Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Liriena]

Oh, look. This is WHAT they'll ban, and anything that's edgier than Strawberry Shortcrap will be banned.

Hell, there are already a decent number of more-or-less edgy shows even from just late as 20-30 years old (like "Beavis and Butthead" or the older shows of "The Simpsons") that are rarely shown on television anymore if at all. Hmm, do you sometimes wonder why that is?

"Rarely shown", except for the constant, hours-long reruns on multiple channels.

Your boomer memery is showing.

[Tornado Queendom]

To an extent, yes, but it should always go both ways.

If Africans don't want whites in their private business, so be it. If whites don't want Africans in their private business so be it.

But don't come crying to me when you go bankrupt for discriminating against X% of the population.

Honestly, I agree with this the most.

[Galloism]

I mean, discrimination along some lines is probably inevitable.

The real question is "what discrimination is allowable and not allowable"?

[Ulenya Yootger]

Teachable moment: "Discriminate" is a synonym for "choose."

Every time you choose one person, product, destination, etc., you are, in point of fact, discriminating against all the non-selected options.

It is the bases of said discrimination that the government sometimes elects to regulate, but proving one's biases could be impossible unless they are self-reported (and that's a whole other can of worms).

[San Lumen]

I mean, discrimination along some lines is probably inevitable.

The real question is "what discrimination is allowable and not allowable"?

discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation should not be allowed.

Teachable moment: "Discriminate" is a synonym for "choose."

Every time you choose one person, product, destination, etc., you are, in point of fact, discriminating against all the non-selected options.

It is the bases of said discrimination that the government sometimes elects to regulate, but proving one's biases could be impossible unless they are self-reported (and that's a whole other can of worms).

In a business discrimination is not that difficult to prove.

[Galloism]

I mean, discrimination along some lines is probably inevitable.

The real question is "what discrimination is allowable and not allowable"?

discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation should not be allowed.

Then the logical follow up question is "why those things"?

[San Lumen]

discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation should not be allowed.

Then the logical follow up question is "why those things"?

Because those are all not things one chooses with the exception of religion

[Page]

In a business discrimination is not that difficult to prove.

It's incredibly difficult to prove as long as the one who discriminates is smart enough to not admit it. Then again, racists and homophobes are never the sharpest tools in the drawer.

[Galloism]

Then the logical follow up question is "why those things"?

Because those are all not things one chooses with the exception of religion

There's a lot of other things besides that those that "not things one chooses".

Such as IQ, blindness, hair color, eye color, height, genital size, foot length, for starters.

[Cetacea]

To a degree, yes. Freedom of Speech is something many people forget now-a-days. Take this example: A pretty popular streamer on Twitch got her account banned for saying there is only two genders. (Lets not start a debate about this, please keep it focused on the debate at hand, yes?) She just mentioned her beliefs and she was permanently banned as her words "Might offend anyone in the LGBT community." But isn't there an Amendment that says "Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press"? To me that is outright wrong of them to do that, regardless of how the conversation started, but due to the increasing pressure and support for these groups companies will blatantly ignore the 1st Amendment to keep other people happy. This is wrong and should not be happening. However if this right gets misinterpreted by some racist idiot things can turn violent, even deadly. So while you should be able to say what you think this doesn't mean you need to take action against said group.

I dont quite understand your point is it
Yes - the Streamer (a private individual) should have the right to say stuff about LGBT or
Yes - Twitch (a private company) should have the right to discriminate against her for her opinion?

does the Right apply in both cases?

[Hammer Britannia]

To a degree, yes. Freedom of Speech is something many people forget now-a-days. Take this example: A pretty popular streamer on Twitch got her account banned for saying there is only two genders. (Lets not start a debate about this, please keep it focused on the debate at hand, yes?) She just mentioned her beliefs and she was permanently banned as her words "Might offend anyone in the LGBT community." But isn't there an Amendment that says "Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press"? To me that is outright wrong of them to do that, regardless of how the conversation started, but due to the increasing pressure and support for these groups companies will blatantly ignore the 1st Amendment to keep other people happy. This is wrong and should not be happening. However if this right gets misinterpreted by some racist idiot things can turn violent, even deadly. So while you should be able to say what you think this doesn't mean you need to take action against said group.

I dont quiote understand your point is it
Yes - the Streamer (a private individual) should have the right to say stuff about LGBT or
Yes - Twitch (a private company) should have the right to discriminate against her for her opinion?

does the Right apply in both cases?

Yes

[Sirocca]

Hell, there are already a decent number of more-or-less edgy shows even from just late as 20-30 years old (like "Beavis and Butthead" or the older shows of "The Simpsons") that are rarely shown on television anymore if at all. Hmm, do you sometimes wonder why that is?

Yes, it's because of left-wing extremism. It's as bad as Jihadism, if not slightly worse. And Jihadism is EVIL! The best for us is a monarchy, because we need a KING to deal with this.

I disagree with monarchy. A mostly ceremonial one (like in the UK) maybe, but I like my representative republican government.

[Bear Stearns]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

Now you suddenly hold an originalist interpretation of the Constitution...

The Constitution never mentions diversity either and the Founding Fathers were all basically white nationalists. You in favor of that, too?

[San Lumen]

Yes, it's because of left-wing extremism. It's as bad as Jihadism, if not slightly worse. And Jihadism is EVIL! The best for us is a monarchy, because we need a KING to deal with this.

I disagree with monarchy. A mostly ceremonial one (like in the UK) maybe, but I like my representative republican government.

What is the relevance here?

[Bear Stearns]

Yes there should be in my opinion.

why?

Because it's none of your business what other people do in their private lives or with their property?

[Sirocca]

Not everyone can move. That assumes that one has a job lined up in another city or state (and most employers would rather hire someone already in the area), that a person has savings, that a person can afford the costs of moving. It's not a thing anyone can do.

Well, they can always start their own company. Private enterprise exists, you know. Or they can stay in their mother's basement, which might be their best option.

I was thinking of possibly doing the start your own company or contracting option for when I finish school.

[Hammer Britannia]

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

Now you suddenly hold an originalist interpretation of the Constitution...

The Constitution never mentions diversity either and the Founding Fathers were all basically white nationalists. You in favor of that, too?

San Lumen is "It says whatever I want whenever it's convenient"

[Vaxian Imperium]

Some people feel more comfortable among members of their own race.

Nazi.

Doesn’t agree gets called Nazi.

[San Lumen]

why?

Because it's none of your business what other people do in their private lives or with their property?

None of my business? If I go to a store to buy a mattress with by boyfriend the store should have a right to say sorry we dont sell to LGBT people?

[Hammer Britannia]

Because it's none of your business what other people do in their private lives or with their property?

None of my business? If I go to a store to buy a mattress with by boyfriend the store should have a right to say sorry we dont sell to LGBT people?

Yes

[San Lumen]

None of my business? If I go to a store to buy a mattress with by boyfriend the store should have a right to say sorry we dont sell to LGBT people?

Yes

Why?

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes

Why?

Because they don't want your money, their loss not yours.

[Hammer Britannia]

Yes

Why?

It's their property, if you owned a building you should also be able to set rules on who/what is able to come in.

[Vaxian Imperium]

Yes

Why?

What if you owned a mattress store and a guy clad in neo-nazi outfits and tattoos walked in and wanted a mattress?

[Des-Bal]

Why?

Same reason they should be able to say "sorry I don't like the way you're dressed." Because you're trying to enter into a contract with them and if they don't want to they shouldn't be forced.

But why are you asking? I and others literally explained it to you thirteen times in another thread and you still repeated the question. What benefit are you getting from this?