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

AGENT J said:

1.) but what is "the right to discriminate"
we are all free to discriminate so i dont understand that part of the question. Is there some example where people are losing that

The question in the OP makes no sense to me since I havent seen or am unaware of anybody losing any freedoms

Click to expand...

I think some recent events involving racist or borderline statements by various persons - more specifically, the response to same - have caused some persons to worry that we're in danger of loosing some freedoms. I'm not too clear on it either.

AGENT J said:

2.) yeah the second part i totally get "freedom from discrimination" in SOME ways we do have that RIGHT and FREEDOM, you said acceptable and unacceptable which is legal or illegal and one version of that violates the law and rights and freedoms of others.

so part two I totally get and can come up with perfect examples of how it could be legal or illegal and violate or not violate rights.

I cant do that for the first part?

Click to expand...

Acceptable vs unacceptable does not necessarily correlate with legal vs illegal - it does, however, in most cases.

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

AlbqOwl said:

There is no unalienable right or human right, whatever that is, to somebody else's person or property. There should be no right to demand that somebody else provide for us, service us, or give us what they rightfully earned or acquired. A long and bloody war was fought to free the slaves. But some seem it is okay to force some to serve others even yet today. It isn't.

Click to expand...

Then don't sell things to the public if it makes you feel like a slave:roll:

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Then don't sell things to the public if it makes you feel like a slave:roll:

Click to expand...

Oh right. If I choose not to serve some unmitigated jerk, let's solve that by denying service to everybody. Yep. That'll show em.

How about we just adopt a live and let live policy and see how that works? I guarantee you for every bigot who doesn't want to serve somebody because of race or religion or other reasons like that, there will be ten others who will be happy to have that business. And if I just don't like your general attitude or the way you treat people or the fact that you drown puppies and kick old ladies, I will continue to tell you to take a hike. Is that okay with you?

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

AlbqOwl said:

Oh right. If I choose not to serve some unmitigated jerk, let's solve that by denying service to everybody. Yep. That'll show em.

How about we just adopt a live and let live policy and see how that works? I guarantee you for every bigot who doesn't want to serve somebody because of race or religion or other reasons like that, there will be ten others who will be happy to have that business. And if I just don't like your general attitude or the way you treat people or the fact that you drown puppies and kick old ladies, I will continue to tell you to take a hike. Is that okay with you?

Click to expand...

Good luck vetting each person who comes into your shop.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Good luck vetting each person who comes into your shop.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I have suggested nothing of the sort. But I will take it that you are unwilling to answer the question put to you.

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

The Mark said:

1.)I think some recent events involving racist or borderline statements by various persons - more specifically, the response to same - have caused some persons to worry that we're in danger of loosing some freedoms. I'm not too clear on it either.


2.) Acceptable vs unacceptable does not necessarily correlate with legal vs illegal - it does, however, in most cases.

Click to expand...

1.) I have heard some people voice this concern but since its NOTHING new i have no idea what logic that is based on. No freedoms are being lost or impacted in a new way.
2.) I agree its a subjective thing but since we are talking rights the criteria has a basic setting. AGain though i would love for the OP to explain so theres a real premise to discuss.

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

AlbqOwl said:

Why do you say that? I have suggested nothing of the sort. But I will take it that you are unwilling to answer the question put to you.

Click to expand...

Because it sounds like that shop owner prefers to vet people rather than sell merchandise.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Because it sounds like that shop owner prefers to vet people rather than sell merchandise.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. I used a crystal clear illustration. You just don't want to answer the question.

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

AlbqOwl said:

No it didn't. I used a crystal clear illustration. You just don't want to answer the question.

Click to expand...

If a person is not following the rules of a place of business fine, anything else is over the top and a bit on the nutty side.

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

If a person is not following the rules of a place of business fine, anything else is over the top and a bit on the nutty side.

Click to expand...

So if I know you to be a person who drowns puppies, kicks old ladies, and steal candy from kids, I am nutty if I tell you I don't want you for a customer? Okay. At least we know where you stand.

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

haymarket said:

Can you present to us an example of a first rate world power in the 21st century who operates without a system of compulsory taxation?

Click to expand...

For clarity's sake, please define compulsory tax within the context that you are using it, along with an example of a non-compulsory tax. I want to think we are thinking along the same lines, but I want to be sure.

Glen Contrarian said:

Huh? Dude, you're making zero sense in that paragraph. A doctor who refuses to medically treat someone because of his or her race in a town where he's the only doctor. YOUR opinion - and the opinion of so many on the Right, apparently - are that this is okay, no big deal. There can be no comparison of that kind of situation with the rest of your, um, examples.

Click to expand...

One of the counter-aruguments that has been used against the argument "they are still free to seek {goods/service} from someone else offering said {goods/service}" is "what if that is the only {goods/service} provider in town?" The doctor has been the most popular example of said argument/counter-argument. My question is, what is the difference between a goods/service provider who is the only game in town discriminating on any given basis, and one who shuts down so as not to have to serve those whom he doesn't want to? It's a very simple question.

