NationStates

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:

And why should that be a right? If a business has that right why not allow a racist or homophobic doctor or EMT to refuse to treat someone non white?

If you don't want to serve all you shouldnt be open to the public. Open a private members only club and you can discriminate to your heart's content. Though im not sure if even Costco could get away with saying only white people can shop here for example.

Because I don’t think hospitals should be privately owned, instead ran by the government. Besides, I’ve already told you that there’s a right to life that needs to be balanced with the right to freedom of association.

That “all” comes with a ton of astericks. Nobody expects any business to serve literally all comers.

But why should a doctor have less rights than the manager of a hotel or the owner of a mattress store? Aren't you forcing them to treat people they dont want to?

and no one is saying they should. If someone is disruptive for example they have every right to ask them to leave or bar them.

Ors Might wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:The freedom of association means you can associate with anyone you want. It is not a right of non-association.

There is no right to be served. There is, however, a right of non-discrimination.

But we are getting off topic. I asked how anyone is hurt by not being allowed to discriminate, besides losing the right itself. If you lose the freedom of association, you can no longer express yourself freely as a person. If you lose the right of expression, you can be punished for thinking a certain way. But if you limit the right to discriminate, what horrific fate will befall humanity?

This does not mean that someoe can’t deny customers. Just not because of their intrinsic properties.

And the freedom of speech means you can’t choose to not speak while the 2A means you have to own a firearm.

No, no this is perfectly on topic. Are you suggesting that a right to not be discriminated against exists? That’s absurd. One wouldn’t hire a blind man as a surgeon or as a school bus driver.

You lose the right to choose with whom you associate with. In other words, you can be compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you’d rather not, backed with the threat of losing your livelihood. That’s not a good foundation for anything to be built on.

See, in the case of the blind bus driver, there is actually a good reason not to allow a blind person to drive a bus.

What good reason is there not to serve a black person a milkshake? Or sell a gay person a car? You are giving a good reason for the blind person, so I expect you can give a good reason for these other people as well.

Not compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you would rather not with. That's absolutely fine. As long as that decision is not solely based on race, sex, religion or gender. You can still freely decide who to enter into contract with, but if you had entered into a contract with someone, and the only reason for not doing that is one of the aforementioned reasons, then you only lose money by not serving those people.

Of course, no-one is threatening 'someone's whole livelihood'. Rather, people are proposing fines. If a person can only do business while being sexist, racist or homophobic, maybe business is just not for that person.

As a society, we have agreed that racism, sexism, and homophobia are wrong. So, I see no problem in banning those ideas from business.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Because I don’t think hospitals should be privately owned, instead ran by the government. Besides, I’ve already told you that there’s a right to life that needs to be balanced with the right to freedom of association.

That “all” comes with a ton of astericks. Nobody expects any business to serve literally all comers.

and no one is saying they should. If someone is disruptive for example they have every right to ask them to leave or bar them.

Should a female civilian be able to discriminate against a male gynecologist, because she is uncomfortable with a male doctor observing that region of her? I mean everything isn’t as cut and dry as you make it.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Ors Might wrote:And the freedom of speech means you can’t choose to not speak while the 2A means you have to own a firearm.

No, no this is perfectly on topic. Are you suggesting that a right to not be discriminated against exists? That’s absurd. One wouldn’t hire a blind man as a surgeon or as a school bus driver.

You lose the right to choose with whom you associate with. In other words, you can be compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you’d rather not, backed with the threat of losing your livelihood. That’s not a good foundation for anything to be built on.

See, in the case of the blind bus driver, there is actually a good reason not to allow a blind person to drive a bus.

What good reason is there not to serve a black person a milkshake? Or sell a gay person a car? You are giving a good reason for the blind person, so I expect you can give a good reason for these other people as well.

Not compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you would rather not with. That's absolutely fine. As long as that decision is not solely based on race, sex, religion or gender. You can still freely decide who to enter into contract with, but if you had entered into a contract with someone, and the only reason for not doing that is one of the aforementioned reasons, then you only lose money by not serving those people.

Of course, no-one is threatening 'someone's whole livelihood'. Rather, people are proposing fines. If a person can only do business while being sexist, racist or homophobic, maybe business is just not for that person.

As a society, we have agreed that racism, sexism, and homophobia are wrong. So, I see no problem in banning those ideas from business.

