Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

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

Is it harmful to not hire a person for non-discriminatory purposes?

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

Is it harmful to not hire a person for non-discriminatory purposes?

Yes but it’s fair to not hire someone for reasons like a lack of experience or an inability to do the job
It’s not fair to do so for the person being alive

[Kowani]

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

Can you rephrase that, so that it’s understandable?

[Ors Might]

Is it harmful to not hire a person for non-discriminatory purposes?

Yes but it’s fair to not hire someone for reasons like a lack of experience or an inability to do the job
It’s not fair to do so for the person being alive

The amount of fairness involved doesn’t change the harm it causes, though. You’re also implying that the harm caused can be made irrelevant or secondary if certain factors are in place, such as if it was done fairly.

[Galloism]

Okay.

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

So these KKK members you’re not renting a hotel room to, are you harming them?

[San Lumen]

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

So these KKK members you’re not renting a hotel room to, are you harming them?

If you were Jewish you'd understand how I feel about the KKK and Nazis and why I would have such a difficult time serving them. Worst case Id get someone else to handle their check in if I can't outright refuse them. I could not.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yes but it’s fair to not hire someone for reasons like a lack of experience or an inability to do the job
It’s not fair to do so for the person being alive

The amount of fairness involved doesn’t change the harm it causes, though. You’re also implying that the harm caused can be made irrelevant or secondary if certain factors are in place, such as if it was done fairly.

Not really it’s harmful no matter what
It’s just ones a justifiable harm

[Galloism]

So these KKK members you’re not renting a hotel room to, are you harming them?

If you were Jewish you'd understand how I feel about the KKK and Nazis and why I would have such a difficult time serving them. Worst case Id get someone else to handle their check in if I can't outright refuse them. I could not.

I understand. It’s hard. That’s why I keep asking.

Let’s flip it.

I’m a Palestinian. My family was killed in an Israeli military action. Our family home was bulldozed by Israeli settlers. I fled to the US and somehow got asylum.

And you walk into my hotel wearing a yarmulke.

Don’t you think this is hard?

[Abarri]

Yes, there should be a right to discriminate because even now we get to choose whom to have contact with. (There's also the freedom of association.)

[Darussalam]

Ethnic diversity has nonzero cost on company performance as well as social capital in general, all else equal. Allowing self-sorting by private actors is certainly more preferable - sure, to some extent there will be ethnic segregation, but they're done only to the extent it doesn't cost them. There's no point for costly diversity that reduces merits and performances if the standard we're using here is equality of opportunity.

[Elwher]

A real world example with, perhaps, more social importance than a gay couple at a wedding.

Did the Massachusetts company, Thermo Fisher, have a right to stop selling DNA testing equipment to the Xinjiang government? They are legally entitled to purchase it, and the usage of the equipment was legal under Chinese law which has jurisdiction over the area it was used in.

Due to the fact that the equipment was being used to find and segregate Uighurs. the company unilaterally decided they would not continue their relationship, despite any contractual requirements.

Is this not discrimination due to national origin?

[Thermodolia]

So these KKK members you’re not renting a hotel room to, are you harming them?

If you were Jewish you'd understand how I feel about the KKK and Nazis and why I would have such a difficult time serving them. Worst case Id get someone else to handle their check in if I can't outright refuse them. I could not.

Why? Your parting fools from their money. If you don’t feel right in taking their money, kinda weird but whatever, you can donate to a cause they abhor in their name.

For example if I was rented a hotel room to a KKK meeting or whatever the hell those kooks do, I’d take part of the money they gave and donate it in their name to the NAACP. Also they’d get charged with a extremist fee and a crazy kook fee. Both would bring their total to about three times the original amount

[Estanglia]

Because it's their business and they shouldn't be forced to remain in relationships they don't want to be a part of.



I don't.



Like I said before, unless it is in violation of their contract, they should be free to cancel and provide compensation.



Probably, if they didn't want complications like that.

It doesn’t matter how you sugar coat it your saying those who are gay or in interracial relationships should hide it because their employer might fire them if discovered

I'm not. I expressly said so in the post you quoted. I don't see how you got from 'I don't think they should hide it' to 'they totally should hide it'.

In our scenario they had a contract with our engaged couple for certain number of rooms It is a violation of contract to deny people at the desk one of those rooms because they are gay or African American or whomever else they deem unwelcome

Then they can't do so as it is a violation of the contract.

It could simply be illegal and we don’t have complications like that.

I like freedoms. No thanks.