Businesses that are open to the public are for the most part NOT currently free to discriminate, except for those states which still have anti-gay laws. If the Right had its way, we would all be free to discriminate...which would give legitimacy to racism...and as soon as racists began refusing to serve people because of their color, people of that color would protest and the state would send police to protect the racist's "right" to discriminate...and THAT is the beginning of state-protected racism.

You y'all can't see that is beyond explanation.

Click to expand...

What is that?!?

Anyway, if the person who is running a business is saying that no X allowed or only X allowed, then I guess they really aren't open to the public. Not that it stops anyone from saying that they are open to the public and thus are not allowed. That would probably have to be the most basic false premise of the whole argument that businesses don't have the right to discriminate. Business are not open to the public. They are open to whomever the business owner wishes to do business with. That is part and parcel of private property rights and freedom of association.

As to state protected racism, yeah it's a sad by product of actually protecting rights, but that's fine by me. State mandated racism however, is completely off the table. That is also a violation of private property rights and freedom of association. The problem is that most people who want to violate rights for actions that they don't like is that they can't seem to separate the concepts of the state requiring something and the state protecting rights even when it's an objectionable action that is being protected.

rabbitcaebannog said:

If a person is not following the rules of a place of business fine, anything else is over the top and a bit on the nutty side.

Click to expand...

The rules of a place of business is what the business owner decides they are. Real simple concept.

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

AA is a symptom of the problem. 6 months ago or probably less I would have argued although AA is repugnant and should go away as soon as possible and that I was not convinced it was necessary at that time, but would rather err on the side of helping deserving people get into school. I had truly believed most of the racist left were on conservative internet sites and storm front and hung out in dark little bars. But in the last 6 months the racism in many threads on this forum and stories like Bundy and Fox making him main stream, and the steadfast defense...anyway, I am afraid AA might be necessary for a long time to come, until everyone at least realized what the real problem is. It aint AA.

MrVicchio said:

It's going on today... what the hell do you mean never returns? It's codified.

Click to expand...

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

rabbitcaebannog said:

Oh, your (general you) right to be a bigot is a 'natural right' compared to their right to be of a different race, creed, religion etc....is that not a 'natural' right?

Click to expand...

Can't keep up with this damn thread, but....

No. You have a natural right to choose who you associate (or do not associate) with. Your right not to associate with people named Sanchez has no bearing on the natural rights of anyone named Sanchez unless/until you use force to deprive them of something that is rightfully theirs. Your property is not their property. This isn't a commune. I still don't know what you have against the Sanchezes, but it's your right. Maybe some day you'll learn it's better to treat people fairly.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

If businesses are allowed to discriminate, then the allowance of that discrimination must be backed by the force of law...which effectively makes it Jim Crow in all but name. You can deny it all you want...but that, sir, is a fact.

Click to expand...

The allowance of free will is generally backed by the force of law in a free society. Jim Crow laws prevented free association by the force of law, so, no. Pretty much the opposite of everything you said is true.

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

FederalRepublic said:

The allowance of free will is generally backed by the force of law in a free society. Jim Crow laws prevented free association by the force of law, so, no. Pretty much the opposite of everything you said is true.

Click to expand...

I have been saying this for so long. I'm glad to see someone else gets it, and isn't afraid to put it out.

Wow those two were pretty far back. You only now saw them?

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

maquiscat said:

One of the counter-aruguments that has been used against the argument "they are still free to seek {goods/service} from someone else offering said {goods/service}" is "what if that is the only {goods/service} provider in town?" The doctor has been the most popular example of said argument/counter-argument. My question is, what is the difference between a goods/service provider who is the only game in town discriminating on any given basis, and one who shuts down so as not to have to serve those whom he doesn't want to? It's a very simple question.

Click to expand...

That's a bogus comparison. Someone can shut down their business for any reason under the sun if they want to - because by doing so, they're not discriminating against anyone.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

That's a bogus comparison. Someone can shut down their business for any reason under the sun if they want to - because by doing so, they're not discriminating against anyone.

Click to expand...

But the poor people who can no longer have a doctor! And what if the doctor shuts down so that he doesn't have to serve white people? That's discrimination. Shouldn't that be illegal?

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

FederalRepublic said:

The allowance of free will is generally backed by the force of law in a free society. Jim Crow laws prevented free association by the force of law, so, no. Pretty much the opposite of everything you said is true.

Click to expand...

Wrong...because as soon as the racist business owner calls up the cops to enforce his no-blacks-allowed store policy, and the cops are forced by law to remove those blacks, we suddenly have state-enforced racism.

Which was once known as Jim Crow.

Sure, it's not quite the same...but the moment this starts, you're going to see violence across America like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. Why? Blacks have had a taste of equality, and they're not going to give it up...and they're armed, too.

