• 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:
Your proof verifies that the person can be charged outside the workplace if "they have a business, service or professional relationship with the person they harassed". It's about power. It is not a sub issue because it is from the same law as discrimination (Civil Right's Act). It is a violation of a human right. Your rights end where another person's begins.

As far as the second part of your post, the issue is people are not allowed to violate another's right. If they prefer to shut down rather than follow the law, it at least protects the rights of individuals. That is the point.
Click to expand...

You never did answer what TIA means. I'm sure it's some internet acronym like IIRC and BTW and such, but I can't figure it out nor find it on the internet.

But yeah, you said not related to work or rental, and many of those are not related to a person's work. So it's between what I was saying and what you were saying. Like I said I am inquiring with some actual lawyers to check on what I was saying in regards to other places. It may well be that the term "sexual harassment" has developed a colloquial social meaning that isn't fully in line with the legal definition, much the way that pedophillia has even when the minor in question is outside the range for pedophillia and is in, say, the hebephillia range.

The second part is where we are having a disagreement. A right is a right. The law either recognizes it or violates it, if it touches upon the right at all. There simply is no right from discrimination. There is no right to conduct commerce/business. These are misconstrued conclusions based upon other rights. For that matter there is not right to be treated as a human being, especially since what constitutes such treatment is highly subjective. Please don't get me wrong. I do not support discrimination based upon what are essentially arbitrary factors, such as skin color, gender, etc. But freedom of association is one of our rights; we are free to chose whom we associate with under what circumstances. The natural offshoot of this is that we can make such arbitrary choices in those association. Those who support anti-discrimination laws (as oppose to those who support anti-discrimination) don't like the idea of what that allows an individual to do and as such have manufactured a "freedom from discrimination" and codified it into law.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
this is were we disagree, to make taxes complusary...is force....to the founders, your money is your property not to be taken by force.

Taxes unders the founders was voluntary, you will find after taxes become complusry, ...government expanded outside the constutution.

Income taxes, ...was a progressive idea of the late 1800's as was democracy for America...two great evils
Click to expand...

I am just looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. We are a very large nation of some 330 million people and if we stick to the constitutional principles of government the Founders believed in, some funding is necessary in order for the government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties. Some form of taxation is the most practical way to do provide that funding and I have no personal problem with every citizen being required to have some skin in that. I strenuously object to half the country being exempt from that, which is the case now, but still being able to vote for those who will decide how much the rest of us will pay.

But what we the people now need is a revolution--preferably a peaceful and bloodless one--that will bust the federal government back to its constitutionally mandated authority and let the states handle everything else as was always intended.

And then the federal government won't need to concern itself so much with what a business owner is allowed to do with his own property--that will be a matter for the states and/or local communities to decide.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
You never did answer what TIA means. I'm sure it's some internet acronym like IIRC and BTW and such, but I can't figure it out nor find it on the internet.

But yeah, you said not related to work or rental, and many of those are not related to a person's work. So it's between what I was saying and what you were saying. Like I said I am inquiring with some actual lawyers to check on what I was saying in regards to other places. It may well be that the term "sexual harassment" has developed a colloquial social meaning that isn't fully in line with the legal definition, much the way that pedophillia has even when the minor in question is outside the range for pedophillia and is in, say, the hebephillia range.

The second part is where we are having a disagreement. A right is a right. The law either recognizes it or violates it, if it touches upon the right at all. There simply is no right from discrimination. There is no right to conduct commerce/business. These are misconstrued conclusions based upon other rights. For that matter there is not right to be treated as a human being, especially since what constitutes such treatment is highly subjective. Please don't get me wrong. I do not support discrimination based upon what are essentially arbitrary factors, such as skin color, gender, etc. But freedom of association is one of our rights; we are free to chose whom we associate with under what circumstances. The natural offshoot of this is that we can make such arbitrary choices in those association. Those who support anti-discrimination laws (as oppose to those who support anti-discrimination) don't like the idea of what that allows an individual to do and as such have manufactured a "freedom from discrimination" and codified it into law.
Click to expand...

TIA means thanks in advance. The whole reason for sexual harassment and discrimination law under The Civil Rights Act is to make sure people's rights are not being violated in a place of business. Business does have a code of ethics were owners, bosses, co-workers etc....are not allowed to engage in whatever the heck they please. One right ends where another right begins.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
I am just looking at it from a purely practical standpoint. We are a very large nation of some 330 million people and if we stick to the constitutional principles of government the Founders believed in, some funding is necessary in order for the government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties. Some form of taxation is the most practical way to do provide that funding and I have no personal problem with every citizen being required to have some skin in that. I strenuously object to half the country being exempt from that, which is the case now, but still being able to vote for those who will decide how much the rest of us will pay.

