• 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

US Conservative said:
Have you missed the last 6 years of defend Obama no matter what? Perhaps you aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...

If you'd paid attention to the OTHER side of the story, you'd have found a lot of times when liberals and progressives like myself strongly criticized Obama for what he did or didn't do (like I did in this article). In fact, if you'd search around, you'd find a few times where we liberals and progressives were complimentary towards Dubya, particularly in his efforts to curb AIDS in Africa.

Here's a short list:
The Atlantic
Washington Post
Liberals praise Bush appointee
Dennis Kucinich praises Bush
Breitbart acknowledges a progressive praised Bush for immigration reform efforts

On the flip side of the coin, can you find instances of where conservatives were complimentary towards Obama? I think you know the answer to that one, don't you? In fact, that's what a scientific study found - that conservatives are MUCH less likely to write something complimentary about Obama than liberals are to write something complimentary about Bush.

But here's the problem - you won't believe me. Not for a moment will you believe me. Why? Because you've convinced yourself (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that we liberals and progressives are "hive-mind", and that if we on the Left were really objective people, we'd be calling for Obama's head. It is simply too much for you to believe that liberals might be every bit as objective as conservatives.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
It is not what I think but rather what you have said about the conflict between what you pretend to profess belief in and the contrary nature of your own personal behaviors and actions. It is that which makes you hypocritical and not my opinion of you.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're calling me a hypocrite again. What a shock!!!!

I love it. You are completely at a loss to discuss the policy, so you are left only with your ad hominem.

Libertarians argue against the use of force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property. You argue FOR the use of government force to deny them this ability. The policy difference is black and white.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
Well there was the missing word in the last quote. I don't know what his position is
Click to expand...

I oppose the use of eminent domain.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Oftencold said:
I would like to see almost any non-incorporated business not providing a limited vital public service free to discriminate for just about any reason they choose, including race, sexual behavior, gender (there are only two,) age, ethnicity or political affiliation.

Non-discrimination requirements could be applied as the State sees fit when a commercial enterprise seeks a charter of incorporation.

Forced deceny is indecent.
Click to expand...

You say you're from a small village in Alaska. I grew up about eight miles from a very small town in the MS Delta. When I was there, the only doctor in tow still had "white" and "colored" entrances to his office. The signs were painted over a solid green, but paint doesn't hide inch-deep chiseled words too well. This was in 1984, twenty years after the Civil Rights Act.

In the summer of 2012, I visited my family's house there again, and I noticed that there was not a single Obama bumper sticker or campaign sign or t-shirt to be seen...which was pretty odd since Sunflower County, MS, is 71% black. One would think there'd be Obama signs everywhere, right? So I talked to a black friend of mine there named Eddie (who knew I'd become a bleeding-heart liberal) why there were no Obama signs, and he looked back at me - sad, sad eyes - and said, "Pete, you know why". And he was right - I did know why. Any black person there who was so 'uppity' as to display an Obama sign would find himself out of a job pretty quickly, or his family member(s) would. That's just the way it is there.

What I'm getting to is that racism is still strong in America - it's more common than you might think. And if people are allowed to discriminate, then that gives legitimacy to their racism. Is that really what you want?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
I really doubt that the Dems have any conservatives. Libertarians maybe and likely, but conservatives. Naw. GOP also has libertarians BTW. But since you made the claim, who are you saying is conservative in the Dems. Or do you just mean more conservative than the party even while less conservative than the GOP?
Click to expand...

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

haymarket said:
Yes - and that was certainly the benefit of the period. It also was a terrible period when government was firmly on the side of wealth and corporations and ran roughshod over the average American. This was obvious in the area of labor law where the gross inequality manifested itself in our nation in many areas creating a large and exploited underclass.

Raw, unrestrained capitalism is an excellent vehicle for economic growth providing we are willing to look the other way at the mountain of bodies left in its wake.

There is much material on this

Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900: Jack Beatty: 9781400040285: Amazon.com: Books

Amazon.com: Altgeld's America: The Lincoln Ideal Versus Changing Realities (9780910129480): Ray Ginger: Books

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/18grim.html?_r=0

Amazon.com: 1877: Year of Violence eBook: Robert V. Bruce: Books

this general article provides a wealth of sources on such things as labor strife and the other economic ills that grew directly from the imbalance of power during this period

Gilded Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The world was a difficult place everywhere during that period but the fact is that millions came to America from all over the world at that time in order to have greater opportunities in their for themselves and their families, and most found them. It may have taken a generation or two for their dreams to come true but, by and large, they did. Millions arriving with nothing at all managed to rise up in the world, a remarkable achievement and one not equaled at any other time in recorded history.

