Should discrimination be a legal right?

[jamaesi]

Becky's "Take it off!" thread was getting a little side-tracked (I apologise for that) so I've decided to make this thread.
I'll start it off with the off-topic (and some that aren't really off-topic, but good for context) posts from that thread.

then maybe the work space needs to allow for religious clothing, so long as it is safe and doesn't knock things over.

That is for the employeer to decide.

of course. but i don't see a good reason he could not decide to do so if asked by religious staff, unless the guy really has issues with "organized religion" or what not.

in which case he's discriminating.

Maybe he doesn't have a good reason. Maybe the employeer simple doesn't want his employees to have anything on their head because, well, he thinks things on our heads looks silly. That's a pretty shallow reason. But it's his company. So... he isn't discriminating. If I had my own business, I would allow any kind of religious expression so long as your face was visable and you had proper hygene.

*frown* ok, but if that's his excuse (not saying it is) he could say "my female employees look silly with bras". of course that wouldn't fly at all, but neither should his personal dislike of head gear prevent women from wearing hijab, tichel, or a long bandana.

In some states employers can fire you for smoking. Why couldn't they fire you for wearing a bra? I don't think many women would choose to work there. I don't even think it would be against the law.

i don't have any law texts in front of me, but i can't imagine that would be legal, Radio.

really...

That is for the employeer to decide.

Because employers and companies and businesses can be counted on to make undiscriminatory decisions in hiring, treating, and firing employees!

In fact, I trust them so much I wish they would do away the Americans with Disabilities Act. I know that I can trust them to make sure there are accesible entrances and bathrooms and tables and whatever else we disabled need in their stores and places of business! I am sure that they would hire me and treat me fairly if I wanted to work for them!

It's not up to you to force them treat people 'fairly'. It's their property, their business, their decision. They can hire, fire, or treat employees however they want. If the employees don't like it they can quit. If customers don't like it they can not patronize the place. But you can't force them to do what you want. If they want to put in accessible entrances and exits to their business, that's their perogative. If not, it's not up to you to force them to build one.

You might want to check up on the laws- discrimination is illegal. And yes, I can and have forced accessibility before.

You might want to check up on the laws- discrimination is illegal.

So? Discrimination laws are wrong and should be abolished. Not because discrimination is right, that's not what I'm saying, but because discrimation laws are an afront to private property.

And yes, I can and have forced accessibility before.

Yeah, forcing people to do things they don't want to do with their property (remember, it isn't your's or the government's) is great.

Get in a wheelchair for a week and you'll see just how terrible the ADA is.

Discrimination is the real terrible thing no matter who or what it is happening to.

It's not up to you to force them treat people 'fairly'. It's their property, their business, their decision. They can hire, fire, or treat employees however they want. If the employees don't like it they can quit. If customers don't like it they can not patronize the place. But you can't force them to do what you want. If they want to put in accessible entrances and exits to their business, that's their perogative. If not, it's not up to you to force them to build one.

This requires people to take responsibility for themselves. Look at the world today - this doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation. However, we can try to hold on to basic liberties for as long as we can, but we will fail. Who is John Galt?

Get in a wheelchair for a week and you'll see just how terrible the ADA is.

That would have no bearing on whether or not you should coerce someone into doing something with their property that they don't want to do.

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion (using smoking as an example). The government decree's that smoking should be banned in restaraunts, bars, etc. because non-smokers want to enjoy a smoke-free environment even if the bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar. Then the government decrees that smoking should be banned everywhere, including your house. Why, you ask? Because if people want to visit your house and are non-smokers they should have the "right" to be in a smoke-free environment - even if you want to allow smoking in your home.

You see the hypocracy? Your house is no different than your restaraunt. Why should the government force you, against your will, to do what they want on your own property? It isn't their right.

Discrimination is the real terrible thing no matter who or what it is happening to.

Sure, it's terrible. It doesn't mean we have to force people to not discriminate. You have the freedom to discriminate against whoever you want on your own property.

Your home is private property, when you have an establishment for businesses, it is no longer 'private'.

The ADA does not apply to private homes.

Sorry, try another example.