Because one doesn’t wish to serve them. Good enough reason, since we’ve established that there isn’t a right to be served.

So you are being compelled to enter contracts and agreements. You can’t say that one isn’t and then immediately contradict that. If someone wishes to lose out on another’s currency by not serving them, that’s their right.

The hell we haven’t agreed. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Ors Might wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
See, in the case of the blind bus driver, there is actually a good reason not to allow a blind person to drive a bus.

What good reason is there not to serve a black person a milkshake? Or sell a gay person a car? You are giving a good reason for the blind person, so I expect you can give a good reason for these other people as well.

Not compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you would rather not with. That's absolutely fine. As long as that decision is not solely based on race, sex, religion or gender. You can still freely decide who to enter into contract with, but if you had entered into a contract with someone, and the only reason for not doing that is one of the aforementioned reasons, then you only lose money by not serving those people.

Of course, no-one is threatening 'someone's whole livelihood'. Rather, people are proposing fines. If a person can only do business while being sexist, racist or homophobic, maybe business is just not for that person.

As a society, we have agreed that racism, sexism, and homophobia are wrong. So, I see no problem in banning those ideas from business.

Because one doesn’t wish to serve them. Good enough reason, since we’ve established that there isn’t a right to be served.

So you are being compelled to enter contracts and agreements. You can’t say that one isn’t and then immediately contradict that. If someone wishes to lose out on another’s currency by not serving them, that’s their right.

The hell we haven’t agreed. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Because one doesn’t wish to serve them. Good enough reason, since we’ve established that there isn’t a right to be served.

So you are being compelled to enter contracts and agreements. You can’t say that one isn’t and then immediately contradict that. If someone wishes to lose out on another’s currency by not serving them, that’s their right.

The hell we haven’t agreed. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Because one doesn’t wish to serve them. Good enough reason, since we’ve established that there isn’t a right to be served.

So you are being compelled to enter contracts and agreements. You can’t say that one isn’t and then immediately contradict that. If someone wishes to lose out on another’s currency by not serving them, that’s their right.

The hell we haven’t agreed. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Doctors are employees...

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

I also believe Drs enter into a contract with local and state law detailing on when or why a Dr. can refuse treatment in certain circumstances.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

And a department store doesnt pay its employees to work?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Doctors are employees...

And your point is?

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

The opposite is true also.

San Lumen wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

And a department store doesnt pay its employees to work?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Doctors are employees...

And your point is?

You don't enter into contracts with employees, you enter into contracts with the company who employs them.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Because one doesn’t wish to serve them. Good enough reason, since we’ve established that there isn’t a right to be served.

So you are being compelled to enter contracts and agreements. You can’t say that one isn’t and then immediately contradict that. If someone wishes to lose out on another’s currency by not serving them, that’s their right.

The hell we haven’t agreed. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because the right to life is important? You understand the concept of supporting multiple things, yes?

It being widely accepted doesn’t mean that it should remain the case. You have to be able to create an argument for your beliefs to stand on, even if they’re shared by the majority. Perhaps especially then.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

I also believe Drs enter into a contract with local and state law detailing on when or why a Dr. can reuse treatment in certain circumstances.

Depends on the doctor, see when he produced this example I was thinking emergency doctor, who are folk who attempt to save you regardless of a formed contract. The person was vague, and as such got a lackluster response.

San Lumen wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

And a department store doesnt pay its employees to work?

That’s a crime, a business has to pay employees. It is the law.

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so if business can do that why can't a doctor? Why do they have less rights than a shop owner? You claim its regarding life but why should they have to treat people they dont want to?

It is a widely accepted practice that when you open a business you serve all. There are exceptions yes. But race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity shouldnt factor in.

Because the right to life is important? You understand the concept of supporting multiple things, yes?

It being widely accepted doesn’t mean that it should remain the case. You have to be able to create an argument for your beliefs to stand on, even if they’re shared by the majority. Perhaps especially then.

Yes it is but i don;t understand why some should have less rights than others.

My argument is everyone is equal and no one should have the right to treat anyone as less than them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. One does not have the right to force their bigotry on everyone else. If your not going to serve everyone dont open a business.

Are their exceptions? Yes. Such as disruptive people but you cannot and should not be able to have a policy of only caucasians will be hired or only whites can shop here.

