Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[San Lumen]

The right of same sex couples to marry and adopt comes from that amendment and the Loving decision

Where in law and the constitution is this right?

So Iran jailing gay couples is fine, because that amendment isnt the law in Iran, and Loving doesnt create precedent in Iranian courts?

It isn't expressed in the constitution.

Iranian law and US law here not the same. It doesn't make it right though

[Big Jim P]

I've got to say, I love how you ignore so many posts when challenged as to the equality of treatment of your position.

It's bare ass naked "I want people to do what I want", instead of being based upon any principled stance, or you'd demand service to the KKK and WBC with the same fervor you do Jews.

Your posts are filled with an utter lack of courage regarding the convictions expressed therein.

As a Jew I have very strong opinions about Nazis and KKK members considering how the former killed six million of my people therefore I would have difficulty serving them.

Some people take religious freedom seriously unlike the scumbags who abuse it like the guys your describing. That being said, I dont think anyone has "a right to service," save for services provided by the government.

Why is that?

As much as they emulate Hitler and the original nazis, most of todays neo-craps and klan would have ended up in the concentration camps along with the Jews.

Really, the people proclaiming white superiority or supremacy the loudest these days are the best examples refuting their own claims to superiority.

[Telconi]

So Iran jailing gay couples is fine, because that amendment isnt the law in Iran, and Loving doesnt create precedent in Iranian courts?

It isn't expressed in the constitution.

Iranian law and US law here not the same. It doesn't make it right though

They're not, that's the point.

And what makes the exclusion of an expressed freedom of association "right".

[Reverend Norv]

Iranian law and US law here not the same. It doesn't make it right though

They're not, that's the point.

And what makes the exclusion of an expressed freedom of association "right".

No rights are absolute under the law. You have a right to free association. It allows you to discriminate regarding whom you invite to your house, allow into your club, or sit next to on the bus. It does not allow you to discriminate, on the basis of suspect classifications, in the provision of public accommodations. It does not allow this for the same reason that you are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater: your rights do not entitle you to cause grievous and unnecessary harm to others.

[Galloism]

I've got to say, I love how you ignore so many posts when challenged as to the equality of treatment of your position.

It's bare ass naked "I want people to do what I want", instead of being based upon any principled stance, or you'd demand service to the KKK and WBC with the same fervor you do Jews.

Your posts are filled with an utter lack of courage regarding the convictions expressed therein.

As a Jew I have very strong opinions about Nazis and KKK members considering how the former killed six million of my people therefore I would have difficulty serving them.

It doesn't take courage to do what is easy. It takes courage to stick to your principles even when difficult.

If you had the courage of your convictions, you would serve the Church of the KKK or WBC because it follows your principles regarding anti discrimination based on religion. Because your principles are more important than your personal feelings.

That's what having the courage of your convictions is all about. Sticking to your principles or convictions - even when it's hard and not the result you want.

[Telconi]

They're not, that's the point.

And what makes the exclusion of an expressed freedom of association "right".

No rights are absolute under the law. You have a right to free association. It allows you to discriminate regarding whom you invite to your house, allow into your club, or sit next to on the bus. It does not allow you to discriminate, on the basis of suspect classifications, in the provision of public accommodations. It does not allow this for the same reason that you are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater: your rights do not entitle you to cause grievous and unnecessary harm to others.

Not doing business with a person isn't harmful.

[Reverend Norv]

No rights are absolute under the law. You have a right to free association. It allows you to discriminate regarding whom you invite to your house, allow into your club, or sit next to on the bus. It does not allow you to discriminate, on the basis of suspect classifications, in the provision of public accommodations. It does not allow this for the same reason that you are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater: your rights do not entitle you to cause grievous and unnecessary harm to others.

Not doing business with a person isn't harmful.

Yes, it is. Or, at the very least, it has been in the past and could easily prove so again in the future.

Our laws aren't made in a historical vacuum. They're a response to lived realities. We ban discrimination in public accommodations, whereas lots of other countries do not, because discrimination in public accommodations was the organizing principle of segregation and the legal bedrock of Jim Crow. We have decades of evidence that shows that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve can consign vast swathes of the population to substandard or nonexistent services. It has happened before, and there is no reason to believe that it couldn't happen again.

[San Lumen]

No rights are absolute under the law. You have a right to free association. It allows you to discriminate regarding whom you invite to your house, allow into your club, or sit next to on the bus. It does not allow you to discriminate, on the basis of suspect classifications, in the provision of public accommodations. It does not allow this for the same reason that you are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater: your rights do not entitle you to cause grievous and unnecessary harm to others.

Not doing business with a person isn't harmful.

Were you not paying attention when I laid out the hotel wedding scenario earlier? Is that not harmful somehow?

[Telconi]

Not doing business with a person isn't harmful.

Were you not paying attention when I laid out the hotel wedding scenario earlier? Is that not harmful somehow?