Your home is private property, when you have an establishment for businesses, it is no longer 'private'.

Yes, it is. I own it, it is mine. My land, my building, my capital. Not your's, not the guy next to you, not the government's.

The ADA does not apply to private homes.

Sorry, try another example.

Uh, I know that. I was using that as an example as to why the ADA is wrong. I was using a comparison, if you know what that is.

 

[Tigress]

Should discrimination be a legal right?--That depends on the kind of discrimination taking place. I don't believe in discrimination based on age (of those of legal age), sex, race, or sexual orientation, and I certainly don't believe that public companies [should] have the right to discriminate on those grounds. As to the disabled, I believe in each according to his own ability, and also do not believe that said companies should have the right to say no to a disabled someone who is qualified and able to do his job.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I should be able to make decisions about what goes on in my home or in my business, so long as no one is being harmed through either force or fraud.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I should be able to make decisions about what goes on in my home or in my business, so long as no one is being harmed through either force or fraud.

And, presumably, others should as well. And if you and others decide that you don't want "colored folk" working in your offices, shopping in your stores, or eating in your restaurants, that is clearly your right. And certainly no one should deny you the right to get rid of those Jews and homosexuals you discover on your payroll.

Now, all you need is a swastika and the appropriate police force to defend your rights and we can all be satisfied ... at least all of us who look like you and think like you.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

And, presumably, others should as well. And if you and others decide that you don't want "colored folk" working in your offices, shopping in your stores, or eating in your restaurants, that is clearly your right. And certainly no one should deny you the right to get rid of those Jews and homosexuals you discover on your payroll.

Now, all you need is a swastika and the appropriate police force to defend your rights and we can all be satisfied ... at least all of us who look like you and think like you.

Sorry, I'm not racist. I make my judgments about individuals based on their character. I don't see any problem with racists being free to be racists. So long as the government doesn't sponsor any such proposition. Are you incapable of seeing the difference between individuals and governments? Or was I unclear in my previous post?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry, I'm not racist. ... I don't see any problem with racists being free to be racists.

Clearly you don't. I make no distiction between racists and those who enthusiastically and cynically enable them.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Clearly you don't. I make no distiction between racists and those who enthusiastically and cynically enable them.

Is that a lack of intelligence (meaning you can't understand the difference) or is it a political distinction, wherein you believe the government should not only go after people "the masses" dislike (i.e. racists), but also the people that support their freedom (so long as they cause no harm through force or fraud)? Do you make no distinction between people who have abortions and people who, while believing abortion is wrong, still support a woman's right to have one? It would seem as though it is less a matter of intolerance of intolerance on your part, and more a matter of your inability to consider any point so long as it offends your emotional state. *shrugs*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is that a lack of intelligence (meaning you can't understand the difference) or is it a political distinction, ...

It is contempt.

 

[michel]

And, presumably, others should as well. And if you and others decide that you don't want "colored folk" working in your offices, shopping in your stores, or eating in your restaurants, that is clearly your right. And certainly no one should deny you the right to get rid of those Jews and homosexuals you discover on your payroll.

Now, all you need is a swastika and the appropriate police force to defend your rights and we can all be satisfied ... at least all of us who look like you and think like you.

Of course you are right Jay. The only danger, as I see it, of the becoming as "thorough" as it has here, is that employers who are looking for specific people to fill roles cannot be seen to do so. The backlash of new legislation with regards to agism is causing havock here; some employers want to be able to employ middle aged women...........(because, in their experience thay will be getting a better retun on the salary being paid out).

 

[kai]

the trouble is people are not drones, we are all different ,we dont all like everything about each other , i think its all about tolerence isnt it? live and let live

 

[Radio Frequency X]

It is contempt.

OK. I can understand contempt, though I think you will find that it will prevent you from making rational judgments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK. I can understand contempt, though I think you will find that it will prevent you from making rational judgments.

Not when it is based on such judgements.

 

[jamaesi]

As I going up just one flight of stairs can leave me in tears on a bad day, I'm of the position that yes, the ADA is a great thing. Businesses usually don't make their buildings accessible out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Straw man argument.

