• 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:
Property doesn't just mean tangibles, but it also encompasses a person's body and whole being as his property.
Click to expand...

notice..... i said exercisable right again..........when you enter my property, i cannot take your life, and i cannot take your liberty, ..meaning to enslave you....those are not exercisable rights.

but the exercisable rights you do have, are no longer rights once you enter my property, they become privileges, which i can allow or not allow you to exercise.

so some property owners will allow a citizen to bear a fireman on his property and others will not....the owners is allowing you the privilege of bearing a fireman, because you cant excise a right , only a privilege the owners allows you as long as you on his property.

so you have no rights except your life, not being enslaved or me using force,theft/ fraud on you.......and you have no power to demand i do anything for you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
notice..... i said exercisable right again..........when you enter my property, i cannot take your life, and i cannot take your liberty, ..meaning to enslave you....those are not exercisable rights.

but the exercisable rights you do have, are no longer rights once you enter my property, they become privileges, which i can allow or not allow you to exercise.

so some property owners will allow a citizen to bear a fireman on his property and others will not....the owners is allowing you the privilege of bearing a fireman, because you cant excise a right , only a privilege the owners allows you as long as you on his property.

so you have no rights except your life, not being enslaved or me using force, fraud on you.
Click to expand...

First, explain to me why you can't sexually harass me even on private property?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
First, explain to me why you can't sexually harass me even on private property?
Click to expand...

the law looks at that as a .....force of asserting myself on you.

the point is.......... i cant do things to you!

if you were to exercise speech in my business, against my wishes ...i cant stop you by physical action, i have to call the police.

if you take an action ..... like freedom of travel, and ..were to go into the back room of my store, say my business office, where there is money, of say my child in back there, i can interpret that as a threat...and use force on you.

but when you pose no threat........ i am powerless, if you exercise a right without my wishes.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
notice..... i said exercisable right again..........when you enter my property, i cannot take your life, and i cannot take your liberty, ..meaning to enslave you....those are not exercisable rights.

but the exercisable rights you do have, are no longer rights once you enter my property, they become privileges, which i can allow or not allow you to exercise.

so some property owners will allow a citizen to bear a fireman on his property and others will not....the owners is allowing you the privilege of bearing a fireman, because you cant excise a right , only a privilege the owners allows you as long as you on his property.

so you have no rights except your life, not being enslaved or me using force,theft/ fraud on you.......and you have no power to demand i do anything for you.
Click to expand...

The thing is, most people sitting here claiming "no discrimination" don't really mean it. I asked Rabbit quite some time ago how far her absolute towards no discrimination really went. She couldn't answer. Which is telling. What they are really saying is "no discrimination that I don't like, but there are certainly other forms of discrimination that I will endorse".

In the end, once you move away from government protecting natural rights and into morality, practically anything can be excused for any reason. Turns out government is not a moral institution.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Ikari said:
The thing is, most people sitting here claiming "no discrimination" don't really mean it. I asked Rabbit quite some time ago how far her absolute towards no discrimination really went. She couldn't answer. Which is telling. What they are really saying is "no discrimination that I don't like, but there are certainly other forms of discrimination that I will endorse".

In the end, once you move away from government protecting natural rights and into morality, practically anything can be excused for any reason. Turns out government is not a moral institution.
Click to expand...

correct... people will be for things which violate the rights of other people, if it suits them......this shows people are self-serving creatures

yes, if people accept the government is the tool of mortality, then its our master.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
That's BS. You asked me a question and I answered it. My direct answer was no one has a right to trump another's. Even on your property, you still don't have a right to harass or discriminate against me as a person. All people have inalienable right's.
Click to expand...

So, if I chose to invite Kal'Stang and all the other neighbors to my backyard bar-b-que and discussion group, and decide you wouldn't fit in well, you would be excluded via discrimination. Do you think you would have the right to invite yourself? And if I told everybody else not to bring you, you might feel I was harassing you, but do you think you would have legal recourse against me?

The right to our persons and our private property, our right to association and not to associate if we choose not to, ARE unalienable rights that the Founders risked all that they had to recognize and defend.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
the law looks at that as a .....force of asserting myself on you.

the point is.......... i cant do things to you!

if you were to exercise speech in my business, against my wishes ...i cant stop you by physical action, i have to call the police.

if you take an action ..... like freedom of travel, and ..were to go into the back room of my store, say my business office, where there is money, of say my child in back there, i can interpret that as a threat...and use force on you.

but when you pose no threat........ i am powerless, if you exercise a right without my wishes.
Click to expand...

