Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Katganistan]

I still do not see why the basic principle that money is equally valid throughout a society does not apply here.

Because then we have to sell to niggers, dykes, Jews, retards, the disabled, and other undesirables./sarcasm

[Karu Nadu]

It already exists.

We call it the freedom of speech.

[San Lumen]

It already exists.

We call it the freedom of speech.

Yes but not in a business. You cannot and should not be able to refuse to sell to or bar someone from entering because of color or their skin, ethnic background, religion or sexual orientation.

[Katganistan]

Actuarial science. It's interesting stuff.

It really is. I still want to know how people come up with the conclusion that Women have less destructive wrecks than Men. (I have nothing against Females, I just don't see how you could come up with this.)

I also, still don't get why Insurance Companies can charge differently based on Sex and Age. Some Drivers may be Younger, but that doesn't mean they are less careful when driving. \

They collect data on the millions of insurable incidents.
They look at what age group and what sex group had the most expensive/serious accidents.
They aggregate that info with other insurers' data. And the Highway Transportation Board. And other safety commissions.
They then create a quote dependent on your age, gender, experience driving, number of years driving without an accident, and whether your car is a family type car or a muscle car. They also look at your driving record and say, "WHOA, this person has never had a ticket!" or "WHOA, this person blows red lights and stop signs and has multiple moving/speeding violations"

That's how they determine it.

[Katganistan]

There's already a right to discriminate: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service discriminates against nudists, homeless people, and anyone who doesn't like shoes.

Actually, those constitute health code violations.

[Katganistan]

Who the fuck discrimates based on eye color?

Well, I mean. The Nazis probably did. Blue eyes and blonde hair, and all that.

Hitler had neither blue eyes nor blonde hair. Just saying.

[Tornado Queendom]

I still do not see why the basic principle that money is equally valid throughout a society does not apply here.

Because then we have to sell to n*gg*rs, d*kes, J*ws, r*t*rds, the d*s*bl*d, and other *ndes*r*bl*s./sarcasm

This, but SLIGHTLY unironically. Besides, minorities can find other places to buy their sh*t anyways. Companies will still sell to whoever they want, including minorities anyways.

[Katganistan]

Because then we have to sell to n*gg*rs, d*kes, J*ws, r*t*rds, the d*s*bl*d, and other *ndes*r*bl*s./sarcasm

This, but SLIGHTLY unironically. Besides, minorities can find other places to buy their sh*t anyways. Companies will still sell to whoever they want, including minorities anyways.

Why did you bother censoring the quote? And why in name of all things comprehensible did you censor JEWS, the only word there that no one would find offensive?

[Tornado Queendom]

This, but SLIGHTLY unironically. Besides, minorities can find other places to buy their sh*t anyways. Companies will still sell to whoever they want, including minorities anyways.

Why did you bother censoring the quote? And why in name of all things comprehensible did you censor JEWS?

I feared rule violations, so I censored it to be safe. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a moderation post and (uh-oh) the Red Text of Death.

[Shofercia]

It depends whether you're discriminating based on goods or unique services. When I go to In 'n Out, I don't demand a Big Mac. When I go to a Christian Bakery, I don't demand a Gayke. However, if I went to a Christian Bakery and bought a generic wedding cake for a gay friend's wedding, and they wouldn't sell it to me - that'd be wrong, as the cake is already there. And obviously anyone can enter a store and browse the stacks, provided that they're wearing proper attire.

Not exactly something that can be explicitly stated in law. If anything, it is more of a cultural issue and than a legislative one. Do we want to have less discrimination in society? Be the change you want to be and live a life of example.

Sure it can. Vendors can discriminate only on the basis of unique services that they offer. Generic goods and generic services cannot be used to discriminate.

Or something along those lines. I want less discrimination in society, but forcing a vendor to provide a unique service will lead to a service of lesser quality. Let's say that I work as an assessor of policies, or whatever, and you forced me to assess abortion policies. If I really didn't want to, what's to stop me from half-assing the assessment? "The Left says abortion good, the Right says abortion bad, based on 100 coin flips, the Right will prevail, kthnxbai!"

Let's say that you forced me to cater your wedding, what's to stop me from ordering food from the 99 cents store? Let's say that you forced me to photo shoot your wedding, what's to stop me from messing up every single shot? If I have 100 five star yelp reviews, do you think that the people are going to care about that single 1 star review?

