Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Kowani]

No shoes allows you to die the establishment if you get an infection or a cut, so that might be a legitimate reason...

I’m not denying that. But it is interesting that there are forms of discrimination that are perfectly valid. Which is what I’m getting at, that anti-discrimination even among it’s fiercest adherents has caveats. I want to understand what they’re actully objecting to and why.

Mostly to discrimination against things that one cannot change, or don’t harm you in any way.

[Delta Force Alliance Commander]

That's a political and strategic point, not an empirical or legal or ethical one. Sure, I could push an abstract argument about how if race is a suspect classification, eye color should be too. Lumen's reaction earlier shows that this sort of an argument has some emotional appeal.

But that doesn't mean that eye color a) exposes people to pervasive and damaging discrimination, b) is therefore acceptable as a suspect classification under any mainstream reading of the Constitution, or c) should be law. All lawmakers have a responsibility to resist public pressure based on paranoia, fantasy, or hysteria. Arguments from abstraction may be strategically effective. That doesn't mean they lead to good law.

Moral principles don’t always make for practical laws, fair enough.

Not every law is a moral one. Morality is about what is good and right. It may be hard sometimes to see if a law is moral or not.

[Northern Jackaia]

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

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Under the 1st Amendment legally.
The Court has recognized the freedom of association.
N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000)

Then why not declare this right exists for all business?

I should have the right! I don't hate black people like Hillary, but I still feel more comfortable around whites!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No.

[Shajagara]

In my opinion, I would ban discrimination in general.

[Kowani]

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Then why not declare this right exists for all business?

I should have the right! I don't hate black people like Hillary, but I still feel more comfortable around whites!

That’s...what the fuck even if this?

[Shajagara]

I should have the right! I don't hate black people like Hillary, but I still feel more comfortable around whites!

That’s...what the fuck even if this?

_{I... don't know.}

[Vallermoore]

Yes providing it's not violent.

[Ors Might]

I’m not denying that. But it is interesting that there are forms of discrimination that are perfectly valid. Which is what I’m getting at, that anti-discrimination even among it’s fiercest adherents has caveats. I want to understand what they’re actully objecting to and why.

Mostly to discrimination against things that one cannot change, or don’t harm you in any way.

For the latter argument, it’s hard to argue that a neo-nazi buying groceries is in and of itself harmful.

[The South Falls]

Further is worse.

Debatable

Going in is most likely worse than staying there.

Would you put your dick further into a tabasco-anthill, or leave it without the Tabasco, with ants still crawling up your dick.

[Shajagara]

Yes providing it's not violent.

Even if you get rejected from every job you apply for because of your race?

This probably wouldn't happen, just a theoretical question.

[Telconi]

Because forcing your beliefs on others is wrong.

Most Libertarians don't actually have an issue doing that to others though.

Neither do so called "liberals", your point?

[Shajagara]

Mostly to discrimination against things that one cannot change, or don’t harm you in any way.

For the latter argument, it’s hard to argue that a neo-nazi buying groceries is in and of itself harmful.

That's for buying groceries.

What about giving a Neo-Nazi a role as a public speaker?

[Rhionnia]

And some people feel comfort if they murder or strip in public or sexually assault people. But we don't let them get away with it. We also don't let people tie themselves to buildings or squat even if they find it more comfortable. In fact, many people only feel comfortable from torture and violence. This is a very slippery slope.

Well, we can always defend ourselves. The second amendment exists for that, and murderers/arsonists/r*pists could instead be stopped by bounty hunters rather than the law.

Ah yes bounty hunters, people with almost no actual procedural training and are oftentimes glorified larpers who are just seeking a reason to wear a cool vest carry a gun. What a great thing to base impartial justice on. Mercenaries of the law.

[Kowani]

Mostly to discrimination against things that one cannot change, or don’t harm you in any way.

For the latter argument, it’s hard to argue that a neo-nazi buying groceries is in and of itself harmful.

I don’t support discrimination against Neo-Nazis if they’re not expressing their beliefs while going about their business.

[Northern Jackaia]

That’s...what the fuck even if this?

_{I... don't know.}

its his mom

[Shajagara]

Well, we can always defend ourselves. The second amendment exists for that, and murderers/arsonists/r*pists could instead be stopped by bounty hunters rather than the law.

Ah yes bounty hunters, people with almost no actual procedural training and are oftentimes glorified larpers who are just seeking a reason to wear a cool vest carry a gun. What a great thing to base impartial justice on. Mercenaries of the law.

