Should discrimination be a legal right?

[Radio Frequency X]

How about the parts the prohibit discrimination.

Which parts that prohibt discrimination? What kind and in what context?

 

[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)?

Ah, yes - to answer my own post...

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a motel owner's policy of not allowing blacks to stay at his motel put a burdon on interstate commerce.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Ah, yes - to answer my own post...

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a motel owner's policy of not allowing blacks to stay at his motel put a burdon on interstate commerce.

The congress is empowered, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This says nothing about small businesses, corporations, or individuals does it?

 

[Fluffy]

If a particular aspect of a person is shown to negatively impact a given role then it is justifiable to discriminate against that person according to that aspect.

Currently, there are very few roles in which this is true of something like race, sexuality or gender. However, in the (very) few roles in which this is the case, discriminating according to these aspects should be a legal right. Assumedly we would all agree that it is fine for an employer to discriminate against white people applying for the part of Othello, for example.

 

[standing_alone]

The congress is empowered, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This says nothing about small businesses, corporations, or individuals does it?

Not explicitly, no. However, this case is relevant because the commerce clause applies to interstate commerce - thus including businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that discriminatory policies (in this instance against race) burdoned interstate commerce, as it put an unnecessary burdon on racial minorites traveling to other states. Therefore, Congress can use the commerce clause in order to fight discrimination and such acts of Congress are Constitutional - and this, therefore, would apply to businesses that have discriminatory policies.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Not explicitly, no. However, this case is relevant because the commerce clause applies to interstate commerce - thus including businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that discriminatory policies (in this instance against race) burdoned interstate commerce, as it put an unnecessary burdon on racial minorites traveling to other states. Therefore, Congress can use the commerce clause in order to fight discrimination and such acts of Congress are Constitutional - and this, therefore, would apply to businesses that have discriminatory policies.

I think the argument that the ruling is unconstitutional is too obvious to make; however, it is the Supreme Court and it is there job, not mine, to decide these matters. Though, I strongly disagree with the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause. It is constantly used to empower government and strip citizens of their liberty.

 

[standing_alone]

I think the argument that the ruling is unconstitutional is too obvious to make; however, it is the Supreme Court and it is there job, not mine, to decide these matters.

Umm... The Supreme Court is the branch of government that determines what is Constitutional, so therefore the ruling cannot be unConstitutional.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Umm... The Supreme Court is the branch of government that determines what is Constitutional, so therefore the ruling cannot be unConstitutional.

By definition, but that doesn't stop us from having the ability to think for ourselves. The Supreme Court isn't without its errors.

 

[standing_alone]

By definition, but that doesn't stop us from having the ability to think for ourselves. The Supreme Court isn't without its errors.

Okay? So then what does that have to do with discrimination being a-okay for businesses? And what does this have to do with the Constitutionality of discrimination policies? I don't get what point you're trying to make here. :areyoucra

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Okay? So then what does that have to do with discrimination being a-okay for businesses? And what does this have to do with the Constitutionality of discrimination policies? I don't get what point you're trying to make here. :areyoucra

The point is, that businesses should be allowed to discriminate, as they are the owned by private citizens and are not public property. The point is, that the constitution says nothing about the government having a right to regulate private business. The point is, that the supreme court was wrong in arbitrarily using an indifferant clause to empower government and strip away the rights of the people. The point is, that social engineering is a dangerous and immoral policy that should be dropped for a policy of greater personal responsibility and economic liberty.

Government can help people without taking away liberties, if something is really that important (and discrimination, segregation, and racism are that important due to slavery). However, the government should provide such services in the public sector only and not impose anything on private sector. So long as a private business is not threatening the public good through force or fraud, I simply do not see where what they are doing is any business of the government. That is the point.

What is your point? That the government agrees with you, so you are right? Wow! Jesus, the idea that the government wants more power is simply astonishing, and I cannot possibly fathom how they could agree with you on such a difficult issue!

