Should discrimination be a legal right?

[Radio Frequency X]

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.

Your antecedents are utterly fallacious Jay. If whites prefer restaurants devoid of blacks? If accessibility costs more than the incremental profit...? These are straw man comments and not statements about reality. Racists are a minority. A tiny stupid ignorant minority. There is no reason to open hell's gate of government into the lives of all, to punish the few ******** we all suffer for the sake of liberty. A society is only safe from government when we put aside our own religious, emotional, and idealistic attitudes and faith, and place responsibility in the hands of free peoples. The law does not exist to impose arbitrary will, but rather to protect the people from the government and from each other.

The "Christian Right" is constantly trying to use government to force their religious attitudes on the masses. The "liberal left" is constantly trying to use government to force their social ideals on the masses. The fact that democracy allows this does not make it preferable.

You write well, which leads me to assume you are educated. I'm a bit surprised that you'd get all emotional about this at the drop of a hat.

 

[Ðanisty]

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.

There are plenty of people out there that if given the choice would go so far as to force people of different races into different cities...wait that does happen. They do it by making people unwelcome through discrimination. Ethnicity is still a very big deal for a lot of people. I'm so glad you were able to avoid it, but any recognition you might get for that is voided by your ignorance on racism. If allowed to do whatever we wanted with regards to discrimination, we'd have militant city-states and we may as well just flush civil rights down the toilet.

 

[GloriaPatri]

There are plenty of people out there that if given the choice would go so far as to force people of different races into different cities...wait that does happen. They do it by making people unwelcome through discrimination. Ethnicity is still a very big deal for a lot of people. I'm so glad you were able to avoid it, but any recognition you might get for that is voided by your ignorance on racism. If allowed to do whatever we wanted with regards to discrimination, we'd have militant city-states and we may as well just flush civil rights down the toilet.

No. Liberty means the freedom to do what you want as long as you are not initiating force against someone or their property. Foring someone to not discriminate is wrong. You have the right to discriminate all you want. Now, if you were on my property and discriminating against an ethnic minority I would force you to leave. But, if you want to do it on your own property (this includes businesses) I can't make you do anything.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate? If someone said "I am not going to allow a black person into my house" you wouldn't (I hope) want to enact legislation to force people to allow black people into their house. The same thing applies to any business. If a business doesn't want to serve black people you shouldn't force them to. You don't own that business, therefore you have no right to forcibly change it.

I feel like a broken record.

 

[gnomon]

This will make people happy.

Either put up some facts or shut up.

I personally don't care much for allowing discrimination based on natural, uncontrollable conditions. This includes race, sex, gender, physical ability, etc. I base this on the fact that our society does not truly support the ability of the individual to work within their own means. We are no longer an agrarian society where there is an assurance that an individual has access to labor and the fruits thereof. Therefore it should, from the governments and societys standpoint, be more beneficial to insure that people are not refused employment, labor and reward for superficial reasons. Well, that and its just plain wrong.

Access to public buildings is easy. All citizens should have equal access to public buildings and the state can achieve this at minimal costs. Private businesses open to the public, if they are smart, would allow access to physically impaired (challenged for the sensitive people) individuals because the costs would not be too great and they would likely experience greater profits. Considering also the nature of many businesses to provide essential services I believe the government is actually the authority in this case to force businesses to provide equal access.

Private little idiotic clubs can discriminate however they wish. That is a basic right of freedom and assembly. So yes, the KKK can have their little meetings and keep blacks out. I could care less. And yes, if a private golf club gets together, buys its own land and supports itself financially they can exclude anyone. Though I still reserve the right to chide them.

However, some instances of discrimination may be reasonable. There are some physical impairments (that's better) that employers should not be forced to accomodate where such an impairment logically precludes that person from possibly fulfilling the job duty. If a blind man applied to be a security gaurd at my workplace I would refuse. But we don't have security gaurds anyway.