It’s discrimination in every sense of the word, just like firing someone for their political beliefs is discrimination.

There is a difference between political beliefs and being a Neo Nazi. A business does not have to condone that kind of reprehensible belief and would be totally within their rights to fire them

Neo-nazism is a political belief.

So, they're allowed to discriminate, meaning your 'serve all or none at all' schtick is either bullshit or comes with a fuckton of asterisks.

And who defines what is reprehensible? I could find Judaism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism or Trotskyism reprehensible, does that give me the right to discriminate against them?

Is it or is it not wrong to force relationships upon those that don’t want them?

In a non business setting yes. The government is not and should not be the thought police.

Why should there be a difference in business relationships?

That's your opinion, and I disagree. The National Park Service.

So open a business and allege that it exists. when you sued in court make that your primary argument.

but American Airlines for example should be able to say we will only have white pilots, flight crew and terminal staff?

1) It isn't recognised in law right now.

2) Can you stop constantly asking these questions? You already have our answers.

That's an amendment. Not a right.
If an Iranian court sentences a gay couple to prison for being a gay couple, that's fine?

Freedom of association.

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?

Jesus, Lumen, you sound like a broken record with the number of times you've asked that or hinted at that.

As we have mentioned before, it isn't in either right now. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist (depending upon what you believe rights to be).

And it's a pretty irrelevant point to make considering this whole thread is about whether there should be this right, not whether there is it right now in law (we've also been using freedom to associate and freedom to discriminate as synonyms for a bit now).

Not for private business apparently

*cough*"religious freedom"*cough*

Not intending this to be a snarky point or a jab at you, just to point something out, but I don't think anyone on this thread has actually tried to use that argument.

That I don't know, I was just saying that freedom of association is a right.

Not for private business apparently

Not right now.

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

Can you rephrase that, so that it’s understandable?

Their point appears to be that, by banning someone with a Nazi flag from this site, NS is discriminating and therefore has the freedom to do so.

[Reverend Norv]

A real world example with, perhaps, more social importance than a gay couple at a wedding.

Did the Massachusetts company, Thermo Fisher, have a right to stop selling DNA testing equipment to the Xinjiang government? They are legally entitled to purchase it, and the usage of the equipment was legal under Chinese law which has jurisdiction over the area it was used in.

Due to the fact that the equipment was being used to find and segregate Uighurs. the company unilaterally decided they would not continue their relationship, despite any contractual requirements.

Is this not discrimination due to national origin?

No, it's not. If Thermo Fisher had refused to sell to anyone born in China, because they were born in China, that would be discrimination due to national origin. National origin is a suspect classification, and discrimination based upon it is illegal in public accomodations.

But Thermo Fisher didn't due that. Instead, it refused to sell to the Xinjiang government, on the basis of that government's human rights abuses. This is discrimination on the basis of the fact that the customer is a criminal under international law. Criminality - especially current, active criminality - is not a suspect classification. Discrimination based upon it is legal in public accommodations.

No right is absolute. There is a right to discriminate in certain ways and not in others, and for certain reasons and not for others. We draw those lines because different forms of discrimination cause different levels of harm in the real world. In this case, Thermo Fisher is already on the right side of that line.

[Elwher]

A real world example with, perhaps, more social importance than a gay couple at a wedding.

Did the Massachusetts company, Thermo Fisher, have a right to stop selling DNA testing equipment to the Xinjiang government? They are legally entitled to purchase it, and the usage of the equipment was legal under Chinese law which has jurisdiction over the area it was used in.

Due to the fact that the equipment was being used to find and segregate Uighurs. the company unilaterally decided they would not continue their relationship, despite any contractual requirements.

Is this not discrimination due to national origin?

No, it's not. If Thermo Fisher had refused to sell to anyone born in China, because they were born in China, that would be discrimination due to national origin. National origin is a suspect classification, and discrimination based upon it is illegal in public accomodations.

But Thermo Fisher didn't due that. Instead, it refused to sell to the Xinjiang government, on the basis of that government's human rights abuses. This is discrimination on the basis of the fact that the customer is a criminal under international law. Criminality - especially current, active criminality - is not a suspect classification. Discrimination based upon it is legal in public accommodations.

No right is absolute. There is a right to discriminate in certain ways and not in others, and for certain reasons and not for others. We draw those lines because different forms of discrimination cause different levels of harm in the real world. In this case, Thermo Fisher is already on the right side of that line.

