DO care about what "is" because that has a direct impact on us no matter how it feels. Powerful moneyed groups will continue to push what they like because they have the means. That is one huge issue about these vouches in private hands but I digress.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Feel better?

Personally I am poor, so money is obviously not driving me. I'm not a business owner either so that is not driving me. And if I did own a business I would not be one of those that I have been argueing on behalf of. I would let anyone and everyone purchase any property that I have for sell. So obviously racism and bigotry are not driving my arguement.

What IS driving my arguement is The Peoples Rights. No one has the Right to force me or anyone else to sell my/their property to anyone unless I/they want to. It is my/their property. I/They have the say in who it is sold to. No one else does. Not even the government.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was cleansing:lol:

In theory, that sounds rather great.

At first, my perception was completely off. I thought perhaps some KKK fringe group was trying to advocate such a thing because there is a motive for everything. Who would really care about something so hurtful to a large group of people? On further research, I found quite the opposite. This is not being pushed by racist groups who want the freedom to discriminate based on someone's attributes. This is all over libertarian think tanks funded by de-facto libertarians. They are funded by a wealthy few trying to market to the rest of us this version of utopia. It suddenly made sense. Why would a small business owner even care if he can sell to a person based on attributes? They probably don't really even give this kind of crap consideration. Those who do basically, just want more control in who they can select to purchase their privatized resources. Hell if you owned vast amount of private resources, and had the money to push for complete control over them, who wouldn't want that kind of power but that kind of power (which is human nature) needs to be curb. At least that is my opinion. I don't believe privatized resources of any kind should be controlled by the owner in such a manner where consumers no longer select, but the owner does. It presents all sorts of problems. Mostly, the wealthy would prefer to make scarce resources available to them well before the masses. I read an article once about the difference between citizens and consumers. As things become more privatized, we will become more like consumers than citizens. The beauty being pushed by free marketers was instead of us being held hostage with no choice by government resources, if privatized, we as consumers can shop for whatever private resource we please to choose. Now, I see that was a bunch of bunk being pushed because the same "free marketers" don't really want you to have the freedom to choose. They want the freedom to choose you. To me that is not freedom. That is the very definition of a Plutocracy.

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

ernst barkmann said:

democracy is a democratic form of government......there is NO balance

the constitution creates a republican form of government........there is balance

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...

And a republican form of government is what we have and even your yourself have admitted it. You have no complaint.

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

Kal'Stang said:

:roll: Talk about over dramatizing things. Tell me, where were the riots when Rush Limbaugh said a racist statement (multiple times across the years)? Are there currently riots happening with Cliven Bundy?

And if there are riots? That's what the national guard and police are for. To keep the peace. People do not have a right to riot. Nor can they violate other peoples rights just because of some perception that they have.

And yes, it would be comforting that rights are being upheld even while I'm getting beat up.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you realize this, but there's a BIG difference between WORDS and ACTIONS. Rush and Bundy are examples of WORDS. Not allowing blacks to come in and get served at a diner is an ACTION. Oh, and so is a black guy getting beat up by four cops, and the cops getting declared innocent. There were no riots at all then, were there?

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

Federalist said:

My answer to you is that I don't think for one second that there would be riots.

So I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine yet. Do you think 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...

You don't think there would be riots...even after I pointed out to you what happened after Rodney King.

You go on now, guy - keep standing proudly for your "right" to discriminate, to use that ugly twist of 'logic' you keep pretending is a legitimate question in order take away from others their freedom from discrimination. Keep doing that, and stand proudly for those politicians who believe as you do on the Right. In fact, PLEASE keep doing so! I hope the whole nation gets to hear what you have to say about it - you can stand proudly by your boy Cliven Bundy and wave your American flag and stuff...

...and the rest of the nation will see yet more proof of why white supremacists support the political Right - or at least hate it a lot less than they hate the political Left.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

You don't think there would be riots...even after I pointed out to you what happened after Rodney King.