San Lumen wrote:What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

Probably.

Kind of like how freedom of speech protects you from your government and not other people or businesses which can fire you for exercising your freedom. Constitution doesn't say they can't, after all.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:I also believe Drs enter into a contract with local and state law detailing on when or why a Dr. can reuse treatment in certain circumstances.

Depends on the doctor, see when he produced this example I was thinking emergency doctor, who are folk who attempt to save you regardless of a formed contract. The person was vague, and as such got a lackluster response.

San Lumen wrote:
And a department store doesnt pay its employees to work?

That’s a crime, a business has to pay employees. It is the law.

They also take an oath that they treat anyone who walks in the door regardless of ideology, religion, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. That's why they must treat suspected terrorists as well.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Because the right to life is important? You understand the concept of supporting multiple things, yes?

It being widely accepted doesn’t mean that it should remain the case. You have to be able to create an argument for your beliefs to stand on, even if they’re shared by the majority. Perhaps especially then.

Yes it is but i don;t understand why some should have less rights than others.

My argument is everyone is equal and no one should have the right to treat anyone as less than them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. One does not have the right to force their bigotry on everyone else. If your not going to serve everyone dont open a business.

Are their exceptions? Yes. Such as disruptive people but you cannot and should not be able to have a policy of only caucasians will be hired or only whites can shop here.

I think you misunderstand the distinction between a business owner and an employee. Employees can only refuse to serve certain people in line with company policies, an employer sets said policies.

Otira wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

Probably.

Kind of like how freedom of speech protects you from your government and not other people or businesses which can fire you for exercising your freedom. Constitution doesn't say they can't, after all.

Why probably? How are anti discrimination laws and the Civil Rights Act wrong according to you?

Otira wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

Probably.

Kind of like how freedom of speech protects you from your government and not other people or businesses which can fire you for exercising your freedom. Constitution doesn't say they can't, after all.

As dumb as such a thing is.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Because doctors are paid by the hospital to work, they can be fired if the hospital deems them useless, such things like being a racist.

I also believe Drs enter into a contract with local and state law detailing on when or why a Dr. can refuse treatment in certain circumstances.

I imagine it does depend on the state, but there's a significant proportion of hospitals in the US owned by the Church that refuses services such as abortions and contraception.

Alvecia wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:I also believe Drs enter into a contract with local and state law detailing on when or why a Dr. can refuse treatment in certain circumstances.

I imagine it does depend on the state, but there's a significant proportion of hospitals in the US owned by the Church that refuses services such as abortions and contraception.

Which they are, of course, perfectly entitled to do since they are a private company offering services.

San Lumen wrote:

Otira wrote:Probably.

Kind of like how freedom of speech protects you from your government and not other people or businesses which can fire you for exercising your freedom. Constitution doesn't say they can't, after all.

Why probably? How are anti discrimination laws and the Civil Rights Act wrong according to you?

Because I'm still thinking it through. And I gave my comparison.
Do you think businesses should be able to fire you for exercising your freedom of speech? Or should its protections extend over them and not just from the government?

San Lumen wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Depends on the doctor, see when he produced this example I was thinking emergency doctor, who are folk who attempt to save you regardless of a formed contract. The person was vague, and as such got a lackluster response.


That’s a crime, a business has to pay employees. It is the law.

They also take an oath that they treat anyone who walks in the door regardless of ideology, religion, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. That's why they must treat suspected terrorists as well.

If I see a suspected terrorist in my store, I am not gonna treat them equally, I'm calling the cops

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Otira wrote:Probably.

Kind of like how freedom of speech protects you from your government and not other people or businesses which can fire you for exercising your freedom. Constitution doesn't say they can't, after all.

As dumb as such a thing is.

The businesses firing part?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Yes it is but i don;t understand why some should have less rights than others.

My argument is everyone is equal and no one should have the right to treat anyone as less than them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. One does not have the right to force their bigotry on everyone else. If your not going to serve everyone dont open a business.

Are their exceptions? Yes. Such as disruptive people but you cannot and should not be able to have a policy of only caucasians will be hired or only whites can shop here.

I think you misunderstand the distinction between a business owner and an employee. Employees can only refuse to serve certain people in line with company policies, an employer sets said policies.

And why should a business have the right to refuse service to people the management doesnt like because of already mentioned reasons?