Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[San Lumen]

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...

How is denying a gay couple a pre booked, pre paid room at a hotel for an event at the establishment not causing harm?

What is your definition of harm?

[Reverend Norv]

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.

If you accept both points of the premise, do you also accept the conclusion? Or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

[Telconi]

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

How is denying a gay couple a pre booked, pre paid room at a hotel for an event at the establishment not causing harm?

What is your definition of harm?

How is it.

Actions which negatively effect a person's quality of life.

[Telconi]

Yes, with both points of premise.

If you accept both points of the premise, do you also accept the conclusion? Or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

I don't I disagree with both points of the premise.

[San Lumen]

How is denying a gay couple a pre booked, pre paid room at a hotel for an event at the establishment not causing harm?

What is your definition of harm?

How is it.

Actions which negatively effect a person's quality of life.

They cannot stay at the hotel that everyone else is staying at and might not even be able to attend the event because the management is bigoted. How is that not harm after they traveled from a big city in another part of the country to attend?

[Telconi]

How is it.

Actions which negatively effect a person's quality of life.

They cannot stay at the hotel that everyone else is staying at and might not even be able to attend the event because the management is bigoted. How is that not harm after they traveled from a big city in another part of the country to attend?

Because it doesn't negatively effect them. Prior to trying to book the hotel, they weren't staying at the hotel, after trying to book the hotel and being told they couldn't, they still weren't staying at the hotel. No net change in their life occurred, and thus no harm was inflicted. They were no worse off after being denied service than they were before.

[San Lumen]

They cannot stay at the hotel that everyone else is staying at and might not even be able to attend the event because the management is bigoted. How is that not harm after they traveled from a big city in another part of the country to attend?

Because it doesn't negatively effect them. Prior to trying to book the hotel, they weren't staying at the hotel, after trying to book the hotel and being told they couldn't, they still weren't staying at the hotel. No net change in their life occurred, and thus no harm was inflicted. They were no worse off after being denied service than they were before.

They did not book nor pay for the room. The couple getting married did. I would consider the gay couple in the scenario harmed. Im sorry you can't see that.

[Reverend Norv]

If you accept both points of the premise, do you also accept the conclusion? Or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

I don't I disagree with both points of the premise.

Pardon, I misread you.

So, to be clear: you do not agree "that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on certain bases, can and has inflicted grave harm on Americans."

It is a matter of historical record that, in the Jim Crow South, African-Americans were frequently unable to access quality services, including medical care, because business owners were permitted to deny them service on the basis of race. In many cases, they were unable to access services at all, regardless of quality, like highway motels: preventing them from traveling to see family, apply for jobs, or participate in the economic and cultural life of their communities as equal citizens. Do you deny that this occurred? Do you deny that it constituted grave harm?

Again, to be clear: you do not agree "that civil rights, including the right to free association, do not license citizens to inflict grave harm on other Americans."

Would you accept, then, that the First Amendment protects, or should protect, the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby inflicting the grave harm of a dangerous stampede upon the occupants?

[Telconi]

Because it doesn't negatively effect them. Prior to trying to book the hotel, they weren't staying at the hotel, after trying to book the hotel and being told they couldn't, they still weren't staying at the hotel. No net change in their life occurred, and thus no harm was inflicted. They were no worse off after being denied service than they were before.

They did not book nor pay for the room. The couple getting married did. I would consider the gay couple in the scenario harmed. Im sorry you can't see that.

Still the same lack of effect. Yes, you've said that, a lot. Please don't be.

[Telconi]

I don't I disagree with both points of the premise.

Pardon, I misread you.

So, to be clear: you do not agree "that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on certain bases, can and has inflicted grave harm on Americans."

It is a matter of historical record that, in the Jim Crow South, African-Americans were frequently unable to access quality services, including medical care, because business owners were permitted to deny them service on the basis of race. In many cases, they were unable to access services at all, regardless of quality, like highway motels: preventing them from traveling to see family, apply for jobs, or participate in the economic and cultural life of their communities as equal citizens. Do you deny that this occurred? Do you deny that it constituted grave harm?

Again, to be clear: you do not agree "that civil rights, including the right to free association, do not license citizens to inflict grave harm on other Americans."

Would you accept, then, that the First Amendment protects, or should protect, the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby inflicting the grave harm of a dangerous stampede upon the occupants?

In the first instance, I am aware that discrimination, occurred. Much of this was state mandated during the Jim Crow era, by specific laws that not permitted, but required such race based limitation. As to rather such actions inflict "great harm" Please read the recent exchange between Lumen and myself.

In the second premise, I also disagree, because "Great harm" is entirely subjective, and I could very well feel greatly harmed by many different people exercising rights, do I have then the capacity to suppress that right on the basis of feeling harmed greatly?