You go on now, guy - keep standing proudly for your "right" to discriminate, to use that ugly twist of 'logic' you keep pretending is a legitimate question in order take away from others their freedom from discrimination. Keep doing that, and stand proudly for those politicians who believe as you do on the Right. In fact, PLEASE keep doing so! I hope the whole nation gets to hear what you have to say about it - you can stand proudly by your boy Cliven Bundy and wave your American flag and stuff...

...and the rest of the nation will see yet more proof of why white supremacists support the political Right - or at least hate it a lot less than they hate the political Left.

Click to expand...

And you continue to refuse to state whether you think 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. Fascinating, and very, very telling.

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

Kal'Stang said:

Like I have said all along, if any business takes government money then they should not be allowed to discriminate. What "is and isn't currently" does not concern me as much as what "should be".

Click to expand...

Doesn't that always seem to be the way they argue? "Oh if you're against this then you must be supporting that."

Kal'Stang said:

What IS driving my arguement is The Peoples Rights. No one has the Right to force me or anyone else to sell my/their property to anyone unless I/they want to. It is my/their property. I/They have the say in who it is sold to. No one else does. Not even the government.

Click to expand...

Ok given this statement You've brought to mind a different set of conditions. Do you hold this to be true only in the realm of this country or is this a universal stance. IOW, if the US were to impose sanctions (I believe this is the word I'm looking for but correct me if I'm wrong) and ban the sale of goods to say China for labor sweat shop issues, or Saudi Arabia for nuclear weapon issues, is the government allowed to say that you can't sell to business and individuals in those countries? I realize that in a way it is opposite to the current thread in that the government is saying you can't sell instead of you must sell, but it still runs upon the same principle of the government telling you what to do with your property where that action does not invoke direct harm.

Glen Contrarian said:

I don't know if you realize this, but there's a BIG difference between WORDS and ACTIONS. Rush and Bundy are examples of WORDS. Not allowing blacks to come in and get served at a diner is an ACTION. Oh, and so is a black guy getting beat up by four cops, and the cops getting declared innocent. There were no riots at all then, were there?

Click to expand...

Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.

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

maquiscat said:

Doesn't that always seem to be the way they argue? "Oh if you're against this then you must be supporting that."

Click to expand...

Yup: "If you don't think you 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, then you must be a racist and support racism."

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

Federalist said:

Yup: "If you don't think you 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, then you must be a racist and support racism."

Click to expand...

You get the same thing over in the Abortion threads, and even in some of the incest threads in Sex and Sexuality. "I don't like it therefore I will remove your rights and claim you never had the right to start with."

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

haymarket said:

And a republican form of government is what we have and even your yourself have admitted it. You have no complaint.

Click to expand...

You asked me this question before and I believe i stated it was debatable.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

I don't know if you realize this, but there's a BIG difference between WORDS and ACTIONS. Rush and Bundy are examples of WORDS. Not allowing blacks to come in and get served at a diner is an ACTION. Oh, and so is a black guy getting beat up by four cops, and the cops getting declared innocent. There were no riots at all then, were there?

Click to expand...

I think Maquistcat answered this fairly well. :shrug: I would just like to add that there is a difference between denying a priviledge (me letting you buy my property) and that of cops beating up someone which violates thier rights...and getting away with it. As I have said countless times in this thread. As long as a person does not violate another persons rights then they can do what they want with their property.

One thing that I have noticed through out my talking in this thread is that I have given proof as to why people have the right to discriminate based on the Rights that we currently have and are upheld by SCOTUS as Rights. Yet no one has given proof as to why people have a right to not be discriminated against. They've given opinions. But no proof.

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

maquiscat said:

IOW, if the US were to impose sanctions (I believe this is the word I'm looking for but correct me if I'm wrong) and ban the sale of goods to say China for labor sweat shop issues, or Saudi Arabia for nuclear weapon issues, is the government allowed to say that you can't sell to business and individuals in those countries? I realize that in a way it is opposite to the current thread in that the government is saying you can't sell instead of you must sell, but it still runs upon the same principle of the government telling you what to do with your property where that action does not invoke direct harm

Click to expand...

As if slave labor doesn't invoke direct harm. Oh, but by gosh a private owner treating people like slaves is perfectly his right.