But what we the people now need is a revolution--preferably a peaceful and bloodless one--that will bust the federal government back to its constitutionally mandated authority and let the states handle everything else as was always intended.

And then the federal government won't need to concern itself so much with what a business owner is allowed to do with his own property--that will be a matter for the states and/or local communities to decide.
Click to expand...

to a LIBERTARIAN. the use of force is "repugnant"

to take tax by force is violating the founding principles of America...the DOI...which is law.

money is property...to take property by force, is stealing,. and the violation of the principle "government is instituted to protect rights"
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
to a LIBERTARIAN. the use of force is "repugnant"

to take tax by force is violating the founding principles of America...the DOI...which is law.

money is property...to take property by force, is stealing,. and the violation of the principle "government is instituted to protect rights"
Click to expand...

I don't look at it as stealing. I look at it as paying my dues as a citizen so that my rights are secured and my property protected. But. . . . when the government oversteps its constitutional authority, THEN it becomes stealing and should be repugnant to all people who believe in unalienable rights and who value liberty.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
I don't look at it as stealing. I look at it as paying my dues as a citizen so that my rights are secured and my property protected. But. . . . when the government oversteps its constitutional authority, THEN it becomes stealing and should be repugnant to all people who believe in unalienable rights and who value liberty.
Click to expand...


then how do you get pass the fact... money is property, and property of every sort is to be secured by government, which is why government is instituted.

to the founders direct taxes on a person taking from him by force is stealing.

taxes by the founders are voluntary, and they worked in america, until progressives got an amendment to the Constitution,...however that amendment still defies the founding principles of america in the DOI.

voluntary taxes were placed on states, and those taxes were used to pay for the delegates powers of the federal government, and only for those purposes.

by your explanation your saying to secure your rights, you have to give in and let government defy the DOI.....YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

would you say the same to this statement?

to secure my rights/ property, i must let government spy on me, search me, violate my privacy, thus making it possible to perform its delegated power of national security?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
then how do you get pass the fact... money is property, and property of every sort is to be secured by government, which is why government is instituted.

to the founders direct taxes on a person taking from him by force is stealing.

taxes by the founders are voluntary, and they worked in america, until progressives got an amendment to the Constitution,...however that amendment still defies the founding principles of america in the DOI.

voluntary taxes were placed on states, and those taxes were used to pay for the delegates powers of the federal government, and only for those purposes.

by your explanation your saying to secure your rights, you have to give in and let government defy the DOI.....YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

would you say the same to this statement?

to secure my rights/ property, i must let government spy on me, search me, violate my privacy, thus making it possible to perform its delegated power of national security?
Click to expand...

I get past it because I'm not a fanatical ideologue who sees everything in absolutes. I'm not saying you are either, but in this case it is purely a matter of practical common sense. Our unalienable rights are not recognized and not secured if we do not hand over responsibility to recognize and secure them to a central government. The common defense is going to be far less a certain thing unless we hand over the responsibility to organize and manage it to a central government. And we need a central government to provide sufficient laws and regulation to allow the various states to function as one cohesive nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. There is no liberty unless our rights are secured. And it requires funding to secure them. I just see a flat tax that everybody pays as the easiest, most reasonable, most sensible, and most practical way to do that with the least burden and least hassle for we the people.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
I get past it because I'm not a fanatical ideologue who sees everything in absolutes. I'm not saying you are either, but in this case it is purely a matter of practical common sense. Our unalienable rights are not recognized and not secured if we do not hand over responsibility to recognize and secure them to a central government. The common defense is going to be far less a certain thing unless we hand over the responsibility to organize and manage it to a central government. And we need a central government to provide sufficient laws and regulation to allow the various states to function as one cohesive nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. There is no liberty unless our rights are secured. And it requires funding to secure them. I just see a flat tax that everybody pays as the easiest, most reasonable, most sensible, and most practical way to do that with the least burden and least hassle for we the people.
Click to expand...


well we disagree, i will not compromise principles.

our government ran fine when taxes were voluntary, and it was only after the income tax government began to expand and step outside of the constitution.

by constraining the money government receives, it also restrains their powers, to only what is necessary and properer.

by constitutional law the federal government role is external powers, not internal powers, all powers exercise by government are to be for the union as a whole, ..not inside states ruling in there affairs, and i stated to you from article 1 section 8 clause 17.