[Ulenya Yootger]

So, to get back on topic, the question is "Should there be a right to discriminate?"

There are three words in the statement that must be clarified, and a whole lot of unnecessary clutter to discard.

Three words:
1. Should - A word indicating that a choice exists, and one is asking if one option has greater merit than its opposite.
2. Right - A sometimes confusing concept, but super important. A right is an action that one is permitted to do by virtue of simply existing. They do not arise from the law, nor do they have any less validity when the law is silent regarding their enumeration. Laws generally limit rights and never grant them.
3. Discriminate - As mentioned before, it is a close synonym with "choose." Generally it is used in the sense of choosing against something (though not always).

My working definitions sorted out, the topic as stated is basically asking if our Creator (or quantum physics or whatever it is that gives rise to our free will) is correct in giving us a decision-making faculty. To that question, I say yes.

Appealing to court rulings and laws that seek to regulate and impose fairness upon those acts of discrimination is, clearly, off-topic, and what is considered fair and just will greatly vary with culture and century.

[Tornado Queendom]

So, to get back on topic, the question is "Should there be a right to discriminate?"

There are three words in the statement that must be clarified, and a whole lot of unnecessary clutter to discard.

Three words:
1. Should - A word indicating that a choice exists, and one is asking if one option has greater merit than its opposite.
2. Right - A sometimes confusing concept, but super important. A right is an action that one is permitted to do by virtue of simply existing. They do not arise from the law, nor do they have any less validity when the law is silent regarding their enumeration. Laws generally limit rights and never grant them.
3. Discriminate - As mentioned before, it is a close synonym with "choose." Generally it is used in the sense of choosing against something (though not always).

My working definitions sorted out, the topic as stated is basically asking if our Creator (or quantum physics or whatever it is that gives rise to our free will) is correct in giving us a decision-making faculty. To that question, I say yes.

Appealing to court rulings and laws that seek to regulate and impose fairness upon those acts of discrimination is, clearly, off-topic, and what is considered fair and just will greatly vary with culture and century.

I honestly agree, because forcing everyone to cater to everyone will only lead to MORE disloyal customers.

[San Lumen]

So, to get back on topic, the question is "Should there be a right to discriminate?"

There are three words in the statement that must be clarified, and a whole lot of unnecessary clutter to discard.

Three words:
1. Should - A word indicating that a choice exists, and one is asking if one option has greater merit than its opposite.
2. Right - A sometimes confusing concept, but super important. A right is an action that one is permitted to do by virtue of simply existing. They do not arise from the law, nor do they have any less validity when the law is silent regarding their enumeration. Laws generally limit rights and never grant them.
3. Discriminate - As mentioned before, it is a close synonym with "choose." Generally it is used in the sense of choosing against something (though not always).

My working definitions sorted out, the topic as stated is basically asking if our Creator (or quantum physics or whatever it is that gives rise to our free will) is correct in giving us a decision-making faculty. To that question, I say yes.

Appealing to court rulings and laws that seek to regulate and impose fairness upon those acts of discrimination is, clearly, off-topic, and what is considered fair and just will greatly vary with culture and century.

I honestly agree, because forcing everyone to cater to everyone will only lead to MORE disloyal customers.

Why shouldnt someone be able to shop wherever they please regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

What do you mean by disloyal customers? If someone doesnt want to be around people who don't look like them dont open a business or dont shop there.

[Crylante]

In most of the UK private businesses do not have the right to discriminate against people for reasons of gender identity, race, religion, sexual orientation be it in providing services, employment or in other means.

This is a policy which I agree with and that I would oppose the repeal of.

[Trumptonium1]

Ideally no but this is impossible to achieve.

Kaepernick was fired because of discrimination, and so were right-wing Google employees. This is impossible to stop, so generally I'm open to discrimination on political grounds in all cases including employment.

I'm also very much open to discrimination on other basis including status (Costco etc.) and every other choice out there, including religion.

I don't think any other form of discrimination against a non-chooseable characteristic should be allowed except in cases of ensuring national security for the greater good, although I realise that's very vague and pretty abuseable.

You do realize Kaepernick is not the best argument for this? Given the NFL settled with him, since, you know, his firing was wrong?

So has Google...

[Esternial]

I honestly agree, because forcing everyone to cater to everyone will only lead to MORE disloyal customers.

