Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Ethel mermania]

Some people feel more comfortable among members of their own race.

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Under the 1st Amendment legally.
The Court has recognized the freedom of association.
N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000)

Then why not declare this right exists for all business?

It does unless explicitly prohibited by law.

[San Lumen]

There should be no law allowing it, or banning.

Allow its existence, until it break another s right of free speech (Dont talk, you [Enter Slur]), but let it existence for free speech.

This is the best option in the long run, because the point in which all discrimination is banned is the point in which feminist extremism takes over.

what utter nonsense

[Estanglia]

Some people feel more comfortable among members of their own race.

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Why?

[Tornado Queendom]

Some people feel more comfortable among members of their own race.

Because it has pushed too far, and an abolition of the discrimination ban would be an excuse for other companies to hire other races as their advantage. Besides, other companies banning discrimination would be perfect for an ad anyways. Also, some people only feel comfort from their own race.

And some people feel comfort if they murder or strip in public or sexually assault people. But we don't let them get away with it. We also don't let people tie themselves to buildings or squat even if they find it more comfortable. In fact, many people only feel comfortable from torture and violence. This is a very slippery slope.

Well, we can always defend ourselves. The second amendment exists for that, and murderers/arsonists/r*pists could instead be stopped by bounty hunters rather than the law.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Not to strawman people, but if you think there should be a right to discriminate, shouldn't there also be a right to murder? A right to steal? A right to arson? All three could be justified in the name of free speech, along with several other crimes that I can't mention because this is PG-13. In fact, murder, theft and arson have a stronger case for free speech: all three have been used as forms of political protest and have a justification for being so.

I actually want these three to be legal too, because it can usually be solved by fighting back anyways.

If you find it righteous to kill, to be stolen from and to light things on fire, and then do these things (not necessarily in this order):

-Give all your possessions away.
-Light house on fire.
-Slice your own throat open.

Now, this might seem like the world's most flammable strawman (pun intended) but there is actually a principle involved in law which says that in order for something to be righteous, one of two things must be fulfilled (well, people actually disagree, but most people agree with either):
-You must want it to be done upon yourself too.
-If everyone else does it, it would create a better society.

[San Lumen]

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Why?

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize. Everyone is equal. If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

[Tornado Queendom]

This is the best option in the long run, because the point in which all discrimination is banned is the point in which feminist extremism takes over.

what utter nonsense

Banning all discrimination will be a slippery slope, you know. It WILL lead to a snowball effect, and this ban will eventually lead to a ban everything with a higher content rating than TV-Y (yes, that even includes TV-Y7 and TV-G.).

[San Lumen]

what utter nonsense

Banning all discrimination will be a slippery slope, you know. It WILL lead to a snowball effect, and we'll eventually ban everything with a higher content rating than TV-Y (yes, that even includes TV-Y7 and TV-G.).

Where is this snowball affect? The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

[Vaxian Imperium]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

And some people feel comfort if they murder or strip in public or sexually assault people. But we don't let them get away with it. We also don't let people tie themselves to buildings or squat even if they find it more comfortable. In fact, many people only feel comfortable from torture and violence. This is a very slippery slope.

Well, we can always defend ourselves. The second amendment exists for that, and murderers/arsonists/r*pists could instead be stopped by bounty hunters rather than the law.

Second amendment? Why do you think everyone you come across on the internet is American? And I quite frankly don't see how having an army or a national militia is going to help when people are only abiding by the law. I have a better suggestion. Instead of shooting each other and all that, why don't we just...I don't know, come to a consensus. People do things for a reason: the sadist does it because it's fun, the thief does it to feed his family and the psychopath is doing it because he has no other means to let his urges go.

[Tornado Queendom]

Why?

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize. Everyone is equal. If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

Discrimination will not be the end of the world, as there will always be companies that will patronize to all races.

[Tornado Queendom]

Well, we can always defend ourselves. The second amendment exists for that, and murderers/arsonists/r*pists could instead be stopped by bounty hunters rather than the law.

Second amendment? Why do you think everyone you come across on the internet is American? And I quite frankly don't see how having an army or a national militia is going to help when people are only abiding by the law. I have a better suggestion. Instead of shooting each other and all that, why don't we just...I don't know, come to a consensus. People do things for a reason: the sadist does it because it's fun, the thief does it to feed his family and the psychopath is doing it because he has no other means to let his urges go.