Is that the kind of future you want for America? Is it really?

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

maquiscat said:

But the poor people who can no longer have a doctor! And what if the doctor shuts down so that he doesn't have to serve white people? That's discrimination. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Click to expand...

It can't be discrimination because his action affects all his customers, not just one or two or one certain segment thereof.

For instance, I once owned a used clothing store in that same one-doctor town I keep talking about. ALL my customers - most (but not all) of whom were black - were poor. Does that somehow mean that I was being discriminatory because I closed my business? Please.

Like I said, you're making a bogus comparison.

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

maquiscat said:

I have been saying this for so long. I'm glad to see someone else gets it, and isn't afraid to put it out.

Wow those two were pretty far back. You only now saw them?

Click to expand...

Had to take a break, couldn't spend 2 hours every night catching up...

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

maquiscat said:

But the poor people who can no longer have a doctor! And what if the doctor shuts down so that he doesn't have to serve white people? That's discrimination. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Click to expand...

No, that's just you trying to make up stuff.

*yawn*

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Wrong...because as soon as the racist business owner calls up the cops to enforce his no-blacks-allowed store policy, and the cops are forced by law to remove those blacks, we suddenly have state-enforced racism.

Which was once known as Jim Crow.

Sure, it's not quite the same...but the moment this starts, you're going to see violence across America like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. Why? Blacks have had a taste of equality, and they're not going to give it up...and they're armed, too.

Is that the kind of future you want for America? Is it really?

Click to expand...

You are still making the mistake of equating state enforced action with state approved or state mandated action. Right now WBC gets to go out and protest pretty much any funeral they want. They throw out all their hate rhetoric and sexual discrimination speech crap. If you were to try to come by and silence them the cops would have to stop you. We would then have state enforced hate speech. Is that what you want for this country? Well I do, not because I want hate speech, but because I don't want any limitation on my free speech. Appropriate consequences, yes. Same goes for private property rights and freedom of association.

Additionally get it straight. Jim Crow was about mandating discrimination. Don't want to be discriminatory with your business? Too bad. Law says you can't allow the blacks to integrate with the whites even if you want to. That is Jim Crow

Glen Contrarian said:

It can't be discrimination because his action affects all his customers, not just one or two or one certain segment thereof.

For instance, I once owned a used clothing store in that same one-doctor town I keep talking about. ALL my customers - most (but not all) of whom were black - were poor. Does that somehow mean that I was being discriminatory because I closed my business? Please.

Like I said, you're making a bogus comparison.

Click to expand...

No the bogus comparison is the whole issue of if they have to go to another town or not. If the issue is of them traveling then it is an issue whether there is no doctor or there is one who discriminates. You still did not answer the question as asked though. If the doctor, or you and your store even, shut down claiming that they are doing so so that they do not have to serve X group (discrimination!) and even announces so, should not that be illegal. Not "Oh I am in poor health and can no longer run the store I am shutting down".

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

maquiscat said:

You are still making the mistake of equating state enforced action with state approved or state mandated action. Right now WBC gets to go out and protest pretty much any funeral they want. They throw out all their hate rhetoric and sexual discrimination speech crap. If you were to try to come by and silence them the cops would have to stop you. We would then have state enforced hate speech. Is that what you want for this country? Well I do, not because I want hate speech, but because I don't want any limitation on my free speech. Appropriate consequences, yes. Same goes for private property rights and freedom of association.

Additionally get it straight. Jim Crow was about mandating discrimination. Don't want to be discriminatory with your business? Too bad. Law says you can't allow the blacks to integrate with the whites even if you want to. That is Jim Crow



No the bogus comparison is the whole issue of if they have to go to another town or not. If the issue is of them traveling then it is an issue whether there is no doctor or there is one who discriminates. You still did not answer the question as asked though. If the doctor, or you and your store even, shut down claiming that they are doing so so that they do not have to serve X group (discrimination!) and even announces so, should not that be illegal. Not "Oh I am in poor health and can no longer run the store I am shutting down".

Click to expand...

What you're not getting is that in the eyes of over ten million black Americans and the many, many tens of millions of people who would support them, there is NO difference between "enforced" and "mandated"...because the end result is the same.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

What you're not getting is that in the eyes of over ten million black Americans and the many, many tens of millions of people who would support them, there is NO difference between "enforced" and "mandated"...because the end result is the same.

Click to expand...

That's rather like saying that there is no difference between blue and teal. There is a difference and especially in the context of freedoms and rights they are very important. You failed to address the state enforced hate speech issue and you failed again to answer the question. Something you're trying to avoid?

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

+

maquiscat said:

That's rather like saying that there is no difference between blue and teal. There is a difference and especially in the context of freedoms and rights they are very important. You failed to address the state enforced hate speech issue and you failed again to answer the question. Something you're trying to avoid?

Click to expand...

He's trying to avoid a further mugging by reality.