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:

Says the master who feels he has divine right to dictate how other people must allow others access to their property.

Click to expand...

When a business owner opens his doors to the public, he has a civic responsibility to uphold the civil rights of every customer. If he doesn't want to open the door to the public, he can exchange with his friends and family as he pleases.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

When a business owner opens his doors to the public, he has a civic responsibility to uphold the civil rights of every customer.

Click to expand...

Customers don't have a right to have access to the property of others. The property owner is the only one with the right to control access to his property.

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

Federalist said:

Customers don't have a right to have access to the property of others. The property owner is the only one with the right to control access to his property.

Click to expand...

Open to the public does mean the public has access to a business.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Is it fascist to tell a business owner he can't sexually harass someone?

Click to expand...

False comparison. Can you at least have the fortitude to argue the actual point?

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Open to the public does mean the public has access to a business.

Click to expand...

Open to other individuals, you mean.

No one has a right to use force to coerce his fellow man to allow access to his own property. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the divine right to control your fellow man.

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

Federalist said:

Open to other individuals, you mean.

No one has a right to use force to coerce his fellow man to allow access to his own property. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the divine right to control your fellow man.

Click to expand...

then explain this sign.



should buissnesses be allowed to place signs like that?

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

I've occasionally wondered what would happen if all privately owned land/buildings/businesses/whatever, regardless of public access, was allowed to discriminate in whatever way they wished.

Would we have stores that only allowed white people? Or black people?

Would they stay afloat or be boycotted?

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

reconmark said:

Btw, a directive, order or request that a certain race of people be refused admittance to a popular venue open to the public, is violating someone's rights.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

The entire point is they are violating someone else's right.

Click to expand...

Which right?

haymarket said:

Wonderful. Except you forgot to tell us what JUST is. :doh

Click to expand...

A subjective term, much the same as right (vs wrong) and morals (for the most part), that typically implies fairness, which in and of itself is another subjective term.

Glen Contrarian said:

So if people can't eat or can't see the doctor because the only places in town won't serve them because of their skin color or religion, that's fine with you.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the perfect opportunity to open a business that you will have no competition for. And of course there is the other possibility: "You want to tell me how to run my business? Fine. I'll shut down and there will be no <insert type that there is only one of in town>." Now what? Are you going to make a law that says that the only one of a particular type of business not only has to serve those he doesn't want to against his will but also have to conduct business period against his will?

Understand that in the same way that a person who opposes abortions but fight to maintain them legal for those who do not believe as he does, so we are when it comes to personal property rights and freedom of association. We would oppose the actions of such an eatery or doctor while still fighting for their right to do the improper action.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Yes, business isn't personal.

Click to expand...

Opinion. Nothing more.

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, no one should play master including the business owner. People should be treated like humans unless they are not acting appropriate.

Click to expand...

Then why are you playing master to order someone to engage in business with someone they don't want to?

rabbitcaebannog said:

He shouldn't have his business open to public access if he wants to exclude people.

Click to expand...

Key point. Others calling it public access doesn't make it so. Public is public, which is part of the collective. If it is public then there is no need to tax it or it's sales anymore than you tax government offices for the revenue they bring in. If you are taxing it, it must be private.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Is it fascist to tell a business owner he can't sexually harass someone?

Click to expand...

Since sexual harassment is not limited to a business owner this is an improper example at best and a red herring at worse.

Unitedwestand13 said:

then explain this sign.

View attachment 67165867

should buissnesses be allowed to place signs like that?

Click to expand...

Quite simply yes. Also there could be the sign "We cater to black trade only", or "We cater to all but redheaded trade". Even a sign that says "No punk clothing allowed"

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

then explain this sign.

View attachment 67165867

should buissnesses be allowed to place signs like that?

Click to expand...

Frankly, I think they should. It is of course illegal, but if it was not the owner of that business would have to deal with the repercussions of such a decision. Im thinking it would not be well received, and he would have a tough time staying open.

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

The Mark said:

Would they stay afloat or be boycotted?

Click to expand...

This is an improper either/or since both situations could occur simultaneously. The ability to stay afloat would depend upon the amount of boycotting in comparison to the local (relatively speaking) trade population.

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

maquiscat said:

Which right?



A subjective term, much the same as right (vs wrong) and morals (for the most part), that typically implies fairness, which in and of itself is another subjective term.



Sounds like the perfect opportunity to open a business that you will have no competition for. And of course there is the other possibility: "You want to tell me how to run my business? Fine. I'll shut down and there will be no <insert type that there is only one of in town>." Now what? Are you going to make a law that says that the only one of a particular type of business not only has to serve those he doesn't want to against his will but also have to conduct business period against his will?

Understand that in the same way that a person who opposes abortions but fight to maintain them legal for those who do not believe as he does, so we are when it comes to personal property rights and freedom of association. We would oppose the actions of such an eatery or doctor while still fighting for their right to do the improper action.



Opinion. Nothing more.



Then why are you playing master to order someone to engage in business with someone they don't want to?



Key point. Others calling it public access doesn't make it so. Public is public, which is part of the collective. If it is public then there is no need to tax it or it's sales anymore than you tax government offices for the revenue they bring in. If you are taxing it, it must be private.



Since sexual harassment is not limited to a business owner this is an improper example at best and a red herring at worse.



Quite simply yes. Also there could be the sign "We cater to black trade only", or "We cater to all but redheaded trade". Even a sign that says "No punk clothing allowed"

Click to expand...

and on febuary 1st 1960, this is how one group in greensboro north carolina reacted to that sign.



african american students are intentionally siting at the white only counter, and are being refused service.