While I do agree that the law should be in place of bounty hunters, that's not the point of what Tornado Queendom was talking about.

[Shajagara]

_{I... don't know.}

its his mom

Please do not make off-topic comments.

[Shajagara]

For the latter argument, it’s hard to argue that a neo-nazi buying groceries is in and of itself harmful.

I don’t support discrimination against Neo-Nazis if they’re not expressing their beliefs while going about their business.

Agreed. It is okay to believe in something as long as it doesn't affect another person.

[Rhionnia]

Ah yes bounty hunters, people with almost no actual procedural training and are oftentimes glorified larpers who are just seeking a reason to wear a cool vest carry a gun. What a great thing to base impartial justice on. Mercenaries of the law.

While I do agree that the law should be in place of bounty hunters, that's not the point of what Tornado Queendom was talking about.

Then what is their point? Seems to me they are blatantly saying that laaw should boil down to everyone fending for themselves and having the worst criminal offenders be taken care of by inexperienced hooligans with no actual authority. Sounds like a lose-lose all around.

[Ors Might]

For the latter argument, it’s hard to argue that a neo-nazi buying groceries is in and of itself harmful.

I don’t support discrimination against Neo-Nazis if they’re not expressing their beliefs while going about their business.

Fair enough. Might I inquire as to why you support anti-discrimination laws as they apply to businesses? If it’s based in concerns about essentials such as groceries and housings, I understand and agree with you, to an extent.

[Galloism]

Actuarial science. It's interesting stuff.

It really is. I still want to know how people come up with the conclusion that Women have less destructive wrecks than Men. (I have nothing against Females, I just don't see how you could come up with this.)

I also, still don't get why Insurance Companies can charge differently based on Sex and Age. Some Drivers may be Younger, but that doesn't mean they are less careful when driving. \

It's actually a statistical fact. That doesn't mean every woman has less destructive wrecks than every man, but it's a statistical trend, and they have graphs and charts to prove it.

Similarly, you'll find women utilize more healthcare than men from a dollars and cents perspective, and, prior to ACA, were charged more for insurance as a result.

[Kowani]

I don’t support discrimination against Neo-Nazis if they’re not expressing their beliefs while going about their business.

Fair enough. Might I inquire as to why you support anti-discrimination laws as they apply to businesses? If it’s based in concerns about essentials such as groceries and housings, I understand and agree with you, to an extent.

Various reasons.
The first being the aforementioned essential goods and services required to live.
The second being to improve the physical well-being of a society in which people live. It benefits both the victims and the larger society as a whole. Both from immediate economic well-being, (money in circulation and employment), as well as avoiding a segmented society that cannot hold.
The third is self-interest, being a minority myself, I would be very fucked over if discrimination for any reason was legal.

[Ors Might]

Fair enough. Might I inquire as to why you support anti-discrimination laws as they apply to businesses? If it’s based in concerns about essentials such as groceries and housings, I understand and agree with you, to an extent.

Various reasons.
The first being the aforementioned essential goods and services required to live.
The second being to improve the physical well-being of a society in which people live. It benefits both the victims and the larger society as a whole. Both from immediate economic well-being, (money in circulation and employment), as well as avoiding a segmented society that cannot hold.
The third is self-interest, being a minority myself, I would be very fucked over if discrimination for any reason was legal.

1. Fair enough.

2. We disagree on what societal well being looks like. To me, a society that respects the freedoms and needs of the individual is better off than one that does not.

3. I can’t support that argument. As a member of a minority group that has had to fight tooth and nail for it’s rights, it’s disgusting on so many levels for others to have their rights restricted because of my minority status. I’d feel nauseous.

[Kowani]

Various reasons.
The first being the aforementioned essential goods and services required to live.
The second being to improve the physical well-being of a society in which people live. It benefits both the victims and the larger society as a whole. Both from immediate economic well-being, (money in circulation and employment), as well as avoiding a segmented society that cannot hold.
The third is self-interest, being a minority myself, I would be very fucked over if discrimination for any reason was legal.

2. We disagree on what societal well being looks like. To me, a society that respects the freedoms and needs of the individual is better off than one that does not.

Oh, that’s right, I don’t argue with you that often, so my positions are unknown. When I speak of well-being, I am speaking of physical well-being unless explicitly stated.

3. I can’t support that argument. As a member of a minority group that has had to fight tooth and nail for it’s rights, it’s disgusting on so many levels for others to have their rights restricted because of my minority status. I’d feel nauseous.

Yes, well, I favor practicality over abstraction.