 

[Fluffy]

The point is, that businesses should be allowed to discriminate, as they are the owned by private citizens and are not public property. The point is, that the constitution says nothing about the government having a right to regulate private business. The point is, that the supreme court was wrong in arbitrarily using an indifferant clause to empower government and strip away the rights of the people. The point is, that social engineering is a dangerous and immoral policy that should be dropped for a policy of greater personal responsibility and economic liberty.

So are you essentially saying that whilst racism in the context of employer discrimination is wrong, it should be legal?

If so what are the limits that the government can exert upon an employer or are there no such limits? Are things like a minimum wage, maximum working week, age regulations etc to not be enforced legally?

Before legal restrictions were put in place, the vast majority of employers showed no consideration for helping the disabled to find work. Do you think that if these restrictions were removed then employers would continue such work based on social merit rather than fear of legal punishment?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

So are you essentially saying that whilst racism in the context of employer discrimination is wrong, it should be legal?

Yes. I feel the same way about alot of things (drugs, prostitution, abortion).

If so what are the limits that the government can exert upon an employer or are there no such limits?

So long as an employer is not causing harm to a persons body or property through force or fraud, there should be no restrictions.

Are things like a minimum wage, maximum working week, age regulations etc to not be enforced legally?

No, there should be no minimum wage or maximum work week. I'm not certain about age regulations, but I do not believe that anyone should be forced to work. If a child wants to work, they should be allowed to do so; but parents should not be able to force their children into slavery.

Before legal restrictions were put in place, the vast majority of employers showed no consideration for helping the disabled to find work. Do you think that if these restrictions were removed then employers would continue such work based on social merit rather than fear of legal punishment?

No, I do not. However, I believe that family and friends, local government, local religion, and local charity are suffificent for taking care of those of us that have fallen on bad luck and bad times. Businesses will cater to the disabled, simply because they can make a profit doing so. Just not all businesses... maybe not even most businesses. But people do not have a right to the consideration of others through the threat of force or violence by a government. I just think that kind of a system is wrong.

 

[Fluffy]

So long as an employer is not causing harm to a persons body or property through force or fraud, there should be no restrictions.

Keeping that in mind...

No, there should be no minimum wage or maximum work week. I'm not certain about age regulations, but I do not believe that anyone should be forced to work. If a child wants to work, they should be allowed to do so; but parents should not be able to force their children into slavery.

What is the justification for these restrictions being placed on employers?
Is this justification the same as what I highlighted at the beginning? If so, how specifically does an employer breaking such restrictions cause harm to a person's body or property through force or fraud?

Businesses will cater to the disabled, simply because they can make a profit doing so. Just not all businesses... maybe not even most businesses. But people do not have a right to the consideration of others through the threat of force or violence by a government. I just think that kind of a system is wrong.

Businesses did not cater to the disabled until they were forced to by law. That is why such laws were necessary. I am sure that now, if such laws were repealed, a large majority of businesses would more or less keep such laws intact through policy but this does not mean that such a change was not brought about via those laws and therefore does not undermine the necessity of those laws.

Your solution seems to be "let them discriminate because it is wrong for their freedom to be limited in this way" but I wish to know how else we can limit this discrimination other than through national legislation given that, at the moment, we have family and friends, local government, local religion and local charity all working to help such people as well as national legislation and it is still not enough.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

What is the justification for these restrictions being placed on employers? Is this justification the same as what I highlighted at the beginning? If so, how specifically does an employer breaking such restrictions cause harm to a person's body or property through force or fraud?

What restrictions? The only restriction I support is the one against forced child labor.

Your solution seems to be "let them discriminate because it is wrong for their freedom to be limited in this way" but I wish to know how else we can limit this discrimination other than through national legislation given that, at the moment, we have family and friends, local government, local religion and local charity all working to help such people as well as national legislation and it is still not enough.

When will it be enough? When no one is allowed to do anything that offends others an when everyone is completely equal?

I know I'm standing on the edge of a slippery slope argument, so in a practical sense, I simply push for less restrictions, not more. I want to move toward more economic freedom, rather than toward less. What other people are saying is that they want to move toward less discrimination, not more. It just depends which of these goals is more important. Freedom or fighting discrimination? We each have to make a choice.