because of income taxes, and expansion of government from it, government power/ debt has grown to uncontrollable levels......making for a dangerous time in the future, when no rights will be secure.

i am not an anarchistic, i believe in government however that government is to be limited, and only exercising enumerated powers...not powers the government or people find as a conveyance for them, when it happens to suit.

a consumption tax...which will be voluntary...and also promote savings.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
well we disagree, i will not compromise principles.

our government ran fine when taxes were voluntary, and it was only after the income tax government began to expand and step outside of the constitution.

by constraining the money government receives, it also restrains their powers, to only what is necessary and properer.

by constitutional law the federal government role is external powers, not internal powers, all powers exercise by government are to be for the union as a whole, ..not inside states ruling in there affairs, and i stated to you from article 1 section 8 clause 17.

because of income taxes, and expansion of government from it, government power/ debt has grown to uncontrollable levels......making for a dangerous time in the future, when no rights will be secure.

i am not an anarchistic, i believe in government however that government is to be limited, and only exercising enumerated powers...not powers the government or people find as a conveyance for them, when it happens to suit.

a consumption tax...which will be voluntary...and also promote savings.
Click to expand...

The income tax was not what caused the government to go out of control. Beginning with T R Roosevelt, it was the blind lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that mostly caused the government to go out of control.

Just as it is not hatred or opinion of people of a certain color that is keeping racism and discrimination alive and well now but it is the lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that drives it.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
The income tax was not what caused the government to go out of control. Beginning with T R Roosevelt, it was the blind lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that mostly caused the government to go out of control.

Just as it is not hatred or opinion of people of a certain color that is keeping racism and discrimination alive and well now but it is the lust for power, authority, prestige, influence, and personal wealth that drives it.
Click to expand...

it is money that allows the government to involve themselves in things, and take control ...without money government is limited in its capacity to do things....this was a problem of the government under the articles so confederation, no way to tax at all.

government was given the power to tax trade, not people..........to tax people gives government power over people......the founders did not want that.........."the power to tax is the power to destroy"
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:
it is money that allows the government to involve themselves in things, and take control ...without money government is limited in its capacity to do things....this was a problem of the government under the articles so confederation, no way to tax at all.

government was given the power to tax trade, not people..........to tax people gives government power over people......the founders did not want that.........."the power to tax is the power to destroy"
Click to expand...

Well as you said, we can agree to disagree. The Founders did want all government funds to be raised via taxes on imported goods. But at that time, the American colonies were importing a whole lot of stuff and needed to export very little. There was no such thing as the global market we now have today. So the Founders would have to rethink that given the necessity of free markets to compete in the modern economic environment.

Again for me the income tax is simple and, if a flat tax that everybody pays, is fair. The flat tax takes out of the equation almost all the ability of Congress to use taxes to manipulate the people. And a flat tax would be far less easy to manipulate than would any kind of value added or sales tax.

The necessary functions of government must be funded. I am just looking at the most practical way to do that while removing a whole lot of ability of Congress to use the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence and personal wealth. And it would also remove a lot of Congress's ability to use our money to keep racism alive and well for Congress's own benefit too.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
Well as you said, we can agree to disagree. The Founders did want all government funds to be raised via taxes on imported goods. But at that time, the American colonies were importing a whole lot of stuff and needed to export very little. There was no such thing as the global market we now have today. So the Founders would have to rethink that given the necessity of free markets to compete in the modern economic environment.

Again for me the income tax is simple and, if a flat tax that everybody pays, is fair. The flat tax takes out of the equation almost all the ability of Congress to use taxes to manipulate the people. And a flat tax would be far less easy to manipulate than would any kind of value added or sales tax.

The necessary functions of government must be funded. I am just looking at the most practical way to do that while removing a whole lot of ability of Congress to use the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence and personal wealth. And it would also remove a lot of Congress's ability to use our money to keep racism alive and well for Congress's own benefit too.
Click to expand...

The left would never support a flat tax-because we have the most progressive tax system in the world, where the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the total income taxes. To make it a flat tax, this targeting of the wealthy would not occur-and the left is more concerned with punishing the rich than anything else.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I think a flat tax is a great idea.
US Conservative said:
The left would never support a flat tax-because we have the most progressive tax system in the world, where the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the total income taxes. To make it a flat tax, this targeting of the wealthy would not occur-and the left is more concerned with punishing the rich than anything else.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
Well as you said, we can agree to disagree. The Founders did want all government funds to be raised via taxes on imported goods. But at that time, the American colonies were importing a whole lot of stuff and needed to export very little. There was no such thing as the global market we now have today. So the Founders would have to rethink that given the necessity of free markets to compete in the modern economic environment.