[Reverend Norv]

Pardon, I misread you.

So, to be clear: you do not agree "that allowing businesses to discriminate in whom they serve, especially on certain bases, can and has inflicted grave harm on Americans."

It is a matter of historical record that, in the Jim Crow South, African-Americans were frequently unable to access quality services, including medical care, because business owners were permitted to deny them service on the basis of race. In many cases, they were unable to access services at all, regardless of quality, like highway motels: preventing them from traveling to see family, apply for jobs, or participate in the economic and cultural life of their communities as equal citizens. Do you deny that this occurred? Do you deny that it constituted grave harm?

Again, to be clear: you do not agree "that civil rights, including the right to free association, do not license citizens to inflict grave harm on other Americans."

Would you accept, then, that the First Amendment protects, or should protect, the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby inflicting the grave harm of a dangerous stampede upon the occupants?

In the first instance, I am aware that discrimination, occurred. Much of this was state mandated during the Jim Crow era, by specific laws that not permitted, but required such race based limitation. As to rather such actions inflict "great harm" Please read the recent exchange between Lumen and myself.

In the second premise, I also disagree, because "Great harm" is entirely subjective, and I could very well feel greatly harmed by many different people exercising rights, do I have then the capacity to suppress that right on the basis of feeling harmed greatly?

In the first instance: certainly, laws required some forms of segregation. They did not require others, including (in most cases) the complete exclusion of African-Americans from a given business. The fact that African-Americans were so excluded, on a systematic basis, is due to the fact that private business owners were allowed to discriminate in the delivery of services on the basis of race.

In the second instance: "great harm" is not entirely subjective. Even your definition of harm, while incoherent, does not suggest that harm is subjective. Harm can be measured: in the infliction of poverty, disease, humiliation, injury, and death. We can have a reasonable conversation about how best to do this, but the idea that a man is not harmed by a community that denies him access to basic public goods because of the color of his skin - that, I think, is patently absurd.

Regarding your exchange with Lumen: as I understand it, you define harm as a negative change in a person's condition after an action, as relative to their condition prior to the action. Once again, to be clear, this does not indicate that harm is subjective; it proposes an objective way of measuring it.

That way just happens to be incoherent. If, from the moment of a child's birth, other people choose to humiliate it; to deny it access to education or remunerative employment; to brutalize it and to neglect it; to torture and abuse it - if they subject this child to such treatment from the moment it is born until the moment it dies, without any greater or lesser severity - then the child is still harmed, even if its condition never changes once from birth until death. Consistent cruelty is still cruelty. Any African-American who can remember Jim Crow will tell you the same thing.

[Telconi]

In the first instance, I am aware that discrimination, occurred. Much of this was state mandated during the Jim Crow era, by specific laws that not permitted, but required such race based limitation. As to rather such actions inflict "great harm" Please read the recent exchange between Lumen and myself.

In the second premise, I also disagree, because "Great harm" is entirely subjective, and I could very well feel greatly harmed by many different people exercising rights, do I have then the capacity to suppress that right on the basis of feeling harmed greatly?

In the first instance: certainly, laws required some forms of segregation. They did not require others, including (in most cases) the complete exclusion of African-Americans from a given business. The fact that African-Americans were so excluded, on a systematic basis, is due to the fact that private business owners were allowed to discriminate in the delivery of services on the basis of race.

In the second instance: "great harm" is not entirely subjective. Even your definition of harm, while incoherent, does not suggest that harm is subjective. Harm can be measured: in the infliction of poverty, disease, humiliation, injury, and death. We can have a reasonable conversation about how best to do this, but the idea that a man is not harmed by a community that denies him access to basic public goods because of the color of his skin - that, I think, is patently absurd.

Regarding your exchange with Lumen: as I understand it, you define harm as a negative change in a person's condition after an action, as relative to their condition prior to the action. Once again, to be clear, this does not indicate that harm is subjective; it proposes an objective way of measuring it.

That way just happens to be incoherent. If, from the moment of a child's birth, other people choose to humiliate it; to deny it access to education or remunerative employment; to brutalize it and to neglect it; to torture and abuse it - if they subject this child to such treatment from the moment it is born until the moment it dies, without any greater or lesser severity - then the child is still harmed, even if its condition never changes once from birth until death. Consistent cruelty is still cruelty. Any African-American who can remember Jim Crow will tell you the same thing.

It entirely suggests that harm is subjective, simply because a person's quality of life is subjective.

[Reverend Norv]

In the first instance: certainly, laws required some forms of segregation. They did not require others, including (in most cases) the complete exclusion of African-Americans from a given business. The fact that African-Americans were so excluded, on a systematic basis, is due to the fact that private business owners were allowed to discriminate in the delivery of services on the basis of race.