 

[nutshell]

What restrictions? The only restriction I support is the one against forced child labor.

How do you discriminate between regulations protecting children and regulations protecting other classes?

 

[Fluffy]

What restrictions? The only restriction I support is the one against forced child labor.

Apologies I misread your post *slaps forehead* .

When will it be enough? When no one is allowed to do anything that offends others an when everyone is completely equal?

Its not a case of offence. I personally view "offence" to be a personal failing as opposed to a transferable quality so whether people are offended by racial discrimination is irrelevant to me.

I do consider technology and society to be in a state in which an ideal solution is able to be implemented. Therefore, my 2 concerns are getting society into such a state an slapping on band aids to fix those things that cannot be solved. I would eventually like to see a very small (perhaps non-existent) government but I feel that until we are ready for such a stage, movement in that direction is premature.

Now I do not really care about fighting against discrimination. That is really a byproduct of my concern. My concern is making all members of society equal with regards to certain qualities. In saying "I will discriminate against those with skin colour X" you have given up certain personal liberties in the same way as the person who murders another has given up many more personal liberties.

I would also argue that when a man murders another, the victim has had his personal liberties stripped from him and when the employer discriminates, he restricts the liberties of those looking for work. Why do you consider the freedom of the employer to discriminate superior to the freedom of the employee to work under a discriminative employer?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

My concern is making all members of society equal with regards to certain qualities. In saying "I will discriminate against those with skin colour X" you have given up certain personal liberties in the same way as the person who murders another has given up many more personal liberties.

This would be a difference in our opinions. How far are you willing to go to make sure this happens?

Why do you consider the freedom of the employer to discriminate superior to the freedom of the employee to work under a discriminative employer?

Because the employer owns the business, the employee does not. It is an ownership issue and I am a believer in an ownership society.

 

[Random]

You will never see implemented an unbiased social system of non-discrimination because such a system would be destroyed by it's own rules. None of those who decide the major aspects of our wordly existence will allow the system to change to such a degree that it collapses upon itself.

In the case of Child Labour, discrimination works for the good: in most other cases it is unfair and often counter-productive.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

How do you discriminate between regulations protecting children and regulations protecting other classes?

The regulations protecting children that I'm talking about are regulations aimed at preventing forced labor. All other classes of people should be protected from forced labor too. The arbitrary treatment of children and children's rights are a completely different issue.

 

[standing_alone]

The point is, that the constitution says nothing about the government having a right to regulate private business.

Ah, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the commerce clause allows the Congress to make anti-discrimination legislation that affects privately-owned business, so therefore anti-discrimination legislation is Constitutional.

The Constitution was diliberately written to be open to interpretation so it would be able to survive with the times - and you will also find there is nothing in the Constitution stating straight out that you or I have the right to vote - you will find amendments expanding the electorate, but you won't find anything explicitly stating you or I have the right to vote.

The point is, that the supreme court was wrong in arbitrarily using an indifferant clause to empower government and strip away the rights of the people.

Why was the Supreme Court wrong? Because you disagree with them? What rights are stripped away from the people by anti-discrimination legislation?

The point is, that social engineering is a dangerous and immoral policy that should be dropped for a policy of greater personal responsibility and economic liberty.

Is this "social engineering," as you call it, more or less immoral than racial (and other forms) of discrimination? Doesn't the government have the responsibility to make sure that its citizens are not being discriminated against unfairly in economic matters (as such discrimination can put certain groups at an unnecessary disadvantage)?

Government can help people without taking away liberties, if something is really that important (and discrimination, segregation, and racism are that important due to slavery).

So how do you recommend the government prevent discrimination in the economic sector?

So long as a private business is not threatening the public good through force or fraud, I simply do not see where what they are doing is any business of the government. That is the point.

But doesn't unnecessary discrimination potentially put certain citizens that belong to the discriminated groups at a disadvantage, therefore threatening their economic well-being?

What is your point? That the government agrees with you, so you are right?

No. My point is that the Supreme Court has ruled that anti-discrimination legislation is Constitutional.