Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Ors Might]

I don’t know about a right but businesses already discriminate in a way. You can be denied service if you’re not wearing shoes or a shirt in quite a few establishments.

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

Never let it be said that Nazis were a consistent bunch. The point stands, however, that eye color and hair color are things that do have precedent for being discrimianted against, if not to the same degree as race and such.

Why should someone have to sell to whomever walks through their doors, no matter what? Why does wanting something give you the right to force others into serving you against their will? Why give the consumer that much power?

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

Let’s say that someone does commission work, like photography. Do they have to agree to every commission? If they believe gay marriage is wrong, would you force them to do wedding photos for a gay couple?

[San Lumen]

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

Let’s say that someone does commission work, like photography. Do they have to agree to every commission? If they believe gay marriage is wrong, would you force them to do wedding photos for a gay couple?

No I would not. Find another photographer

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Why did you bother censoring the quote? And why in name of all things comprehensible did you censor JEWS?

I feared rule violations, so I censored it to be safe. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a moderation post and (uh-oh) the Red Text of Death.

Censoring Jews like it is a profanity is actually worse though.

Attempting to dehumanize ethnic or religious groups by referring to them with a lowercase letter and censoring another letter out is not allowed. Calling a group by its proper name is cool. Trolling via censoring it as if it is a profanity -- not cool. Don't do it.

-The One Stop Rules Shop
But I doubt not censoring another user’s quote would be considered bad by any stretch.

[Ors Might]

Let’s say that someone does commission work, like photography. Do they have to agree to every commission? If they believe gay marriage is wrong, would you force them to do wedding photos for a gay couple?

No I would not. Find another photographer

Find another bakery.

[Ithreland]

I don't get what you mean when you said "And anyone who doesn't like shoes... could you explain that?

If you don't like shoes, it's likely you don't wear shoes. If you don't wear shoes, you are not going to be allowed into Ithreland's fictitious business.

I mean, sure, but as referenced later in the thread, there's actual RL no shirt/shoes stuff.

what do you mean by qualifiers?

Exceptions to the rule, basically. Things like Nazis and No Shoes, No Service type deals. Nobody treats discrimination being bad as an absolute principle.

I don’t know about a right but businesses already discriminate in a way. You can be denied service if you’re not wearing shoes or a shirt in quite a few establishments.

(also I was being kinda sarcastic, but the "internet face" shows no body language or vocal tone)

[Yusseria]

I don’t know about a right but businesses already discriminate in a way. You can be denied service if you’re not wearing shoes or a shirt in quite a few establishments.

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

Never let it be said that Nazis were a consistent bunch. The point stands, however, that eye color and hair color are things that do have precedent for being discrimianted against, if not to the same degree as race and such.

Why should someone have to sell to whomever walks through their doors, no matter what? Why does wanting something give you the right to force others into serving you against their will? Why give the consumer that much power?

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

I still mostly disagree with a right to discriminate, but I absolutely I draw the line at the medical field. If there is a medical emergency and someone needs a doctor and they dont want to work with a patient of a different race or creed that's some tough fucking shit and they dont have a choice in the matter.

[San Lumen]

Thats different as it constitutes a health violation in theory

You dont have to sell to whomever no matter what. If someone is disruptive for example you can ask them to leave but you do not and should not have the right to ask someone to leave because of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

Yes, that’s what the discrimination means here.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

[Karu Nadu]

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, tbh.
With a law protecting discrimination, cases like this would be very frequent occurrences.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, tbh.
With a law protecting discrimination, cases like this would be very frequent occurrences.

Such laws aren't required though. A large case of discrimination would probably result in a boycott that would cripple the business.

[San Lumen]

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

Or how about they simply serve you. What if that Is the only hotel in town or one around for miles? How do you know it wouldn’t happen often?

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, tbh.
With a law protecting discrimination, cases like this would be very frequent occurrences.

Such laws aren't required though. A large case of discrimination would probably result in a boycott that would cripple the business.