Right, like tell me to get off your property unless I engage in sex with you. That property, in this context, is being used as a place of business where things like harassment and discrimination are not seen as unalienable rights.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
So, if I chose to invite Kal'Stang and all the other neighbors to my backyard bar-b-que and discussion group, and decide you wouldn't fit in well, you would be excluded via discrimination. Do you think you would have the right to invite yourself? And if I told everybody else not to bring you, you might feel I was harassing you, but do you think you would have legal recourse against me?

The right to our persons and our private property, our right to association and not to associate if we choose not to, ARE unalienable rights that the Founders risked all that they had to recognize and defend.
Click to expand...

No, a place of business is not the same thing as an exclusive club or your back yard.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, a place of business is not the same thing as an exclusive club or your back yard.
Click to expand...

Business is still private property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, like tell me to get off your property unless I engage in sex with you. That property, in this context, is being used as a place of business where things like harassment and discrimination are not seen as unalienable rights.
Click to expand...

well as i stated, if i am using coercion a form of force, intimidation on you to get you to do what i want, and that is illegal.

but as a customer....i just refuse to deal with you, but use no force on you, and ask you to just leave......you have no case.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Ikari said:
The thing is, most people sitting here claiming "no discrimination" don't really mean it. I asked Rabbit quite some time ago how far her absolute towards no discrimination really went. She couldn't answer. Which is telling. What they are really saying is "no discrimination that I don't like, but there are certainly other forms of discrimination that I will endorse".

In the end, once you move away from government protecting natural rights and into morality, practically anything can be excused for any reason. Turns out government is not a moral institution.
Click to expand...

Right, because in your interpretation things like sexual harassment would be allowed because the right not to sexually harass would oppress the harassers' rights:roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, because in your interpretation things like sexual harassment would be allowed because the right not to sexually harass would oppress the harassers' rights:roll:
Click to expand...

Nope, there are always limits. If one is merely on your property, for instance, you cannot shoot them less they pose an actual threat since life will take majority position to property.

Also, saying that a private business is private does not say that sexual harassment could be acceptable under certain situations, so if you'd please refrain from the hyperbole and hysteria, we can have an actual discussion. if intellectual dishonesty is all you wish for your arguments, then continue in this manner.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, a place of business is not the same thing as an exclusive club or your back yard.
Click to expand...

I work out of my home and conduct business from my home.

But the same would apply if I decided to have a private gathering in my place of business. I have worked for many who did that--invited who they wanted to be there, then locked the doors. How do you think you are entitled to anything from my business that I bought the land for, built the physical premises, invested everything I had to grow and prosper it? What rationale do you use to require me to give anything to you of my person or my property that I legally and ethically acquired? What gives you a right to any part of it?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, because in your interpretation things like sexual harassment would be allowed because the right not to sexually harass would oppress the harassers' rights:roll:
Click to expand...

simple basic of rights.........you cannot use force on anyone, unless they pose a threat.

harassment is a force.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
well as i stated, if i am using coercion a form of force, intimidation on you to get you to do what i want, and that is illegal.

but as a customer....i just refuse to deal with you, but use no force on you, and ask you to just leave......you have no case.
Click to expand...

No, it's not just intimidation. Sexual harassment has to do with holding power over a person as with discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
I work out of my home and conduct business from my home.

But the same would apply if I decided to have a private gathering in my place of business. I have worked for many who did that--invited who they wanted to be there, then locked the doors. How do you think you are entitled to anything from my business that I bought the land for, built the physical premises, invested everything I had to grow and prosper it? What rationale do you use to require me to give anything to you of my person or my property that I legally and ethically acquired? What gives you a right to any part of it?
Click to expand...

Some people think that they are entitled to other people's property and labor.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, it's not just intimidation. Sexual harassment has to do with holding power over a person as with discrimination.
Click to expand...

oh how.....if you work for me, and i use harassment[a force], then i want you to do something for me to keep your position, or i am using harassment to make you subservient to me, to keep your position.

as a customer, by not dealing with you, i am using any FORCE on you, and you also have the ability to walk out of my business with no repercussions, because you hold no position with me in my business.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
oh how.....if you work for me, and i use harassment[a force], then i want you to do something for me to keep your position, or i am using harassment to make you subservient to me, to keep your position.

as a customer, by not dealing with you, i am using any FORCE on you, and you also have the ability to walk out of my business with no repercussions, because you hold no position with me in my business.
Click to expand...