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

US Conservative said:

False comparison. Can you at least have the fortitude to argue the actual point?

Click to expand...

It's not a false comparison.

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

then explain this sign.

View attachment 67165867

should buissnesses be allowed to place signs like that?

Click to expand...

Yes. As wrongful as it is, I have no divine right to use force to coerce another person with whom he must engage in trade.

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

US Conservative said:

Frankly, I think they should. It is of course illegal, but if it was not the owner of that business would have to deal with the repercussions of such a decision. Im thinking it would not be well received, and he would have a tough time staying open.

Click to expand...

the business was practicing the doctrine of "seperate-but-equal" which was found unconstitutional by the supreme court in brown v. board of education.

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

Federalist said:

Open to other individuals, you mean.

No one has a right to use force to coerce his fellow man to allow access to his own property. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the divine right to control your fellow man.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to be open to the public, you can sell to family and friends through your home.

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

maquiscat said:

Which right?



A subjective term, much the same as right (vs wrong) and morals (for the most part), that typically implies fairness, which in and of itself is another subjective term.



Sounds like the perfect opportunity to open a business that you will have no competition for. And of course there is the other possibility: "You want to tell me how to run my business? Fine. I'll shut down and there will be no <insert type that there is only one of in town>." Now what? Are you going to make a law that says that the only one of a particular type of business not only has to serve those he doesn't want to against his will but also have to conduct business period against his will?

Understand that in the same way that a person who opposes abortions but fight to maintain them legal for those who do not believe as he does, so we are when it comes to personal property rights and freedom of association. We would oppose the actions of such an eatery or doctor while still fighting for their right to do the improper action.



Opinion. Nothing more.



Then why are you playing master to order someone to engage in business with someone they don't want to?



Key point. Others calling it public access doesn't make it so. Public is public, which is part of the collective. If it is public then there is no need to tax it or it's sales anymore than you tax government offices for the revenue they bring in. If you are taxing it, it must be private.



Since sexual harassment is not limited to a business owner this is an improper example at best and a red herring at worse.



Quite simply yes. Also there could be the sign "We cater to black trade only", or "We cater to all but redheaded trade". Even a sign that says "No punk clothing allowed"

Click to expand...

All your other points have been addressed ad nauseous accept your last point which I will address. Where is sexual harassment limited besides a place of business? If a female walks by a person who cat calls her she can't claim sexual harassment.

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

and on febuary 1st 1960, this is how one group in greensboro north carolina reacted to that sign.

View attachment 67165868

african american students are intentionally siting at the white only counter, and are being refused service.

Click to expand...

And your point? Please do not try to merge the rightness or wrongness of an action with the right to do the action. I very much doubt that you will find a person in this thread who will say that it is right and proper for the business to not serve blacks. But simply because it is wrong doesn't mean that they don't have a right to do it. It is just as wrong and discriminatory to say that no black person is allowed in one's home, but it is still within one's right. It is wrong to call a black person "nigger" or a white person "cracker" or "honky", but it is still within one's right to do so.

Also learn how to edit.

Unitedwestand13 said:

the business was practicing the doctrine of "seperate-but-equal" which was found unconstitutional by the supreme court in brown v. board of education.

Click to expand...

Which applies to law and government facilities and services and not to individual rights. "Separate but equal" as related to business came about by Jim Crow laws which mandated discrimination, taking the decision away from business owners, also a violation of private property rights and freedom of association.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

It's not a false comparison.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, your example results in negating the rights of another by sexually assaulting them.

That is not an apt comparison. I thought you were a teacher?

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

Federalist said:

No. It's not fine with me. However, I do not condone the initiation of violence against my fellow man, so I can't support a law that uses violence (or the threat thereof) to coerce someone to engage in trade against his will.

However, I'm sure the doctor has friends, children, relatives, associates, and suppliers who can influence him to change his ways .

Click to expand...

Which just goes to show you how little you know of the prevalence of racism in this world. Make something legal to do, and people WILL do it...whatever "it" may be.

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

US Conservative said:

Yes it is, your example results in negating the rights of another by sexually assaulting them.

That is not an apt comparison. I thought you were a teacher?

Click to expand...

Sexual harassment is not sexually assaulting someone.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Which just goes to show you how little you know of the prevalence of racism in this world. Make something legal to do, and people WILL do it...whatever "it" may be.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have any sort of divine right to tell other people that they must allow others onto their private property or that they must engage in trade.

Forgive me if I don't feel as if I am the ruler of the universe. I view other people as my equals, not as subjects to be cowed to my will.

I guess that's why I'm not a progressive.

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

maquiscat said:

This is an improper either/or since both situations could occur simultaneously. The ability to stay afloat would depend upon the amount of boycotting in comparison to the local (relatively speaking) trade population.

Click to expand...

True.

I should have said "will they be able to survive the inevitable boycott?"

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

US Conservative said:

Answering for myself, thats not fine-but neither is forcing the towns doctor with his private practice to see anyone.
As much as you might want it to be, we dont live in Cuba.
Its remarkable watching lefties come out of their shell and exhibiting their pocket statist tendencies.

Click to expand...

So what's the solution? Certain people just don't get to go to the store or go to the doctor anymore?

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

the business was practicing the doctrine of "seperate-but-equal" which was found unconstitutional by the supreme court in brown v. board of education.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the narration, that wasn't the point.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

All your other points have been addressed ad nauseous accept your last point which I will address. Where is sexual harassment limited besides a place of business? If a female walks by a person who cat calls her she can't claim sexual harassment.

Click to expand...

Its apparent that you truly dont understand the concepts being discussed here.