In that case, how about Dick's Sporting Goods and their policy to not sell ammunition to anyone under 21? Age is a suspect class, is it not? The legal requirement for rifle and shotgun ammunition purchase is 18, not 21 yet there was great praise when Dicks announced the new discriminatory policy.

[San Lumen]

It doesn’t matter how you sugar coat it your saying those who are gay or in interracial relationships should hide it because their employer might fire them if discovered

I'm not. I expressly said so in the post you quoted. I don't see how you got from 'I don't think they should hide it' to 'they totally should hide it'.

In our scenario they had a contract with our engaged couple for certain number of rooms It is a violation of contract to deny people at the desk one of those rooms because they are gay or African American or whomever else they deem unwelcome

Then they can't do so as it is a violation of the contract.

It could simply be illegal and we don’t have complications like that.

I like freedoms. No thanks.

There is a difference between political beliefs and being a Neo Nazi. A business does not have to condone that kind of reprehensible belief and would be totally within their rights to fire them

Neo-nazism is a political belief.

So, they're allowed to discriminate, meaning your 'serve all or none at all' schtick is either bullshit or comes with a fuckton of asterisks.

And who defines what is reprehensible? I could find Judaism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism or Trotskyism reprehensible, does that give me the right to discriminate against them?

In a non business setting yes. The government is not and should not be the thought police.

Why should there be a difference in business relationships?

So open a business and allege that it exists. when you sued in court make that your primary argument.

but American Airlines for example should be able to say we will only have white pilots, flight crew and terminal staff?

1) It isn't recognised in law right now.

2) Can you stop constantly asking these questions? You already have our answers.

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?

Jesus, Lumen, you sound like a broken record with the number of times you've asked that or hinted at that.

As we have mentioned before, it isn't in either right now. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist (depending upon what you believe rights to be).

And it's a pretty irrelevant point to make considering this whole thread is about whether there should be this right, not whether there is it right now in law (we've also been using freedom to associate and freedom to discriminate as synonyms for a bit now).

*cough*"religious freedom"*cough*

Not intending this to be a snarky point or a jab at you, just to point something out, but I don't think anyone on this thread has actually tried to use that argument.

Not for private business apparently

Not right now.

Can you rephrase that, so that it’s understandable?

Their point appears to be that, by banning someone with a Nazi flag from this site, NS is discriminating and therefore has the freedom to do so.

By allowing business to fire someone for being gay your saying their should hide that they are gay.

Are you now saying that in the scenario I gave it would be wrong to deny the gay couple the room for the wedding because before you said the hotel would be within their rights to do it?

[Reverend Norv]

No, it's not. If Thermo Fisher had refused to sell to anyone born in China, because they were born in China, that would be discrimination due to national origin. National origin is a suspect classification, and discrimination based upon it is illegal in public accomodations.

But Thermo Fisher didn't due that. Instead, it refused to sell to the Xinjiang government, on the basis of that government's human rights abuses. This is discrimination on the basis of the fact that the customer is a criminal under international law. Criminality - especially current, active criminality - is not a suspect classification. Discrimination based upon it is legal in public accommodations.

No right is absolute. There is a right to discriminate in certain ways and not in others, and for certain reasons and not for others. We draw those lines because different forms of discrimination cause different levels of harm in the real world. In this case, Thermo Fisher is already on the right side of that line.

In that case, how about Dick's Sporting Goods and their policy to not sell ammunition to anyone under 21? Age is a suspect class, is it not? The legal requirement for rifle and shotgun ammunition purchase is 18, not 21 yet there was great praise when Dicks announced the new discriminatory policy.

No, age is not a suspect classification for the purposes of public accomodations (c.f. Massachusetts v. Murgia). A classification is suspect if it singles out members of a group who:

• Have an inherent trait.
• Have a trait that is highly visible
• As a class, have been disadvantaged historically.
• Are part of a group that has historically lacked effective representation in the political process.

Age is an inherent trait, and it's highly visible. But it does not correlate to historical disadvantage, and adults have not historically lacked effective representation in the political process based on their age. That's why Dick's policy is legal.

[Estanglia]

I'm not. I expressly said so in the post you quoted. I don't see how you got from 'I don't think they should hide it' to 'they totally should hide it'.



Then they can't do so as it is a violation of the contract.



I like freedoms. No thanks.



Neo-nazism is a political belief.

So, they're allowed to discriminate, meaning your 'serve all or none at all' schtick is either bullshit or comes with a fuckton of asterisks.