If you want to ban it, then send bounty hunters. It's not that hard!

[San Lumen]

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize. Everyone is equal. If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

Discrimination will not be the end of the world, as there will always be companies that will patronize to all races.

Why should every company not patronize all?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

How about we live in a society where people don't base their beliefs on a 2000-year-old book full of lies and calls for blood? Why don't we do that? Education is the weapon we need to use here.

EDIT: Also, if that guy calls himself a strong believer in the Christian Bible, then he should serve those men. Because, to a Christian, the New Testament takes precedence over the old one. Despite Sodom, Gomorrah and Leviticus (who were actually about paedophiles, but I'm not going to die on that hill), Jesus says that all will be saved by his love. If an atheist such as me knows that, then he should too.

[Tornado Queendom]

I actually want these three to be legal too, because it can usually be solved by fighting back anyways.

If you find it righteous to kill, to be stolen from and to light things on fire, and then do these things (not necessarily in this order):

-Give all your possessions away.
-Light house on fire.
-Slice your own throat open.

Now, this might seem like the world's most flammable strawman (pun intended) but there is actually a principle involved in law which says that in order for something to be righteous, one of two things must be fulfilled (well, people actually disagree, but most people agree with either):
-You must want it to be done upon yourself too.
-If everyone else does it, it would create a better society.

OK, I might try that. Besides, I'll do it in moderation anyways.

[Ethel mermania]

Always love when people propose going back to a situation that, in its day, brought about exactly the thing they don't like about today.

Bring back legal discrimination? Last time discrimination was legal people got it banned. Make it legal again and people will ban it again. Duh.

Discrimination is legal unless it is specifically made illegal. In the states unless there is a bona fides occupational qualification
Sex, age, race, creed, and people over 40 are the only ones who are protected. Other states and localities can protect other classes, .like gender or sexual orientation, but at this point those are not federally protected.

[Grinning Dragon]

Why?

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize. Everyone is equal. If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

There are restaurants/businesses that maintain a dress code in order to be employed or dine, so yes a business would care what you look like and will discriminate on that basis.
Even though a business is open to the public it is still a privately owned entity.

[Hystaria]

There should be no law allowing it, or banning.

Allow its existence, until it break another s right of free speech (Dont talk, you [Enter Slur]), but let it existence for free speech but specificlly discrimination for services is a no go.

...Is mine a okay idea, or?

Its kinda ignored...

[Estanglia]

Why?

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize.

Sure.

Everyone is equal.

They are.

If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

Why shouldn't I be able to choose who to serve? Why should it be serve all or none?

[Vaxian Imperium]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

How about we live in a society where people don't base their beliefs on a 2000-year-old book full of lies and calls for blood? Why don't we do that? Education is the weapon we need to use here.

For you it is lies for them it is truth, your science to them could be lies and their god could be truth.

[San Lumen]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

Ok and what if that is the only bakery in town and the next town is miles away? Why should they have to drive to another bakery?

A business owner does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve. What if the same baker said they will not bake a cake for a interracial couple as they believe it is wrong? Should that be allowed?

[Hanafuridake]

Freedom of association should be respected, with the caveat that the business receive no subsidies or tax benefits from the state. If you want to discriminate against members of the public, then that should be fine. But don't expect to receive any favors from the public sector when you're discriminating against tax-paying members of society.

[San Lumen]

Because what you look like or who you love should not determine what business you can patronize. Everyone is equal. If you aren't going to serve all dont open a public business

There are restaurants/businesses that maintain a dress code in order to be employed or dine, so yes a business would care what you look like and will discriminate on that basis.
Even though a business is open to the public it is still a privately owned entity.

That is quite different from saying you can't be employed or dine here because your gay, asian or african american for example.

[Estanglia]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

Ok and what if that is the only bakery in town and the next town is miles away? Why should they have to drive to another bakery?

Because you should not be forced into transactions that you don't want to be a part of.

A business owner does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve.

They should.

What if the same baker said they will not bake a cake for a interracial couple as they believe it is wrong? Should that be allowed?

Yes.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

How about we live in a society where people don't base their beliefs on a 2000-year-old book full of lies and calls for blood? Why don't we do that? Education is the weapon we need to use here.

For you it is lies for them it is truth, your science to them could be lies and their god could be truth.

Read my edit. That'll fix it.