In a small town in a rural county that might not happen

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Ehh, I think we are doing just fine without discrimination in the private and public sector... If your so racist that you feel the need to support such a thing, then I really hope you are the first to get your shop windows smashed in... really its just a slippery slope, a majority of people don't see it rationally and will go through violent rather than peaceful means to get you shutdown... Anti Discrimination laws help to keep the peace and enable meritocracy

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Meritocracy will be punted right out the window the second someone can fire or refuse to hire you on a basis of skin color or other innate features

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

So if I go to store I should have to wonder if I’ll be kicked out because I’m gay , denied a hotel room I payed for, or be denied or kicked out of an apartment because I’m gay?

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

The American South exists, you know this right?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

The American South exists, you know this right?

Yes, but I'm also aware it is 2019 not 1953, where you've had segregationists on the prowl.

[Ors Might]

I think the owner should be obligated to pay your money back, but yes. I wouldn't expect that to happen often in this day and age though.

The American South exists, you know this right?

You know that the South is more than KKK nonsense, right? I’m not saying it’s a terrific place to be but most folks aren’t just itching to tell the negroes and the fags to take a hike.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

The American South exists, you know this right?

You know that the South is more than KKK nonsense, right? I’m not saying it’s a terrific place to be but most folks aren’t just itching to tell the negroes and the fags to take a hike.

I know lol, im just saying that he is putting to much stock into the American people to not be homophobic or racist

[Ors Might]

You know that the South is more than KKK nonsense, right? I’m not saying it’s a terrific place to be but most folks aren’t just itching to tell the negroes and the fags to take a hike.

I know lol, im just saying that he is putting to much stock into the American people to not be homophobic or racist

One holding prejudices does not guarantee that they’ll put them above making money, however.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

I know lol, im just saying that he is putting to much stock into the American people to not be homophobic or racist

One holding prejudices does not guarantee that they’ll put them above making money, however.

Again, people are not rational... we do not live in a world full of Econs that follow literally every economic law and theory without fail.... people will be homophobic and racist, so we have laws to combat it

[San Lumen]

No one has a right to the services of another person. Get over it. If someone doesn't want to sell you stuff then they shouldn't be forced to.

I still mostly disagree with a right to discriminate, but I absolutely I draw the line at the medical field. If there is a medical emergency and someone needs a doctor and they dont want to work with a patient of a different race or creed that's some tough fucking shit and they dont have a choice in the matter.

If a paramedic or doctor refused to treat someone because of their race or religion im fairly certain they would lose their medical license or face very serious penalties.

[Kowani]

I know lol, im just saying that he is putting to much stock into the American people to not be homophobic or racist

One holding prejudices does not guarantee that they’ll put them above making money, however.

*Laughs in Jim Crow*

[James_xenoland]

First thing I need to point out OP is that we live in a free society, not a police state.. We NEVER need a "right" to do anything by default, the government needs a very good reason to keep people from doing anything...end of story.

So it's less talking about a "right to discriminate" and more about finding a legal justification for (at least) the federal government to abridge people's constitutional rights and protections.


On to the argument itself. Without going into too much detail OP... You have to understand that the current framework with which the BoR/constitutional protections work under (outside of/in addition to it's original scope/intent at least) was almost completely piecemeal and created bit by bit, not in a coherent totally thought out way. Originally, the BoR/con weren't even meant to (and at the very least didn't) apply to the states themselves.. Just the federal government! Which was less a higher level of government and more the institutional governing body of a conglomerate of different states. Thus the reason states have their own constitutions, which don't all fully follow the federal one.

Outside of the context of imaginative interpretations, it is highly dubious as to the government's constitutional ability to even impose discrimination laws on either private or public non-gov businesses and organizations, let alone individuals. (which they still don't do or try)

The second thing everyone needs to understand is the entire extent of the piecemeal nature of this status quo (interpretations) in its befuddled, sometimes outright contradictory or even nonsensical current state. Some protections/restrictions apply only to the fed government, others to the states as well, and a few are applied to all levels/types of government. Despite all being based on the very same concept. But the BoR/con only either applies to the fed, or the fed and states, or to everyone. Not all three. No amount of "interpretation" can support anything more than one.