And who defines what is reprehensible? I could find Judaism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism or Trotskyism reprehensible, does that give me the right to discriminate against them?



Why should there be a difference in business relationships?



1) It isn't recognised in law right now.

2) Can you stop constantly asking these questions? You already have our answers.



Jesus, Lumen, you sound like a broken record with the number of times you've asked that or hinted at that.

As we have mentioned before, it isn't in either right now. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist (depending upon what you believe rights to be).

And it's a pretty irrelevant point to make considering this whole thread is about whether there should be this right, not whether there is it right now in law (we've also been using freedom to associate and freedom to discriminate as synonyms for a bit now).



Not intending this to be a snarky point or a jab at you, just to point something out, but I don't think anyone on this thread has actually tried to use that argument.


Not right now.



Their point appears to be that, by banning someone with a Nazi flag from this site, NS is discriminating and therefore has the freedom to do so.

By allowing business to fire someone for being gay your saying their should hide that they are gay.

I'm not. By saying businesses should be able to fire people for being gay I'm saying they should be able to fire people for being gay.

I've expressly said twice now they shouldn't. You don't have to read into my posts to get my opinion when I've made it explicitly clear.

Are you now saying that in the scenario I gave it would be wrong to deny the gay couple the room for the wedding because before you said the hotel would be within their rights to do it?

All the times I said they could I said they could if there was nothing in their contract preventing them from denying service. I put an "unless their contract forbids it" clause into it, which is what this would fall into.

[Telconi]

I'm not. I expressly said so in the post you quoted. I don't see how you got from 'I don't think they should hide it' to 'they totally should hide it'.



Then they can't do so as it is a violation of the contract.



I like freedoms. No thanks.



Neo-nazism is a political belief.

So, they're allowed to discriminate, meaning your 'serve all or none at all' schtick is either bullshit or comes with a fuckton of asterisks.

And who defines what is reprehensible? I could find Judaism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism or Trotskyism reprehensible, does that give me the right to discriminate against them?



Why should there be a difference in business relationships?



1) It isn't recognised in law right now.

2) Can you stop constantly asking these questions? You already have our answers.



Jesus, Lumen, you sound like a broken record with the number of times you've asked that or hinted at that.

As we have mentioned before, it isn't in either right now. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist (depending upon what you believe rights to be).

And it's a pretty irrelevant point to make considering this whole thread is about whether there should be this right, not whether there is it right now in law (we've also been using freedom to associate and freedom to discriminate as synonyms for a bit now).



Not intending this to be a snarky point or a jab at you, just to point something out, but I don't think anyone on this thread has actually tried to use that argument.


Not right now.



Their point appears to be that, by banning someone with a Nazi flag from this site, NS is discriminating and therefore has the freedom to do so.

By allowing business to fire someone for being gay your saying their should hide that they are gay.

Are you now saying that in the scenario I gave it would be wrong to deny the gay couple the room for the wedding because before you said the hotel would be within their rights to do it?

My current employer is permitted to fire me for having brown hair, I have not once attempted to hide that I have brown hair.

[Thermodolia]

By allowing business to fire someone for being gay your saying their should hide that they are gay.

Are you now saying that in the scenario I gave it would be wrong to deny the gay couple the room for the wedding because before you said the hotel would be within their rights to do it?

My current employer is permitted to fire me for having brown hair, I have not once attempted to hide that I have brown hair.

My current employer could fire me for being gay. Still hasn’t happened yet and I’m pretty open about it, well as open about being gay as I get.

[Vaxian Imperium]

San Lumen is still going...

[Kowani]

San Lumen is still going...

Just tune him out, it’s what I do.

[Ethereal Expanse]

I think it is allowed under freedom of association. There are many gyms that cater only to women. There are a tons of schools that only allow a certain sex or color. They are not private clubs. There are ways around the laws even when it is prohibited by law. The Condo board comes to mind or the tennents association. Anything where other determine if you have qualifications to be admitted. There is a very long way Should and Does. Healthcare Should be affordable to everyone.

[San Lumen]

By allowing business to fire someone for being gay your saying their should hide that they are gay.

Are you now saying that in the scenario I gave it would be wrong to deny the gay couple the room for the wedding because before you said the hotel would be within their rights to do it?

My current employer is permitted to fire me for having brown hair, I have not once attempted to hide that I have brown hair.

and its extremely unlikely they would

[New haven america]

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

Is it harmful to not hire a person for non-discriminatory purposes?

Yes.