Why shouldnt someone be able to shop wherever they please regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

What do you mean by disloyal customers? If someone doesnt want to be around people who don't look like them dont open a business or dont shop there.

Also, since when do we have an obligation to be loyal?

If a company wants my loyalty they should offer a consistent and good service/product which I want to be loyal to. If you start caring more about who a company caters to than their actual product, you done fucked up.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not for ordinary businesses, but for religious institutions and private clubs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I still do not see why the basic principle that money is equally valid throughout a society does not apply here.

Because then we have to sell to ./sarcasm

Even if this is sarcasm, could you censor it, the N word is really grating on the ears.

[Galloism]

It really is. I still want to know how people come up with the conclusion that Women have less destructive wrecks than Men. (I have nothing against Females, I just don't see how you could come up with this.)

I also, still don't get why Insurance Companies can charge differently based on Sex and Age. Some Drivers may be Younger, but that doesn't mean they are less careful when driving. \

They collect data on the millions of insurable incidents.
They look at what age group and what sex group had the most expensive/serious accidents.
They aggregate that info with other insurers' data. And the Highway Transportation Board. And other safety commissions.
They then create a quote dependent on your age, gender, experience driving, number of years driving without an accident, and whether your car is a family type car or a muscle car. They also look at your driving record and say, "WHOA, this person has never had a ticket!" or "WHOA, this person blows red lights and stop signs and has multiple moving/speeding violations"

That's how they determine it.

Correct, and similar methods were used for health insurance (hence why older people are charged more than younger people, and women were charged more than men) and life insurance (older people charged more, men charged more). The former has to do with older peoples and women costing more to the health insurance system as they use more services, while the latter has everything to do with men having a lower life expectancy than women due to their sex.

You can find a lot of actuarial science around this.

I would say whether or not insurance can discriminate based on sex should be something determined or not for the entire insurance industry, not just segments that we pick and choose.

[Ors Might]

Well, I mean. The Nazis probably did. Blue eyes and blonde hair, and all that.

Hitler had neither blue eyes nor blonde hair. Just saying.

Never let it be said that Nazis were a consistent bunch. The point stands, however, that eye color and hair color are things that do have precedent for being discrimianted against, if not to the same degree as race and such.

I honestly agree, because forcing everyone to cater to everyone will only lead to MORE disloyal customers.

Why shouldnt someone be able to shop wherever they please regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

What do you mean by disloyal customers? If someone doesnt want to be around people who don't look like them dont open a business or dont shop there.

Why should someone have to sell to whomever walks through their doors, no matter what? Why does wanting something give you the right to force others into serving you against their will? Why give the consumer that much power?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don’t know about a right but businesses already discriminate in a way. You can be denied service if you’re not wearing shoes or a shirt in quite a few establishments.

[New haven america]

Is that why MTV and FX are constantly showing reruns of them? Because they're too edgy (Read: Tame) for modern day TV?

They're old, and don't make enough money for the channels that previously paid for and run them.

They do make money for the stations that bought them in syndication.

MTV did make B&B though, during their experimental era when they were basically Adult Swim. (You know, Aeon Flux, 3D Spider-man, etc...)

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

While discrimination itself is a scourge that should be sent the drone, the problem is what kind of law we the govt will try to implement. Anti-discrimination law, also all hate speech law is inherently "rubber law", i.e can be extended very subjectively. The current status quo IMO is better than radically pushing for more or rolling back.

[San Lumen]

I don’t know about a right but businesses already discriminate in a way. You can be denied service if you’re not wearing shoes or a shirt in quite a few establishments.

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

Hitler had neither blue eyes nor blonde hair. Just saying.

Never let it be said that Nazis were a consistent bunch. The point stands, however, that eye color and hair color are things that do have precedent for being discrimianted against, if not to the same degree as race and such.

Why shouldnt someone be able to shop wherever they please regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

What do you mean by disloyal customers? If someone doesnt want to be around people who don't look like them dont open a business or dont shop there.

Why should someone have to sell to whomever walks through their doors, no matter what? Why does wanting something give you the right to force others into serving you against their will? Why give the consumer that much power?

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

[Tokora]

The biggest thing is that this problem has a very simple solution. Christians used to hire Jews to handle money for them, today we can just hire someone non religious to bake a homosexual cake. If you can't do a job, hire someone who can.