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

maquiscat said:
Well there was the missing word in the last quote. I don't know what his position is
Click to expand...

sorry - I left out the word OPPOSE as the poster in question has many many times expressed opposition to the power of eminent domain even though it is in the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
I oppose the use of eminent domain.
Click to expand...

Limited opposition as in there is legitimate use for it or blanket oppose it's wrong under all conditions?

Glen Contrarian said:
Blue Dog Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Interesting. From the bit I scanned over they look like inverted libertarians; socially conservative and financially liberal as opposed to socially liberal and financially conservative. Of course we can't look for something like your "blue dogs" in the GOP. They're already libertarians.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Grant said:
The world was a difficult place everywhere during that period but the fact is that millions came to America from all over the world at that time in order to have greater opportunities in their for themselves and their families, and most found them. It may have taken a generation or two for their dreams to come true but, by and large, they did. Millions arriving with nothing at all managed to rise up in the world, a remarkable achievement and one not equaled at any other time in recorded history.

Use some perspective.
Click to expand...

None of which denies the terrible economic and political conditions of the Gilded Age.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Wow, you're calling me a hypocrite again. What a shock!!!!

I love it. You are completely at a loss to discuss the policy, so you are left only with your ad hominem.

Libertarians argue against the use of force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property. You argue FOR the use of government force to deny them this ability. The policy difference is black and white.
Click to expand...

Explain the policy? You seem to forget what this was about and it was NOT a policy - but rather the record of you saying one thing but doing another. Nice try at deflection though.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
Limited opposition as in there is legitimate use for it or blanket oppose it's wrong under all conditions?
Click to expand...

Wrong under all conditions.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Explain the policy? You seem to forget what this was about and it was NOT a policy - but rather the record of you saying one thing but doing another. Nice try at deflection though.
Click to expand...

Wow, how surprising. You're calling me a hypocrite again. More ad hom because you can't justify the policy you support of using force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Wrong under all conditions.
Click to expand...

Except the conditions which permit you to use all the infrastructure and things built with the power you profess to condemn.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Wow, how surprising. You're calling me a hypocrite again. More ad hom because you can't justify the policy you support of using force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property.
Click to expand...

Your own actions and words place that label upon you like a placard to be read by others.

The Founders provided us with eminent domain right in the Constitution. It has helped provide this nation, the states and communities with the ability to build valuable infrastructure and advance our way of life with schools, hospitals, airports, ports, terminals, government buildings like police departments and fire departments, health centers, and uncountable other valuable public service centers serving the American people for the last two plus centuries.

The Founders were wise enough to know that one individual cannot be allowed to use the ruse of private property to stop a hospital or such places to advance the larger community.

It is too bad that you pretend to feel otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Your own actions and words place that label upon you like a placard to be read by others.

The Founders provided us with eminent domain right in the Constitution. It has helped provide this nation, the states and communities with the ability to build valuable infrastructure and advance our way of life with schools, hospitals, airports, ports, terminals, government buildings like police departments and fire departments, health centers, and uncountable other valuable public service centers serving the American people for the last two plus centuries.

The Founders were wise enough to know that one individual cannot be allowed to use the ruse of private property to stop a hospital or such places to advance the larger community.

It is too bad that you pretend to feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am well aware that, to the statist, the ends justify the means. If you want something that belongs to someone else, you advocate taking it by force. What an exceedingly civilized policy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Wrong under all conditions.
Click to expand...

Then that is a point that I would have to disagree with you upon. I will say that I disagree with some of the uses that have been applied under eminent domain Such as the CT case. If a government entity does take land under eminent domain it should be allowed to turn it over or sell it to any other private entity for a minimum of 10 years. Additionally if that government entity does not make use of the land within 2 years, then the previous owner or their heirs have first option to buy it back at the exact same amount that the government entity paid as compensation, including a refund of any income tax collected as a result of the purchase by the government entity.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
Then that is a point that I would have to disagree with you upon. I will say that I disagree with some of the uses that have been applied under eminent domain Such as the CT case. If a government entity does take land under eminent domain it should be allowed to turn it over or sell it to any other private entity for a minimum of 10 years. Additionally if that government entity does not make use of the land within 2 years, then the previous owner or their heirs have first option to buy it back at the exact same amount that the government entity paid as compensation, including a refund of any income tax collected as a result of the purchase by the government entity.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on this point. I don't think that it is legitimate for one person to forcibly take the property of his neighbor.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
We'll have to disagree on this point. I don't think that it is legitimate for one person to forcibly take the property of his neighbor.
Click to expand...
No never one person, which is why I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on CT. However, there are times when it would be legitimite for a government entity to force the issue so long as it is purely a government infrastructure need, such as a road. And even then only have every chance has been public made. Additionally, the compensated amount should never be below market value and also must be publicly shown.
I don't disagree with the principle of eminent domain, but I am not in agreement with how it have been handled in many places lately.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
No never one person, which is why I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on CT, such as a road.
Click to expand...