Discrimination shouldn't be a legal right - you should have the right to be able to discriminate. Just like you have the right to free speech. You can do what you want as long as you are not initiating force or committing fraud.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

As I going up just one flight of stairs can leave me in tears on a bad day, I'm of the position that yes, the ADA is a great thing. Businesses usually don't make their buildings accessible out of the goodness of their hearts.

Businesses will always cater to all available markets, including the disabled. Should businesses selling sunglasses be forced to make accommodations for the blind? It makes no sense. Should the government hold companies responsible for the saftey of their employees? Absolutely. But there is a difference there.

 

[jamaesi]

Straw man argument.
Discrimination shouldn't be a legal right - you should have the right to be able to discriminate. Just like you have the right to free speech. You can do what you want as long as you are not initiating force or committing fraud.

No, it's not a straw man.
It is not legal for businesses and employers to discriminate currently. Why should it be legal for them to do so is the question.

Businesses will always cater to all available markets, including the disabled. Should businesses selling sunglasses be forced to make accommodations for the blind? It makes no sense. Should the government hold companies responsible for the saftey of their employees? Absolutely. But there is a difference there.

Blind people wear sunglasses- I wear dark glasses in public because bright light causes me to have visual hallucinations and between the glasses and the cane some people think I'm blind. How would they have to make "special accommodations"? Are blind people's faces shaped funny?

And if businesses "cater" to their markets, please let me know why I can hardly ever find an accessible anything when I go out somewhere. Most of the buildings I go to at this uni don't have accessible entrances, accessibility features that are broken or blocked, or unsafe accessibility.

 

[GloriaPatri]

No, it's not a straw man.
It is not legal for businesses and employers to discriminate currently. Why should it be legal for them to do so is the question.

Yes, it is. You are implying that Congress should pass a law saying "Discrimination should be legal" which implies that Congress would have a positive view of discrimination. What should be done is to repeal all discrimination laws.

It should be legal because it is their right. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can abrogate their rights. If I own a business I should be able to hire who I want and to kick anyone out anytime I want because it is my business.

It seems you don't really support property rights or private property in general.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

And if businesses "cater" to their markets, please let me know why I can hardly ever find an accessible anything when I go out somewhere. Most of the buildings I go to at this uni don't have accessible entrances, accessibility features that are broken or blocked, or unsafe accessibility.

Not all businesses cater to everyone, but nearly everyone is catered to by one business or another.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Businesses will always cater to all available markets, including the disabled.

The ignorance here is palpable.

Business will cater to profit. To the extent that more profit can be secured by ignoring a particular category of people, those people will be ignored.

All else being equal, if whites prefer restaurants devoid of blacks, "white only" establishments will proliferate. All else being equal, if accessibility costs more than the incremental profit anticipated from the disabled, inaccessible establishments will proliferate. And all else being equal, if people like you are allowed to establish civil policy, the disadvantaged will remain so while you and your friends bask in your backward libertarian nonsense.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Business will cater to profit. To the extent that more profit can be secured by ignoring a particular category of people, those people will be ignored.

It is their right to ignore whoever they want.

And of course business will cater to profit, how else would they stay in business?

All else being equal, if whites prefer restaurants devoid of blacks, "white only" establishments will proliferate. All else being equal, if accessibility costs more than the incremental profit anticipated from the disabled, inaccessible establishments will proliferate. And all else being equal, if people like you are allowed to establish civil policy, the disadvantaged will remain so while you and your friends bask in your backward libertarian nonsense.

It's something called rights. I have the right to discriminate, to hate, to believe what I want to believe, to property, to do what I want to do with my property, etc. You don't have the right to control me.

Your argument about racism is pretty much null and void. Most people today don't care about ethnicity. Anyway, a business would make more money if they allowed everyone to come and eat there instead of a select few. Since (I'm going to paraphrase you here) business cares only about profit it would follow that they would try to get as much business as possible. Thus, they would open up their business to anyone and everyone.

If you want to open a business that caters to disabled people, go ahead. If not, that's fine, too. It's about choice and voluntary action. Something you don't seem to grasp.

The people will remain devoid of liberty as long as statists such as yourself continue to use the State as an instrument to oppress and enslave others.