And last, I make a distinction between discriminating against (or for) someone based on a natural, uncontrollable factor and discriminating against someone based on their conscious acts. To even lump the categories together seems demeaning, foolish and pathetic. Even though society may not be fully prepared for the lifestyle choices we make an intelligent person would recognize such and accept the consequences. In other words, if you walk into my place of employment stark naked then you will be ushered out of the door. I don't care what your reason is I don't want to see it at work. Yeah, that's an extreme example.

And I offer no facts, just my opinion.

edit: My opinion on discrimination in the home. Go for it. Your home. I'm thinking of putting a sign out in the front yard saying "SWAT Teams Not Welcome."

 

[jamaesi]

Private businesses open to the public, if they are smart, would allow access to physically impaired (challenged for the sensitive people) individuals because the costs would not be too great and they would likely experience greater profits.

I don't really have enough time to make a big post before I pop in the shower, so I would just like to comment to this.

JUST CALL US/ME DISABLED. Thanks!

All these terms don't really fix anything and they're longer to type, boo. Being called disabled is not like being called a gimp or cripple or other degoratory words, which I do take offense to and will threaten the sayer with my cane.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I feel like a broken record.

Most people want to be "free" from the insecurities of freedom.

 

[gnomon]

I don't really have enough time to make a big post before I pop in the shower, so I would just like to comment to this.

JUST CALL US/ME DISABLED. Thanks!

All these terms don't really fix anything and they're longer to type, boo. Being called disabled is not like being called a gimp or cripple or other degoratory words, which I do take offense to and will threaten the sayer with my cane.

Thanks for that. I have coworkers in the past tip-toe around talk about drinking or using the word crazy because they know I was institutionalized.

I use the term crazy liberally.

 

[Ðanisty]

No. Liberty means the freedom to do what you want as long as you are not initiating force against someone or their property. Foring someone to not discriminate is wrong. You have the right to discriminate all you want. Now, if you were on my property and discriminating against an ethnic minority I would force you to leave. But, if you want to do it on your own property (this includes businesses) I can't make you do anything.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate? If someone said "I am not going to allow a black person into my house" you wouldn't (I hope) want to enact legislation to force people to allow black people into their house. The same thing applies to any business. If a business doesn't want to serve black people you shouldn't force them to. You don't own that business, therefore you have no right to forcibly change it.

I feel like a broken record.

When discrimination causes harm it would go against liberty. This is why we have such laws. If we left things in your hands this country would resegregate in no time. Apparently that's what you guys are after though, so I hardly expect you to be upset about it.

Keep this in mind though...while businesses will nearly always do what will make them money, they will also nearly always do what is convenient. Since providing for disabled people is usually more time-consuming and/or expensive at first, a lot of business won't see it as being profitable.

 

[GloriaPatri]

When discrimination causes harm it would go against liberty. This is why we have such laws.

No, you have the liberty to discriminate whenever you want on your own property. It causes "harm" in so far as the person discriminated against can't eat or whatever at that establishment.

No one has the "right" to patronize businesses. The business is not there to serve you, it's doing you a favor by being open.

Using your logic (and everyone else who supports your view) the government should force people to not discriminate in their houses. They should force everyone to allow ethnic minorities, all sexes, all religions into all homes. If they do, they should be sued and their house taken away from them if they do it enough (just like businesses).

If we left things in your hands this country would resegregate in no time. Apparently that's what you guys are after though, so I hardly expect you to be upset about it.

Straw man argument.

 

[Ðanisty]

No, you have the liberty to discriminate whenever you want on your own property. It causes "harm" in so far as the person discriminated against can't eat or whatever at that establishment.

No one has the "right" to patronize businesses. The business is not there to serve you, it's doing you a favor by being open.

Using your logic (and everyone else who supports your view) the government should force people to not discriminate in their houses. They should force everyone to allow ethnic minorities, all sexes, all religions into all homes. If they do, they should be sued and their house taken away from them if they do it enough (just like businesses).