In the second instance: "great harm" is not entirely subjective. Even your definition of harm, while incoherent, does not suggest that harm is subjective. Harm can be measured: in the infliction of poverty, disease, humiliation, injury, and death. We can have a reasonable conversation about how best to do this, but the idea that a man is not harmed by a community that denies him access to basic public goods because of the color of his skin - that, I think, is patently absurd.

Regarding your exchange with Lumen: as I understand it, you define harm as a negative change in a person's condition after an action, as relative to their condition prior to the action. Once again, to be clear, this does not indicate that harm is subjective; it proposes an objective way of measuring it.

That way just happens to be incoherent. If, from the moment of a child's birth, other people choose to humiliate it; to deny it access to education or remunerative employment; to brutalize it and to neglect it; to torture and abuse it - if they subject this child to such treatment from the moment it is born until the moment it dies, without any greater or lesser severity - then the child is still harmed, even if its condition never changes once from birth until death. Consistent cruelty is still cruelty. Any African-American who can remember Jim Crow will tell you the same thing.

It entirely suggests that harm is subjective, simply because a person's quality of life is subjective.

Just to keep track of how absurd this is getting: you are now arguing that we don't need to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, because Jim Crow wasn't a bad thing, because quality of life is totally subjective anyway, so how would we know if denying black folks access to basic public goods was even harmful to them? Is that an accurate summary of your position? If not, feel free to set me straight.

[Kowani]

It entirely suggests that harm is subjective, simply because a person's quality of life is subjective.

Just to keep track of how absurd this is getting: you are now arguing that we don't need to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, because Jim Crow wasn't a bad thing, because quality of life is totally subjective anyway, so how would we know if denying black folks access to basic public goods was even harmful to them? Is that an accurate summary of your position? If not, feel free to set me straight.

Norv, you are now one of my favorite people on this site.

[San Lumen]

They did not book nor pay for the room. The couple getting married did. I would consider the gay couple in the scenario harmed. Im sorry you can't see that.

Still the same lack of effect. Yes, you've said that, a lot. Please don't be.

the gay couple being unable to attend the wedding of a friend of theirs because the management of hotel is homophobic doesnt constitute harm to you?

[Telconi]

It entirely suggests that harm is subjective, simply because a person's quality of life is subjective.

Just to keep track of how absurd this is getting: you are now arguing that we don't need to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, because Jim Crow wasn't a bad thing, because quality of life is totally subjective anyway, so how would we know if denying black folks access to basic public goods was even harmful to them? Is that an accurate summary of your position? If not, feel free to set me straight.

Uh, no, and I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion.

[Telconi]

Still the same lack of effect. Yes, you've said that, a lot. Please don't be.

the gay couple being unable to attend the wedding of a friend of theirs because the management of hotel is homophobic doesnt constitute harm to you?

Nope

[San Lumen]

the gay couple being unable to attend the wedding of a friend of theirs because the management of hotel is homophobic doesnt constitute harm to you?

Nope

How does it not? How is there no harm in that situation?

[Telconi]

Nope

How does it not? How is there no harm in that situation?

Oh good God...

[Reverend Norv]

Just to keep track of how absurd this is getting: you are now arguing that we don't need to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, because Jim Crow wasn't a bad thing, because quality of life is totally subjective anyway, so how would we know if denying black folks access to basic public goods was even harmful to them? Is that an accurate summary of your position? If not, feel free to set me straight.

Uh, no, and I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion.

Okay, then. Perhaps I was mistaken. Let's clarify.

Do you or do you not believe that quality of life is totally subjective?

Do you or do you not believe that denying a person access to basic public goods is harmful to that person? Why?

Do you or do you not believe that during Jim Crow, African-Americans were denied access to basic public goods? Do you or do you not believe that this occurred, not entirely but in significant measure, due to mass discrimination by business owners, in the provision of public accommodations, on the basis of race?

[San Lumen]

How does it not? How is there no harm in that situation?

Oh good God...

I would consider that harm. Your definition of it makes no sense. what if it was you who was the couple getting married? How would you feel then?

[Kowani]

How does it not? How is there no harm in that situation?

Oh good God...

Could one of you two just block each other already? You’re going in circles, and you’ve been doing so for hours. At this point, its just tiresome.

[Telconi]

Oh good God...

I would consider that harm. Your definition of it makes no sense. what if it was you who was the couple getting married? How would you feel then?

Good for you. Got a better one?

[New Vlada]

situation: literal nazi flag for a newly created nation
Right to discriminate: yeah you can ban him for the flag
No right: no that's discrimination

don't @ me

[Internationalist Bastard]

I would consider that harm. Your definition of it makes no sense. what if it was you who was the couple getting married? How would you feel then?

Good for you. Got a better one?

I mean the more logical argument is if nobody hires you for discriminatory purposes you are causing them harm
Granted nothing can be done about it