I was, you can tell because I have repeatedly referenced it. It isn't.

[San Lumen]

Were you not paying attention when I laid out the hotel wedding scenario earlier? Is that not harmful somehow?

I was, you can tell because I have repeatedly referenced it. It isn't.

How is it not harmful to the couple involved?

[Telconi]

I was, you can tell because I have repeatedly referenced it. It isn't.

How is it not harmful to the couple involved?

Lack of harm.

[San Lumen]

How is it not harmful to the couple involved?

Lack of harm.

How is there a lack of harm in that scenario?

[Telconi]

Lack of harm.

How is there a lack of harm in that scenario?

Same way there is a lack of harm in any other scenario that lacks harm.

[San Lumen]

How is there a lack of harm in that scenario?

Same way there is a lack of harm in any other scenario that lacks harm.

Thats not an answer. How is there a lack of harm in that scenario when the hotel will not check them into a room that was pre booked and paid for them to attend a wedding at the hotel?

[Telconi]

Same way there is a lack of harm in any other scenario that lacks harm.

Thats not an answer. How is there a lack of harm in that scenario when the hotel will not check them into a room that was pre booked and paid for them to attend a wedding at the hotel?

How are you not harmed when I eat a cheeseburger?

[San Lumen]

Thats not an answer. How is there a lack of harm in that scenario when the hotel will not check them into a room that was pre booked and paid for them to attend a wedding at the hotel?

How are you not harmed when I eat a cheeseburger?

I dont keep Kosher. Still not answering the question. How is there no harm in the scenario i gave earlier?

[Telconi]

How are you not harmed when I eat a cheeseburger?

I dont keep Kosher. Still not answering the question. How is there no harm in the scenario i gave earlier?

I don't see what your religious dietary preferences have to do with me eating. By it not being there, lacking actual harmful acts, absence of the fucking thing you're asking for. I don't know how I can more accurately describe the absence of a thing.

[San Lumen]

I dont keep Kosher. Still not answering the question. How is there no harm in the scenario i gave earlier?

I don't see what your religious dietary preferences have to do with me eating. By it not being there, lacking actual harmful acts, absence of the fucking thing you're asking for. I don't know how I can more accurately describe the absence of a thing.

I dont see how there is not a harmful act in denying the couple the ability to check into a room payed for by someone else for a wedding at the hotel.

[Telconi]

I don't see what your religious dietary preferences have to do with me eating. By it not being there, lacking actual harmful acts, absence of the fucking thing you're asking for. I don't know how I can more accurately describe the absence of a thing.

I dont see how there is not a harmful act in denying the couple the ability to check into a room payed for by someone else for a wedding at the hotel.

Okay.

[San Lumen]

I dont see how there is not a harmful act in denying the couple the ability to check into a room payed for by someone else for a wedding at the hotel.

Okay.

You have failed to show how there is no harm,. All you've done is dodge the question

[Telconi]

Okay.

You have failed to show how there is no harm,. All you've done is dodge the question

And you've failed to show how there is...

[Reverend Norv]

Could we maybe set Lumen's hypothetical for a moment to consider the very real harm that state-sanctioned discrimination in the provision of public accommodations inflicted, as a matter of historical fact, on generations of African-Americans, right up until the Civil Rights Act prohibited it?

[Telconi]

Could we maybe set Lumen's hypothetical for a moment to consider the very real harm that state-sanctioned discrimination in the provision of public accommodations inflicted, as a matter of historical fact, on generations of African-Americans, right up until the Civil Rights Act prohibited it?

I think we're all in agreement on that, but consider away.

[Reverend Norv]

Could we maybe set Lumen's hypothetical for a moment to consider the very real harm that state-sanctioned discrimination in the provision of public accommodations inflicted, as a matter of historical fact, on generations of African-Americans, right up until the Civil Rights Act prohibited it?

I think we're all in agreement on that, but consider away.

The point's very simple.

We are agreed that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on certain bases, can and has inflicted grave harm on Americans.

We are agreed that civil rights, including the right to free association, do not license citizens to inflict grave harm on other Americans.

Therefore, it seems clear that the right to free association cannot include the right for businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on the basis of certain suspect classifications that have historically been used to inflict grave harm.

It follows that there is a right to discriminate in many areas of life and on many bases, but that there is not a right to discriminate in public accommodations and on the basis of suspect classifications.

Do you disagree?

[Telconi]

I think we're all in agreement on that, but consider away.

The point's very simple.

We are agreed that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on certain bases, can and has inflicted grave harm on Americans.

We are agreed that civil rights, including the right to free association, do not license citizens to inflict grave harm on other Americans.

Therefore, it seems clear that the right to free association cannot include the right for businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on the basis of certain suspect classifications that have historically been used to inflict grave harm.

It follows that there is a right to discriminate in many areas of life and on many bases, but that there is not a right to discriminate in public accommodations and on the basis of suspect classifications.

Do you disagree?

Yes, with both points of premise.