Tell me why you think someone's business is the same thing as someone's home? They may both be considered real property (not personal property like everyone keeps saying. Real property is land and the buildings affixed to it), but one is residential and the other is commercial. They are not the same thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your antecedents are utterly fallacious Jay. If whites prefer restaurants devoid of blacks? If accessibility costs more than the incremental profit...? These are straw man comments and not statements about reality.

As a young man sitting in Wilmington, North Carolina you would do well to spend more time studying your local history (i.e., 'reality') and less trying to impress folks with talk of 'fallacious antecedents'.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Tell me why you think someone's business is the same thing as someone's home? They may both be considered real property (not personal property like everyone keeps saying. Real property is land and the buildings affixed to it), but one is residential and the other is commercial. They are not the same thing.

It's a matter of ownership. Whether residential or commercial, both are owned. Public space is owned by the government (local or federal). That is the difference.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a matter of ownership. Whether residential or commercial, both are owned. Public space is owned by the government (local or federal). That is the difference.

And white-only restaurants were owned by bigots who insisted that any infringement on their 'right' to refuse service was an attack on liberty. You are in fine company, Bubba.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

As a young man sitting in Wilmington, North Carolina you would do well to spend more time studying your local history (i.e., 'reality') and less trying to impress folks with talk of 'fallacious antecedents'.

Still so emotional Jay. Why do you feel that I am speaking without any understanding of local history? Or of American history? Or of World History? Pointing your finger at me doesn't help your argument (if that is what you have actually presented here?).

This topic is concerned with two issues:

1. The role of government.
2. Reasonable expectations and accurate views of reality.

I understand that we differ on #1 - a difference in political philosophy. OK. But you have not laid out any reasonable expectations or demonstrated an accurate view of reality. You guys are talking out of paranoia here. Here is the question you should be trying to address (instead of arrogantly taking shots at me personally): Why is it reasonable to believe that the abolition of government quotas on race (and the like) will provoke widespread segregation or racism?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Still so emotional Jay.

Because I've spent much of my life opposing the pathetic crap you represent. So tell us again, should I have the right to operate a white-only restaurant or build a white-only housing project?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Because I've spent much of my life opposing the pathetic crap you represent. So tell us again, should I have the right to operate a white-only restaurant or build a white-only housing project?

Yes. Why do you believe that this will lead to widespread segregation or racism? I think nudist communities should be legal too. I don't worry that my right to wear clothes will be infringed upon. I think that people should have the freedom to associate, gather, and live how they wish, so long as they don't cause harm to another person via force or fraud. Certainly we can stomach racists having racist businesses. It isn't like you or I would shop there anyway. It'd be hard for them to stay in business.

 

[Ðanisty]

It's a matter of ownership. Whether residential or commercial, both are owned. Public space is owned by the government (local or federal). That is the difference.

The laws governing commercial and residential properties are different. I'm not asking what the difference is between public spaces and real property. I'm asking why everyone assumes that commercial property and residential property are the same. They are not. The building codes are different, the zoning codes are different, the tax laws are different, etc. They have more differences than similarities. The only thing they hold in common is that they are real property (land or buildings affixed to land).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes.

And therefore you would have opposed any effort to oppose Jim Crow in the private sector?

 

[Ðanisty]

Yes. Why do you believe that this will lead to widespread segregation or racism? I think nudist communities should be legal too. I don't worry that my right to wear clothes will be infringed upon. I think that people should have the freedom to associate, gather, and live how they wish, so long as they don't cause harm to another person via force or fraud. Certainly we can stomach racists having racist businesses. It isn't like you or I would shop there anyway. It'd be hard for them to stay in business.

That would be fine if any of that were true. You're seriously underestimating the number of people who would tolerate discrimination though.

 

[jamaesi]

You're seriously underestimating the number of people who would tolerate discrimination though.

And how many are still discriminated against even now and how many more would be were those laws repealed.