Sorry. When I wrote "one person", I should have written "any person".

I don't think it is legitimate for any of us to forcibly take the property of another.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
Yes, I am well aware that, to the statist, the ends justify the means. If you want something that belongs to someone else, you advocate taking it by force. What an exceedingly civilized policy.
Click to expand...

Your problem is NOT with me ... it is with the US Constitution.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
I would not begin to select a country for you. Only you could do that based on your own belief system. But it is more than obvious that you are NOT happy where you are despite your self proclaimed breakfast diet.
Click to expand...

Actually its a great stress reliever. Most of the idiotic liberals here are blissfully unaware and need to be reminded on a regular bases that they not only are ignorant, but also to blame for supporting the leftists in govt. The only reason we dont have a liberal supermajority anymore is because several state reps were busted by the feds. This is the sequelae of unopposed liberalism.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

PirateMk1 said:
There is no freedom from discrimination no matter how badly we want it. That freedom does not exist except in the mind. Each and every one of is discriminated against each and every day, mostly without malice and on occasion with. You cannot avoid discrimination, you will be discriminated against till the day you die. We ALL will. Even god discriminates. Are you a sinner? Have you worshiped lately? Nature is the ultimate discriminator. Darwin's law anyone? Only the fittest survive. How about when the orcas play volley ball with the baby seals. Or a mother binging to her kittens a live mouse to play with and eventually eat. What kind of prey do most predators prefer, the young, the infirm. They don't go after the healthy prey unless they have to. There is always going to be discrimination whether from nature or humankind. The reason is simple yet profound. We are each unique individuals, with a unique and individual view of the world, and also individual and unique needs. From that unique perspective one cannot help but be discriminatory. We ALL have preferences and will choose those preferences generally FIRST. You the freedom to discriminate is the freedom of choice. So when we say what is more important the "right to discriminate" or the "freedom from discrimination", what we are really saying is do we have the "right to choose" or the "freedom from choice". That is a very difficult freedom to take away, as you will always have a choice and therefor you will always be discriminatory. Discrimination IS choice, non discrimination is the lack thereof. I shall leave it to you to choose. ;)
Click to expand...

Isn't it remarkable how equality has never existed anywhere-and yet these thinkers seek to base society on it anyway? Its amazing how utterly out of touch some people are. Its a very expensive lesson for them to not learn-how many more have to die because of this naive notion of "equality"?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
If you'd paid attention to the OTHER side of the story, you'd have found a lot of times when liberals and progressives like myself strongly criticized Obama for what he did or didn't do (like I did in this article). In fact, if you'd search around, you'd find a few times where we liberals and progressives were complimentary towards Dubya, particularly in his efforts to curb AIDS in Africa.

Here's a short list:
The Atlantic
Washington Post
Liberals praise Bush appointee
Dennis Kucinich praises Bush
Breitbart acknowledges a progressive praised Bush for immigration reform efforts

On the flip side of the coin, can you find instances of where conservatives were complimentary towards Obama? I think you know the answer to that one, don't you? In fact, that's what a scientific study found - that conservatives are MUCH less likely to write something complimentary about Obama than liberals are to write something complimentary about Bush.

But here's the problem - you won't believe me. Not for a moment will you believe me. Why? Because you've convinced yourself (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that we liberals and progressives are "hive-mind", and that if we on the Left were really objective people, we'd be calling for Obama's head. It is simply too much for you to believe that liberals might be every bit as objective as conservatives.
Click to expand...

I freely admit the map isn't the territory-but mother jones? For real?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:
Your problem is NOT with me ... it is with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

No. My problem is with you and your ilk. You want to use government force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
No. My problem is with you and your ilk. You want to use government force to deny the American people the ability to control access to their own property.
Click to expand...

Your problem is with the US Constitution and the powers it gives government that you simply pretend to not support but in practice do indeed support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom