Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Vaxian Imperium]

Lets say there is a bakery owned by a conservative person who is a strong believer in the Christian bible. 2 gay men walk in wanting a cake for their wedding, why would the Baker be in trouble for refusing to service someone who is against their ideals? If serving them would be against what they think it’s right and their moral code they should have the right to refuse. What is making the man serve them going to do? Magically make him more tolerant? Of course not it will probably just piss him off. The gay couple can merely go to another bakery the baker cannot merely change his views..

Ok and what if that is the only bakery in town and the next town is miles away? Why should they have to drive to another bakery?

A business owner does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve. What if the same baker said they will not bake a cake for a interracial couple as they believe it is wrong? Should that be allowed?

Yes. It is there business after all they built it up, why should they be forced to do something they think is wrong or immoral. Besides they are only losing money by doing this but also to them at least are keeping their values

[San Lumen]

Ok and what if that is the only bakery in town and the next town is miles away? Why should they have to drive to another bakery?

Because you should not be forced into transactions that you don't want to be a part of.

A business owner does not have the right to pick and choose who they serve.

They should.

What if the same baker said they will not bake a cake for a interracial couple as they believe it is wrong? Should that be allowed?

Yes.

So therefore the Civil Rights Act, all anti discrimination laws and the Fair Housing Act should be repealed?

[Estanglia]

Because you should not be forced into transactions that you don't want to be a part of.


They should.


Yes.

So therefore the Civil Rights Act, all anti discrimination laws and the Fair Housing Act should be repealed?

The parts pertaining to private entities, yes. Except if the service provided is an essential one.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, abridging people's right to choose who they associate with is improper. The government shouldn't be able to force you into a contract with someone anymore than they should be able to force you into a friendship.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Yes, abridging people's right to choose who they associate with is improper. The government shouldn't be able to force you into a contract with someone anymore than they should be able to force you into a friendship.

Yeah umm I think that's the entire point of society.

RE: Social Contract.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah umm I think that's the entire point of society.

RE: Social Contract.

No. I'd say more but there's not more, no the entire point of society is not that the government forces you into contracts or friendships depending on which thing you were being incorrect about.

[Sirocca]

There should be no law allowing it, or banning.

Allow its existence, until it break another s right of free speech (Dont talk, you [Enter Slur]), but let it existence for free speech.

This is the best option in the long run, because the point in which all discrimination is banned is the point in which feminist extremism takes over.

Agree with what you say, and the feminist extremist movement seems to be especially making a lot of noise and gaining a lot of frightening institutional influence these days.

Fuck the system, people and associations should have the freedom to discriminate, and I don't have any reservations on myself for discriminating on specific categories or people. People basically want us to have thought crime?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

This is the best option in the long run, because the point in which all discrimination is banned is the point in which feminist extremism takes over.

Agree with what you say, and the feminist extremist movement seems to be especially making a lot of noise and gaining a lot of frightening institutional influence these days.

Fuck the system, people and associations should have the freedom to discriminate, and I don't have any reservations on myself for discriminating on specific categories or people. People basically want us to have thought crime?

I'm pretty sure thought crime refers to thoughts such as speech and, well, thoughts, rather than actions. It's in the name.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Yeah umm I think that's the entire point of society.

RE: Social Contract.

No. I'd say more but there's not more, no the entire point of society is not that the government forces you into contracts or friendships depending on which thing you were being incorrect about.

Well..that is, unless you're an anarchist like me but I doubt you are. The government is effectively just enforcing a massive contract on you.

[Tornado Queendom]

This is the best option in the long run, because the point in which all discrimination is banned is the point in which feminist extremism takes over.

Agree with what you say, and the feminist extremist movement seems to be especially making a lot of noise and gaining a lot of frightening institutional influence these days.

Fuck the system, people and associations should have the freedom to discriminate, and I don't have any reservations on myself for discriminating on specific categories or people. People basically want us to have thought crime?

I fear so, because the moment all discrimination is criminalized with prison time nationwide is the moment where free speech starts to die a slow and painful death.

[Tornado Queendom]

Banning all discrimination will be a slippery slope, you know. It WILL lead to a snowball effect, and we'll eventually ban everything with a higher content rating than TV-Y (yes, that even includes TV-Y7 and TV-G.).

Where is this snowball affect? The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

It has been used as an excuse to abolish free speech by many feminist extremists that believe it isn't going far enough, and I feel it's best to have a company decide. After all, for every company that discriminates, there's probably five that would welcome minorities with open arms. The Civil Rights Act can stay for Government Businesses, I don't care. But it has been a bit TOO invasive to private enterprise.

[Sirocca]

Agree with what you say, and the feminist extremist movement seems to be especially making a lot of noise and gaining a lot of frightening institutional influence these days.

Fuck the system, people and associations should have the freedom to discriminate, and I don't have any reservations on myself for discriminating on specific categories or people. People basically want us to have thought crime?

I'm pretty sure thought crime refers to thoughts such as speech and, well, thoughts, rather than actions. It's in the name.

A crime that involves action is just a crime, "hate thoughts" in itself isn't the cause of violence.

[Des-Bal]

Well..that is, unless you're an anarchist like me but I doubt you are. The government is effectively just enforcing a massive contract on you.

Neato, not in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion of the government forcing a contract between two parties but fun. Unless of course you're arguing respecting any amount of authority of the government means accepting absolutely anything the government does it's an absolute non-sequitur.

[Tornado Queendom]

I'm pretty sure thought crime refers to thoughts such as speech and, well, thoughts, rather than actions. It's in the name.

A crime that involves action is just a crime, "hate thoughts" in itself isn't the cause of violence.

I agree, because hate thoughts don't directly cause violence. The Charleston Massacre could have been resolved if the perpetrator had merely been "racist", rather than mentally insane. It's not a hate crime, it's just a murder. If they don't let their "hateful" thoughts cause shootings, then they shouldn't be arrested.

[Sirocca]

Banning all discrimination will be a slippery slope, you know. It WILL lead to a snowball effect, and this ban will eventually lead to a ban everything with a higher content rating than TV-Y (yes, that even includes TV-Y7 and TV-G.).

I don't know if that sounds entirely coherent but I still see where your going with this.
It's funny because even TV-Y/TV-Y7/TV-G content once in a while had content that can be perceived as so-called "discrimination".

Welcome to Blockblister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOmgVgrQi_0

[Tornado Queendom]

Banning all discrimination will be a slippery slope, you know. It WILL lead to a snowball effect, and this ban will eventually lead to a ban everything with a higher content rating than TV-Y (yes, that even includes TV-Y7 and TV-G.).

I don't know if that sounds entirely coherent but I still see where your going with this.
It's funny because even TV-Y/TV-Y7/TV-G content once in a while had content that can be perceived as so-called "discrimination".

Welcome to Blockblister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOmgVgrQi_0

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

[Ors Might]

I’d say there already is a right for businesses to discriminate, albeit a somewhat restricted one. For example, there’s no law against refusing to serve or hire people that don’t have dark hair or dark colored eyes. In fact, if it isn’t based on sexuality, race, gender identity, or religion, you can’t discriminate against any and all categories. There’s no federal law stating otherwise.

[Sirocca]

A crime that involves action is just a crime, "hate thoughts" in itself isn't the cause of violence.

I agree, because hate thoughts don't directly cause violence. The Charleston Massacre could have been resolved if the perpetrator had merely been "racist", rather than mentally insane. It's not a hate crime, it's just a murder. If they don't let their "hateful" thoughts cause shootings, then they shouldn't be arrested.

There's also hypocrisy and double standards involved here too.

[Arayas]

NO. Discrimination is not nor will ever be a right

Discrimination is a basic human function even for people that claim not too.

[Page]

My ideal would be that the state does not interfere with private organizations that are bigoted toward members, employees, or customers, and that those organizations would eventually fail as we as a society would punish them by boycotting them, ostracizing them, and calling them out.

The problem is that this isn't guaranteed to happen and in fact some organizations can thrive despite their bigotry, and that some forms of bigotry can be so pervasive in certain areas that those discriminated against lack alternatives.

[Tornado Queendom]

I agree, because hate thoughts don't directly cause violence. The Charleston Massacre could have been resolved if the perpetrator had merely been "racist", rather than mentally insane. It's not a hate crime, it's just a murder. If they don't let their "hateful" thoughts cause shootings, then they shouldn't be arrested.

There's also hypocrisy and double standards involved here too.

Honestly, I agree. Hate thoughts themselves don't cause violence, stupidity causes violence.

[Folgrath]

To be unbiased one should step back and realize if it is a joke w/ people one truly knows than it's fine but it is worse than that when it is mentioned to harm even in the slightest terms so overall it tis not

[Des-Bal]

My ideal would be that the state does not interfere with private organizations that are bigoted toward members, employees, or customers, and that those organizations would eventually fail as we as a society would punish them by boycotting them, ostracizing them, and calling them out.

The problem is that this isn't guaranteed to happen and in fact some organizations can thrive despite their bigotry, and that some forms of bigotry can be so pervasive in certain areas that those discriminated against lack alternatives.

I decline to accept it as a tragedy that someone's business doesn't fail or that people don't want something is a justification for bringing the law in.

There are also places where certain goods and services are not available at all.

[Tornado Queendom]

My ideal would be that the state does not interfere with private organizations that are bigoted toward members, employees, or customers, and that those organizations would eventually fail as we as a society would punish them by boycotting them, ostracizing them, and calling them out.

The problem is that this isn't guaranteed to happen and in fact some organizations can thrive despite their bigotry, and that some forms of bigotry can be so pervasive in certain areas that those discriminated against lack alternatives.

First, I agree with the first part. There will ALWAYS be organizations that support civil rights, as well as organizations supporting free speech.
Second, there's a solution for those discriminated in areas that don't have alternatives: Move! It's not that expensive these days.

[Sirocca]

I don't know if that sounds entirely coherent but I still see where your going with this.
It's funny because even TV-Y/TV-Y7/TV-G content once in a while had content that can be perceived as so-called "discrimination".

Welcome to Blockblister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOmgVgrQi_0

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?