Why would or should anti -discrimination laws apply to businesses and organizations but not other protections? Like 1st amendment protections? It wouldn't... If discrimination laws apply to every level of government, businesses and organizations, then why not society as a whole? (individuals) Some might say that what about 1st amendment protections, like freedom of association etc. Doesn't that explain why it can't be applied to individuals? Well no, because there is absolutely NO legal distinctions between an individual and an individual or individuals partaking in economic or business activity (or forming organizations), the only distinction is between the government and the people. That's why campaign finance reform is and always will be DoA. (constitutionally at least,.. not that its stopped power hungry authoritarians/politicians before to be fair..) If it's unconstitutional to apply it to individuals, then it is also so for businesses and organizations. Full stop!

Which brings up a few more issues. If BoR/constitutional restrictions/protections apply universally, or at least in the case of businesses and organizations, then things like social media are about to get a LOT harder to moderate. And it would be impossible to restrict speech (or now, federally guaranteed 1st amendment speech protections) Because if I can't choose who I do or don't associate with (1st protection), then speech (very same first protection) is off the table as well. Which wouldn't be a bad thing with how things are going currently in society.

And all this isn't even getting into the very real issue (one that we very much ignore and ignore at our own GREAT peril) that one protection can't and shouldn't ever be used to negate another. (i.e. you can't use one protection/right against another) But that's the problem with the concept of "positive rights", quite a misnomer in reality. That would take a whole other post itself though.

[San Lumen]

First thing I need to point out OP is that we live in a free society, not a police state.. We NEVER need a "right" to do anything by default, the government needs a very good reason to keep people from doing anything...end of story.

So it's less talking about a "right to discriminate" and more about finding a legal justification for (at least) the federal government to abridge people's constitutional rights and protections.


On to the argument itself. Without going into too much detail OP... You have to understand that the current framework with which the BoR/constitutional protections work under (outside of/in addition to it's original scope/intent at least) was almost completely piecemeal and created bit by bit, not in a coherent totally thought out way. Originally, the BoR/con weren't even meant to (and at the very least didn't) apply to the states themselves.. Just the federal government! Which was less a higher level of government and more the institutional governing body of a conglomerate of different states. Thus the reason states have their own constitutions, which don't all fully follow the federal one.

Outside of the context of imaginative interpretations, it is highly dubious as to the government's constitutional ability to even impose discrimination laws on either private or public non-gov businesses and organizations, let alone individuals. (which they still don't do or try)

The second thing everyone needs to understand is the entire extent of the piecemeal nature of this status quo (interpretations) in its befuddled, sometimes outright contradictory or even nonsensical current state. Some protections/restrictions apply only to the fed government, others to the states as well, and a few are applied to all levels/types of government. Despite all being based on the very same concept. But the BoR/con only either applies to the fed, or the fed and states, or to everyone. Not all three. No amount of "interpretation" can support anything more than one.

Why would or should anti -discrimination laws apply to businesses and organizations but not other protections? Like 1st amendment protections? It wouldn't... If discrimination laws apply to every level of government, businesses and organizations, then why not society as a whole? (individuals) Some might say that what about 1st amendment protections, like freedom of association etc. Doesn't that explain why it can't be applied to individuals? Well no, because there is absolutely NO legal distinctions between an individual and an individual or individuals partaking in economic or business activity (or forming organizations), the only distinction is between the government and the people. That's why campaign finance reform is and always will be DoA. (constitutionally at least,.. not that its stopped power hungry authoritarians/politicians before to be fair..) If it's unconstitutional to apply it to individuals, then it is also so for businesses and organizations. Full stop!

Which brings up a few more issues. If BoR/constitutional restrictions/protections apply universally, or at least in the case of businesses and organizations, then things like social media are about to get a LOT harder to moderate. And it would be impossible to restrict speech (or now, federally guaranteed 1st amendment speech protections) Because if I can't choose who I do or don't associate with (1st protection), then speech (very same first protection) is off the table as well. Which wouldn't be a bad thing with how things are going currently in society.

And all this isn't even getting into the very real issue (one that we very much ignore and ignore at our own GREAT peril) that one protection can't and shouldn't ever be used to negate another. (i.e. you can't use one protection/right against another) But that's the problem with the concept of "positive rights", quite a misnomer in reality. That would take a whole other post itself though.

Im not sure I follow