No, you are not using force but your power.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, you are not using force but your power.
Click to expand...

you continue to make statements which are not true, ,when asked what natural right is being violated, you cannot name anything.....but state [federal law] then you you say force is being used, when you know its not..you case is weak and you know it.

the business is not doing business with you, because he wants you to just go away and leave him alone...and you know that is not force.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
you continue to make statements which are not true, ,when asked what natural right is being violated, you cannot name anything.....but state [federal law] then you you say force is being used, when you know its not..you case is weak and you know it.

the business is not going business with you, because he wants you to just go away and leave him alone...and you know that is not force.
Click to expand...

Same thing can be said about a person given the choice in a place of business to leave his property or engage in sex. The person can simply exercise their rights to walk off the property because no force was used. A choice was given. The issue was not force but power. The power to make this person walk from their job.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
That's BS. You asked me a question and I answered it. My direct answer was no one has a right to trump another's. Even on your property, you still don't have a right to harass or discriminate against me as a person. All people have inalienable right's.
Click to expand...

Not BS. Through out this whole thread you have tried to use different words or phrases everytime one of them got shot down. You went from "People have a right to not be discriminated against", to "Liberty", to "Human Rights". That is a fact that anyone can read through the thread and see for themselves.

As for "inalienable rights". You're right, everyone does have inalienable rights. Freedom from discrimination is not one of them. Which is not even a right at all but a privilege. If it were a right then everybody would be forced to hang out with people that they do not like...whether its because of race or not. For the simple fact that "Freedom from discrimination" means freedom from discrimination against EVERYTHING. And then there's the other reasons that I have already stated multiple times. I'm tired of re-stating them all the time so you'll just have to go back and re-read those parts.

Btw, this makes it the fourth time that you have tried to use different words/phrases to try and uphold your stance.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Same thing can be said about a person given the choice in a place of business to leave his property or engage in sex. The person can simply exercise their rights to walk off the property because no force was used. A choice was given. The issue was not force but power. The power to make this person walk from their job.
Click to expand...

An employee has no right to an employer's property other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nor does the employer have any right to an employee's labor other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. The employer should have the right and ability to terminate that employee and that employee should have the right and ability to leave his position for whatever reason. There should be no forced servitude involved. The employee needs or wants money or other compensation and is willing to work for it; the employer needs the employee's labor/expertise/ability and is willing to pay for it. It is a win win arrangement for both.

Likewise a customer needs the product or service offered by a business and is willing to pay for it, and the business owner needs money and is willing to trade products or services to get it. Again a win win arrangement for both. But the business owner has no right to demand that the customer buy his products or services and the customer should have no right to demand that the business owner provide them.

That is what liberty looks like. Anything else is forced servitude and there are no rights for anybody.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
And if you think you have rights that your government does not recognize - you are living in fantasy land.
Click to expand...

So when blacks believed that they had rights that the US government did not recognize, they too were living in a fantasy land? Well then it just goes to prove that fantasies can come true!
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Kal'Stang said:
Not BS. Through out this whole thread you have tried to use different words or phrases everytime one of them got shot down. You went from "People have a right to not be discriminated against", to "Liberty", to "Human Rights". That is a fact that anyone can read through the thread and see for themselves.

As for "inalienable rights". You're right, everyone does have inalienable rights. Freedom from discrimination is not one of them. Which is not even a right at all but a privilege. If it were a right then everybody would be forced to hang out with people that they do not like...whether its because of race or not. For the simple fact that "Freedom from discrimination" means freedom from discrimination against EVERYTHING. And then there's the other reasons that I have already stated multiple times. I'm tired of re-stating them all the time so you'll just have to go back and re-read those parts.

Btw, this makes it the fourth time that you have tried to use different words/phrases to try and uphold your stance.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. I was asked to explain my points which I did.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
An employee has no right to an employer's property other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nor does the employer have any right to an employee's labor other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. The employer should have the right and ability to terminate that employee and that employee should have the right and ability to leave his position for whatever reason. There should be no forced servitude involved. The employee needs or wants money or other compensation and is willing to work for it; the employer needs the employee's labor/expertise/ability and is willing to pay for it. It is a win win arrangement for both.
Click to expand...

In the same vein, an employee has no right to have a job yet we have laws to protect employees from sexual harassment. So, yes, people have no right to a job or buying an item in a private place of business, but they are given protections against such things as sexual harassment and discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom