Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

Glad you feel that way, when you own a hotel. You're well within your rights to apply those opinions to your business model.

its none of my bussiness to ask martial status

Yes, you've expressed your beliefs ad nauseam. Thanks for doing so again tho.

[Panem and Circensis]

Why are there so many idiots advocating for discrimination?

So, as you can already tell, my answer is no. This is because if, let us say, a baker refuses to sell to a gay man because he believes a 2,000-year-old manuscript detailing the exploits of an invisible man in the sky, than that would be discrimination? If your “right to discriminate” guidelines were applied, this would be perfectly legal, despite being unethical. Too many people might use the line that their business was “non-essential” if there was vague legal wording. Many minorities would not be able to get jobs or housing, and live as second-rate citizens.

The amount of right-wing trolls on the Internet sometimes stuns me. What’s next? A “right to lynch black people”? A “right to torture Muslims”? A “right to slavery of all non-white races”? Where does it end?

These Nazis essentially are mad that their monopoly on economic, political, and military power through imperial exploitation has come to an end. Honestly, they are very pathetic.

In conclusion, however, too many people would use that right and too many people might use vague legal wording in order to get what they want. It would also erase decades of work in trying to get past racial and minority discrimination, and chuck it into the ash heap of history.

[Telconi]

Why are there so many idiots advocating for discrimination?

So, as you can already tell, my answer is no. This is because if, let us say, a baker refuses to sell to a gay man because he believes a 2,000-year-old manuscript detailing the exploits of an invisible man in the sky, than that would be discrimination? If your “right to discriminate” guidelines were applied, this would be perfectly legal, despite being unethical. Too many people might use the line that their business was “non-essential” if there was vague legal wording. Many minorities would not be able to get jobs or housing, and live as second-rate citizens.

The amount of right-wing trolls on the Internet sometimes stuns me. What’s next? A “right to lynch black people”? A “right to torture Muslims”? A “right to slavery of all non-white races”? Where does it end?

These Nazis essentially are mad that their monopoly on economic, political, and military power through imperial exploitation has come to an end. Honestly, they are very pathetic.

In conclusion, however, too many people would use that right and too many people might use vague legal wording in order to get what they want. It would also erase decades of work in trying to get past racial and minority discrimination, and chuck it into the ash heap of history.

What a paragon of tolerance.

[Thermodolia]

Well, in the case of the extant district court case, he was interviewed by the paper as a minister of the Church of Creativity (which, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, is hilariously named).

Then he was demoted so he wouldn't have a supervisory position over black people. This meant a cut in pay, job title, and job prestige.

He won his discrimination case because you can't demote someone based on their religion.

religion is protected class though i must say I'm surprised those crazy people are recognized as a religion

It shouldn’t be. You can’t change you ethnicity, your race, your DNA, or your sexuality but you can change your religion and your politics and they shouldn’t be apart of the protected classes

[San Lumen]

religion is protected class though i must say I'm surprised those crazy people are recognized as a religion

It shouldn’t be. You can’t change you ethnicity, your race, your DNA, or your sexuality but you can change your religion and your politics and they shouldn’t be apart of the protected classes

A no Muslims policy would be acceptable to you?

[Uelvan]

The guy who wrote it did. Again I quote from an interview I linked earlier, if shitty blogs are evidence you're willing to accept:
“We are a Christian Identity group, it is important to make us a church; I’m as much a Presbyterian or a Baptist or a Methodist or anything like that. I have the right to ordain just as anyone because I’m a legal church,” said Ray Larsen

The Southern Poverty Article you referenced said that they had offended their own Klansmen by butchering a pig (a big no-no in Christian Identity). It also mentions Rey Larsen as the successor. Unless you mean to tell me there just so happens to be another Rey Larsen who just so happens to lead another Church of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

ADL mentioned: "Eli James, a minister in the Christian Identity movement, a virulently anti-Semitic religion that espouses the belief that Jews and non-whites are "mud people" and the literal spawns of the devil. James also leads the Church of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a Chicago-based group."

The KKK categorically falls under Christian Identity inwhich the National Church of the KKK is a subsection of the broader KKK: http://faculty.uml.edu/jyurcak/44.326/C ... 0Pt%201%20[Compatibility%20Mode].pdf

How about this. You find me proof they are trying to be their own distinct religion and not adherents to Christian Identity.

Ok, I'll go with the Christian Identity group.

Which leads us back to being able to discriminate against southern baptists, so long as other baptists are cool.

Why would you be able to discriminate against Southern Baptists as a whole? Just as you can not discriminate against Christian Identity as a whole. You'd have to go through the effort to find alternative reasons to deny a congregation service in either case. It just so happens that more Christian Identity groups tend to lean towards one extreme end of the political spectrum which often espouses violence. Though I did not dig deep enough, I'd say that Euro Folk Radio is an example.

[Thermodolia]

It shouldn’t be. You can’t change you ethnicity, your race, your DNA, or your sexuality but you can change your religion and your politics and they shouldn’t be apart of the protected classes

A no Muslims policy would be acceptable to you?

What? That’s not even what I said.

[Elwher]

Your hypothetical is missing many salient points, as is often the case with them.

First, was this policy made known to the bookers, either explicitly or by some notice so that a reasonable person would have been aware of it at booking time?

Was the reservation made in person? by phone? on the Internet? It makes a difference as to the prior knowledge of the policy, and the customer's knowing acceptance of it.

Second, are the couple married? And if not, would the hotel rent a room with one bed to an unmarried heterosexual customer?

These are all factors that would enter into the question of right and wrong, as well as legal or illegal.

Lets say it wasn't and it was made on the internet as most bookings likely are these days.

Why does it matter if they are married? Martial status should not matter when it comes to a hotel room.

If the reservation was made on the Internet and there was no mention of the policy on the hotel's website, then the fact that the hotel accepted the reservation without making its policy known means that they have to honor it.

Marital status matters only if the hotel has a stated policy that only married couples can have a room with one bed. Some do have such a policy; if this one does and has posted that policy than the marital status of the couple is very relevant.

In both cases, it is the responsibility of the hotel to make its policies known before accepting reservations, otherwise the policy cannot be enforced on prior sales.

[San Lumen]

A no Muslims policy would be acceptable to you?

What? That’s not even what I said.

You said religion shouldn’t be a protected class therefore it’s to be inferred you would have no issue with that

[Western Vale Confederacy]

What? That’s not even what I said.

You said religion shouldn’t be a protected class therefore it’s to be inferred you would have no issue with that

Religious folk using their religion as harmful excuses (such denying vaccines or treatment) should definitely be overridden, yes.

[Thermodolia]

What? That’s not even what I said.

You said religion shouldn’t be a protected class therefore it’s to be inferred you would have no issue with that

The fact you went immediately to thinking about a no Muslims policy speaks more about you than me.

Nobody needs to know what religion you are. In the long run it doesn’t fucking matter. You can change and choose your religion with ease you can’t say the same about your sexuality, gender, ethnicity, disabilities, and the like. Those should be protected classes not religion and political beliefs.

Hell religion should be a private affair between you and your god of choice. You don’t need to tell the entire damn world about your religious beliefs.

[Thermodolia]

You said religion shouldn’t be a protected class therefore it’s to be inferred you would have no issue with that

Religious folk using their religion as harmful excuses (such denying vaccines or treatment) should definitely be overridden, yes.

That’s also not counting the fact that you can change your religion but you can’t change your sexuality or your disabilities.

[Kowani]

Religious folk using their religion as harmful excuses (such denying vaccines or treatment) should definitely be overridden, yes.

That’s also not counting the fact that you can change your religion but you can’t change your sexuality or your disabilities.

If one could just up and change their religion, the Inquisition wouldn’t have been a thing.

[Galloism]

Ok, I'll go with the Christian Identity group.

Which leads us back to being able to discriminate against southern baptists, so long as other baptists are cool.

Why would you be able to discriminate against Southern Baptists as a whole? Just as you can not discriminate against Christian Identity as a whole. You'd have to go through the effort to find alternative reasons to deny a congregation service in either case. It just so happens that more Christian Identity groups tend to lean towards one extreme end of the political spectrum which often espouses violence. Though I did not dig deep enough, I'd say that Euro Folk Radio is an example.

Because they're not a religion, just a chapter of another religion, so they do not get protection. They don't differentiate themselves as a separate religion just by being a separate organization.

[Galloism]

That’s also not counting the fact that you can change your religion but you can’t change your sexuality or your disabilities.

If one could just up and change their religion, the Inquisition wouldn’t have been a thing.

I mean, they could have. They often chose not to, but they could have.

[Kowani]

If one could just up and change their religion, the Inquisition wouldn’t have been a thing.

I mean, they could have. They often chose not to, but they could have.

That’d not really how belief works.

[Galloism]

I mean, they could have. They often chose not to, but they could have.

That’d not really how belief works.

People change faiths sometimes. That's why there evangelism. If evangelism didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

[Kowani]

That’d not really how belief works.

People change faiths sometimes. That's why there evangelism. If evangelism didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

Yes, but you don’t just up and change-it’s not a conscious choice. That’s what I’m getting at.

[Kowani]

That’d not really how belief works.

People change faiths sometimes. That's why there evangelism. If evangelism didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

Yes, but you don’t just up and change-it’s not a conscious choice. That’s what I’m getting at.

[Galloism]

People change faiths sometimes. That's why there evangelism. If evangelism didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

Yes, but you don’t just up and change-it’s not a conscious choice. That’s what I’m getting at.

TIL getting baptized into another faith is not a conscious choice.

Someone needs to lay off the ambien.

[Uelvan]

Why would you be able to discriminate against Southern Baptists as a whole? Just as you can not discriminate against Christian Identity as a whole. You'd have to go through the effort to find alternative reasons to deny a congregation service in either case. It just so happens that more Christian Identity groups tend to lean towards one extreme end of the political spectrum which often espouses violence. Though I did not dig deep enough, I'd say that Euro Folk Radio is an example.

Because they're not a religion, just a chapter of another religion, so they do not get protection. They don't differentiate themselves as a separate religion just by being a separate organization.

Not how it works. The Klan is not a sect of Christian Identity. Do you really fail to understand the difference between an individual Church and a sect? This is literally middle-school level of education.

[Estanglia]

The answer is yes.

End of case.


Telling people not to talk about something, especially when there are legitimate arguments for and against it, isn't a good way to get people to agree with you.

And saying 'EVERYONE AGREES' when the very existence of people posting on this thread proves it wrong is another terrible argument.

And, before you rest your case, maybe you should argue it. Just a thought.



How so? They all involve discrimination in associations. What makes the latter quite different from any of the former?



They certainly are.



Why? What's so evil about that?



How, and why, does one have a right to service?

And I don't think you know what discrimination is if you think those aren't discrimination.

Discrimination would be Jim Crow or treating Muslims or black customers differently than white customers

That is one type of discrimination, yes. But all the other things that we have called discrimination are actually discrimination.

And could you answer my question:

How, and why, does one have a right to service?

The public sector should always be barred from any form of discrimination. Likewise, any private institution that provides emergency, lifegiving, or neccesary services, like medicine, electricity, food, water or telecommunications, etc. should never be allowed to discriminate.

However, any private business that provides non-vital services or luxuries should be allowed to refuse service, or outright discriminate, to any person or any group for any reason, or even no reason.

I, as a consumer and part of a Free Market, likewise have the right to never do business with said discriminatory establishment. For example, I will not dine at a restaurant that prohibits blacks from entering or eating there. I wouldn't want to work for a company that says Christians, or whites, or whatever else cannot get a job.

Allowing institutions to discriminate will not suddenly revive Jim Crow, which was mandatory discrimination imposed by the state. The Free Market exists and people's attitudes have changed; we have become better human beings since then. A business dumb enough to arbitrarily exclude a group they don't like won't exist for long.

Letting bars and restaurants bar black people again normalises racism. And sadly they would probably still get plenty of business.

If you think a ton of people are racist, sure.

I don't think there should be a a right to discriminate for businesses, I don't think this is such a big deal, or an infringement on anyone's freedom. Rather the opposite!

How does it infringe on people's freedoms to be denied a service they aren't entitled to, and how doesn't it infringe on people's freedoms to be forced to provide a service to people you don't want to serve?

It's a PRIVATE business. Unless I am providing a service essential to society or human life, I shoudl be allowed, under any circumstances, to say no.



I certainly wouldn't go to a business like that! I don't want to give my money to idiots!

I love Alabama jokes as much as the next guy, but despite what the propaganda claims, the status of race relations in Dixie has changed tremendously since the Jim Crow era. While things can be tense, we're largely at peace; why else do you think so many of the riots and shootings after every racially charged incident are in places like Chicago, Illinois, or other Yankee cities? Baltimore, another problem hot spot, is technically part of the South, but I don't consider Maryland to be under the Mason-Dixon Line.



Yes. I don't care about their feelings or experience, and neither should the hotel. The couple is not entitled to a room or seeing a wedding. It's THEIR hotel, THEIR land, THEIR rooms, and THEIR choice. The law should never be based on hurt feelings. (BTW, sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states because it is a choice to openly participate in a sexual lifestyle, even though sexual orientation is innate.)

A hotel room is not a right or something guaranteed by the state. It is a service and no one should be forced to serve a person they do not want to serve. If the group was Christian and the hotel said they don't accomodate Christians, I would be saying the exact same thing. NO EXCEPTIONS.

However, in your exact circumstances, the hotel might be viable for a lawsuit. Why? -because the hotel already made the transaction to book them. They committed to a binding agreement to reserve a certain number of rooms to a certain number of guests for their wedding. This means, unless they've specifically written their terms of service to say "a booked room can be revoked at-will", they could be sued for breach of contract.

If I were landlord, I'd refuse tenancy to an unmarried man and woman who shack up (cohabitation) and to "married", open homosexuals because I don't want to be the one that facilitates what, in my religion, is considered sexual sin on my land. Indeed, under American law (or at least in my state), you can ask voluntary questions about race, marital status, or what-not, but you cannot legally require them to answer it. I should have that right, as I own the land.

(Fun fact: the standard for discrimination in the USA is extremely strict and requires demonstrable evidence of ill will and specific targetting of a protected group. This is worked around by documenting petty wrongdoings of the employee you don't like and firing them on those reasons. Or, you can assign them work they hate or make them do extra work until they quite; this is how the schoolhouse my mother worked at got rid of a bad teacher. IIRC, only around eighteen percent of discrimination cases processed are accepted becaue of the standard of evidence being so strict.)

---

It can be fairly argued that private sector non-discrimination was originally neccesary to break Jim Crow, but that was sixty years ago and the times have shifted significantly. We've gone from cruelly and wronfly oppresing blacks to teaching whites to hate themselves (sorry, "dismantling white supremacy") and for blacks calling to reinstate segregation.

America is not what she once was. We have changed for the better, and most Americans, in terms of race relations, are better human beings than the days of old. I'm proud to see that society has changed on this regard.

A world where freedom of association in the private sector was actually respected would not be a world where everything is segregated. That's a fantasy equal to arguing that re-legalizing child labor would lead back to bound to ropes pulling coal tubs through narrow tunnels, as if safety standards don't exist.

I have news for you a business is public property.

I'm not sure you fully understand what public property is if you think a privately owned enterprise is public property.

Anyone as long as they are not disruptive can enter as long as it is not an exclusive club with member like Costco or yacht club for example. Any business that is not paid membership does not have the right to pick and choose their customers.

Again, why? You can keep asserting it, but until you explain why they don't/shouldn't have the right it's a meaningless point.

Why are there so many idiots advocating for discrimination?

We're not advocating that people should discriminate, but that they should be able to discriminate.

So, as you can already tell, my answer is no. This is because if, let us say, a baker refuses to sell to a gay man because he believes a 2,000-year-old manuscript detailing the exploits of an invisible man in the sky, than that would be discrimination?

It would.

If your “right to discriminate” guidelines were applied, this would be perfectly legal, despite being unethical.

Yup.

Too many people might use the line that their business was “non-essential” if there was vague legal wording. Many minorities would not be able to get jobs or housing, and live as second-rate citizens.

That is a potential problem. A potential solution is to apply anti-discrimination laws to essential services, like housing, food, water etc. A wedding cake isn't essential. Water is.

The amount of right-wing trolls on the Internet sometimes stuns me.

Ad hominems?

What’s next? A “right to lynch black people”? A “right to torture Muslims”? A “right to slavery of all non-white races”?

No. How do you get there from our arguments?

Where does it end?

With the right to choose your clients?

These Nazis essentially are mad that their monopoly on economic, political, and military power through imperial exploitation has come to an end. Honestly, they are very pathetic.

Yup, ad hominems. News flash, not everyone who believes that you should have the right to choose your clients are Nazis or right-wing trolls. Rolling in with the ad hominems won't help your case.

[Galloism]

Because they're not a religion, just a chapter of another religion, so they do not get protection. They don't differentiate themselves as a separate religion just by being a separate organization.

Not how it works. The Klan is not a sect of Christian Identity. Do you really fail to understand the difference between an individual Church and a sect? This is literally middle-school level of education.

The Church of the KKK would appear to be, based on your sourcing, a church within the Christian identity religion. Discriminating against a particular church would appear to be generally against the law based on what you said here:

viewtopic.php?p=35411800#p35411800

Under title VII, even nitch adherents with very few followers, or even one, are practicing a religion. The church of the kkk is a religion that's part of the Christian identity group of religions. No matter how low you divide it, you're still discriminating based on religion.

This would include not allowing Catholics that attend a particular church, even if you allow Catholics from another church. You're still discriminating on the basis of religion, even if it's only certain portions of that religion you don't like.

Otherwise, I can discriminate against all catholic dioceses in geographic proximity, and only allow Catholics from the New York diocese for instance, and technically be within the law. The law would be truly hollow.

[Thermodolia]

That’s also not counting the fact that you can change your religion but you can’t change your sexuality or your disabilities.

If one could just up and change their religion, the Inquisition wouldn’t have been a thing.

They could have. They just chose not to. You can change your religion. I have family members who have done it. Religious converts are a thing mate

[Thermodolia]

People change faiths sometimes. That's why there evangelism. If evangelism didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

Yes, but you don’t just up and change-it’s not a conscious choice. That’s what I’m getting at.

Um yes it is. What do you think converts to another religion or atheists exist. They made the conscious choice to change their religion and they will say that they are apart of that religion no question asked.

Which is unlike “conversion therapy” where those who went through it admit they are still LGBT and it never worked because you can’t change something that inate.

Since you can change your religion and your political beliefs they shouldn’t be protected classes