Again for me the income tax is simple and, if a flat tax that everybody pays, is fair. The flat tax takes out of the equation almost all the ability of Congress to use taxes to manipulate the people. And a flat tax would be far less easy to manipulate than would any kind of value added or sales tax.

The necessary functions of government must be funded. I am just looking at the most practical way to do that while removing a whole lot of ability of Congress to use the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence and personal wealth. And it would also remove a lot of Congress's ability to use our money to keep racism alive and well for Congress's own benefit too.
Click to expand...

and as i said, to give anything the power to tax, gives them great power, ..if government has the power to tax you, it has power over you.

when government turned over our money to the federal reserve ,it also took the power of money out of the hands of the people.

taxation by force is a evil and vile power over the people.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

US Conservative said:
The left would never support a flat tax-because we have the most progressive tax system in the world, where the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the total income taxes. To make it a flat tax, this targeting of the wealthy would not occur-and the left is more concerned with punishing the rich than anything else.
Click to expand...

I know that. Currently the tax code is designed to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those in government.

My argument here is what it SHOULD be. We currently have a government controlled by an authoritarian permanent political class that has every reason to use the tax code to benefit itself as well as keep racism and discrimination alive and well in order to benefit itself. I want to remove that permanent political class from power and the only way to do that is to bust the federal government back to its constitutional roots.
For a discussion of the permanent political class see here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/192279-extortion-book-review.html
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:
I know that. Currently the tax code is designed to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those in government.

My argument here is what it SHOULD be. We currently have a government controlled by an authoritarian permanent political class that has every reason to use the tax code to benefit itself as well as keep racism and discrimination alive and well in order to benefit itself. I want to remove that permanent political class from power and the only way to do that is to bust the federal government back to its constitutional roots.
For a discussion of the permanent political class see here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/192279-extortion-book-review.html
Click to expand...

I know you know-im saying even though its a great idea, its not going to happen. Just look at all the class struggle bs presented by the left.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
TIA means thanks in advance. The whole reason for sexual harassment and discrimination law under The Civil Rights Act is to make sure people's rights are not being violated in a place of business. Business does have a code of ethics were owners, bosses, co-workers etc....are not allowed to engage in whatever the heck they please. One right ends where another right begins.
Click to expand...

In relation to the topic of the thread, what specific rights are being violated? Besides private property rights and freedom of association? What is beginning to end those two rights?

US Conservative said:
I know you know-im saying even though its a great idea, its not going to happen. Just look at all the class struggle bs presented by the left.
Click to expand...

Um....guys....just a suggestion.....you're starting to move a little too much off the topic. I mean I'm not a mod or anything, but that doesn't mean I can't give a nudge or two, eh? ;)
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
Now just to be clear, what we are indeed arguing in favor of state enforced racism.
Click to expand...

No. That's not what I'm arguing. Having the state defend my right to choose my spouse (even if I only consider spouses of the same race) is not state enforced racism. Don't fall in a semantic trap and give up the meaning of words.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
No. That's not what I'm arguing. Having the state defend my right to choose my spouse (even if I only consider spouses of the same race) is not state enforced racism. Don't fall in a semantic trap and give up the meaning of words.
Click to expand...

The semantic trap is the one that rabbit is trying to use, by equating enforced with mandated and/or approved. I really doubt that the state approves of the actions of WBC, but as long as they are staying within their rights the state must enforce all of their hate driven speech and actions. It's state enforce hate.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:
The semantic trap is the one that rabbit is trying to use, by equating enforced with mandated and/or approved. I really doubt that the state approves of the actions of WBC, but as long as they are staying within their rights the state must enforce all of their hate driven speech and actions. It's state enforce hate.
Click to expand...

No. The state is not enforcing the hate speech of the WBC. Protecting someone's freedom of speech is not an endorcement (nor enforcement) of anything they might be saying. It's an enforcement of their natural right to speak their mind.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?

Remember, you can't have both...
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Having the right to discriminate in general (i.e. the right to refuse service) is not equivalent to the right to engage in racial discrimination (or other discrimination prohibited by law). Equating the two is just dishonest.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

gungadin said:
That's absurd. Having the right to discriminate in general (i.e. the right to refuse service) is not equivalent to the right to engage in racial discrimination (or other discrimination prohibited by law). Equating the two is just dishonest.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom