Should discrimination be a legal right?

[Radio Frequency X]

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

Yes, however I would have supported the government creating well-funded education and insentive programs for the purpose of helping african-americans overcome the immense injustice that was forced upon them. Businesses have more than enough insentive (in the form of profit) to appeal to as many people as possible regardless of gender or ethnicity. I trust in people's self-interest (see Adam Smith or Henry Hazlitt) to help them overcome the bigotry and stupidity of previous generations. Bigotry in the market place is unproductive because businesses that appeal to everyone will be more successful than businesses that only appeal to one particular group or another. I would never give a cent to business I thought was racist and I believe the vast majority of Americans share my same conviction in this regard. This is an area of society that should be placed directly into the hands of the people and not into the hands of their government.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, however...

No "however" ...

 

[nutshell]

This is pretty simple:

Discrimination is legal except when it is discriminating a protected class (i.e. race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions), etc.).

 

[GloriaPatri]

This is pretty simple:

Discrimination is legal except when it is discriminating a protected class (i.e. race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions), etc.).

So, discrimination can be applied ad hoc to anyone?

 

[nutshell]

So, discrimination can be applied ad hoc to anyone?

No the discrimination must be consistantly applied to all.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No "however" ...

This statement requires neither rational thought nor logic, and is therefore unworthy of a civil debate. You don't like my position, then argue against it (if you can).

 

[nutshell]

This statement requires neither rational thought nor logic, and is therefore unworthy of a civil debate. You don't like my position, then argue against it (if you can).

I think he already did. He made comparisons between your state of mind and other with a like mind who have gone on to do some terrible things. Because these people exist, government has a role to step in and protect the innocent victims from those who play this out.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I think he already did. He made comparisons between your state of mind and other with a like mind who have gone on to do some terrible things. Because these people exist, government has a role to step in and protect the innocent victims from those who play this out.

Racists will exist regardless of government action. You can't legislate against the human mind, or at least we shouldn't.

Racism is ugly. Passive-Aggressive behavior is ugly. Drugs are ugly. Alcohol is ugly. Divorce is ugly. None of these things, in themselves, violate the rights of anyone. None of these things, in themselves, infringes on another human being through either force or fraud. You don't like racists? You don't like bigots? You don't like Christians? You don't like circus-clowns? Then don't shop at their businesses.

We ought to be able to buy and sell freely. Who are you, who is Jay, who am I to (through the violent force and coersion of government) place a ban on what a person chooses to do with their life or their property (given the previously stated conditions)? What justifies that, other than some emotional disposition?

 

[GloriaPatri]

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.

Yes, they are.

They are both my property. The only difference is that I'm operating a business out of one and living in the other.

 

[GloriaPatri]

No the discrimination must be consistantly applied to all.

What constitutes a discriminated group? Any group can be discriminated against.

 

[Ðanisty]

Yes, however I would have supported the government creating well-funded education and insentive programs for the purpose of helping african-americans overcome the immense injustice that was forced upon them. Businesses have more than enough insentive (in the form of profit) to appeal to as many people as possible regardless of gender or ethnicity. I trust in people's self-interest (see Adam Smith or Henry Hazlitt) to help them overcome the bigotry and stupidity of previous generations. Bigotry in the market place is unproductive because businesses that appeal to everyone will be more successful than businesses that only appeal to one particular group or another. I would never give a cent to business I thought was racist and I believe the vast majority of Americans share my same conviction in this regard. This is an area of society that should be placed directly into the hands of the people and not into the hands of their government.

I disagree with your belief about the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans don't care where they shop. Very few are swayed by the ethics of the business itself. Just look at Wal-Mart...

Yes, they are.

They are both my property. The only difference is that I'm operating a business out of one and living in the other.

And because you operate a business out of one of them, you have different restrictions, laws, etc. that apply to that property. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

 

[GloriaPatri]

And because you operate a business out of one of them, you have different restrictions, laws, etc. that apply to that property.

Which shouldn't be the case.

Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Actually, you can. That's the basis of liberty, if you remember.

 

[nutshell]

We ought to be able to buy and sell freely. Who are you, who is Jay, who am I to (through the violent force and coersion of government) place a ban on what a person chooses to do with their life or their property (given the previously stated conditions)? What justifies that, other than some emotional disposition?

Who are we? Assuming we're all from the United States, I would say we are Americans subject to the U.S. Constitution which does not allow for some of the things you've implied.

It has nothing to do with emotion...it has to do with the most important document in our government.

 

[nutshell]

What constitutes a discriminated group? Any group can be discriminated against.

For example, a company may require all it's employees to show up in red clothing. This discriminates against those who only want to wear blue.

I know I'm being very general here.

 

[nutshell]

Actually, you can. That's the basis of liberty, if you remember.

There's no such thing as total liberty. If you exercise total liberty of your property, chances are you're harming someone else. That's why some government regulations are needed.

 

[Ðanisty]

Actually, you can. That's the basis of liberty, if you remember.

Um no.

There's no such thing as total liberty. If you exercise total liberty of your property, chances are you're harming someone else. That's why some government regulations are needed.

Exactly.

For example, I own 2 dogs and a cat. I cannot to tie them up and go days without feeding them. I own a good stereo system, but I cannot blast it on high at 2am. I own a gun, but I cannot target practice in my backyard. I may own the property, but I can't do whatever I want.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Who are we? Assuming we're all from the United States, I would say we are Americans subject to the U.S. Constitution which does not allow for some of the things you've implied.

It has nothing to do with emotion...it has to do with the most important document in our government.

Which parts of the Constitution are we talking about here?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

There's no such thing as total liberty. If you exercise total liberty of your property, chances are you're harming someone else. That's why some government regulations are needed.

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about having no EXTRA restrictions beyond protecting people from harm (through force or fraud).

 

[nutshell]

Which parts of the Constitution are we talking about here?

How about the parts the prohibit discrimination.

 

[standing_alone]

Wasn't the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution cited as a reason why it is not allowable to discriminate against race in a business setting (I'm thinking resteraunts that barred racial minorites from eating there)?