Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Elwher]

Jumping in late, so my apologies if this has been brought out.

There does not need to be a right to discriminate in the Constitution, all rights not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the States or to the people in general. The only way that the Civil Rights Act was able to be enforced on local businesses was due to an awful Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). This case, in effect, said that by not participating in interstate commerce one affects interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. This means that no business is free from being under the thumb of the Feds.

In my opinion, if a business owner wants to restrict his customer base by not serving Catholics, Arabs, or Red Headed stepchildren, that is his business decision to make and I may well decide to open up in his town to serve these customers. And yes, I know that is not how the current law works, which is why I said it should be and not it is.

[Yusseria]

I was under the impression greyhound was a private entity. Well it should be.but that’s a different conversation.

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

What stops a bus company from doing that is boycotts. You act as though there's no real solution, that minorities if they put their mind to it can't stop these companies that abuse them. That my sir is what I find really offensive of your demeanor.

Also denying a service =/= being prejudice and given certain services to certain people. You try to make a comparison with the buses, but denying a service is different then treating people like luxury whilst others like cattle. It was bad service to a certain group of people, not the denial of service that did the buses in.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

Because buses are a public service. Hotels are private businesses.

But Greyhound or any other bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldnt they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

I'm not really too well versed on bus companies, but if they are privately owned then, yes, they should be able to discriminate.

But public transport companies like NJ Transit shouldn't be able to.

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

Because, as I've said a million times now, hotels are private businesses. They aren't public. They exist purely to make money for their owner. You don't have a right to force someone to provide you with a service.

[Grinning Dragon]

I was under the impression greyhound was a private entity. Well it should be.but that’s a different conversation.

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

What stops a bus company from doing that is boycotts. You act as though there's no real solution, that minorities if they put their mind to it can't stop these companies that abuse them. That my sir is what I find really offensive of your demeanor.

Also denying a service =/= being prejudice and given certain services to certain people. You try to make a comparison with the buses, but denying a service is different then treating people like luxury whilst others like cattle. It was bad service to a certain group of people, not the denial of service that did the buses in.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

Because buses are a public service. Hotels are private businesses.

But Greyhound or any other bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldn't they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

A hotel absolutely has the right to choose who does or doesn't enter the premises.
I do have to ask, how would said hotel or any other place know you are gay or not? Are you putting on a parade full of pomp and fare and loudly declaring your sexuality?
Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut and appear gay than to remove all doubt by opening it.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I was under the impression greyhound was a private entity. Well it should be.but that’s a different conversation.

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

What stops a bus company from doing that is boycotts. You act as though there's no real solution, that minorities if they put their mind to it can't stop these companies that abuse them. That my sir is what I find really offensive of your demeanor.

Also denying a service =/= being prejudice and given certain services to certain people. You try to make a comparison with the buses, but denying a service is different then treating people like luxury whilst others like cattle. It was bad service to a certain group of people, not the denial of service that did the buses in.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

Because buses are a public service. Hotels are private businesses.

But Greyhound or any other bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldnt they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

Yes, the practice of segregated buses was deemed wrong, but that was a form of business practice.

Discrimination is very subjective, I can perceive something as discriminatory, where as others don't. Denying service is not a business practice. Denying service is a action that private owners take when it comes to troublemakers, of course there are those who take it to another level, which is why it is used by discriminatory people, but to compare it to segregated buses is fallacious and deceitful, as you are comparing a company decision to a business practice.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that you act like boycotting does nothing, which does a real disservice to bus boycotters.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

I was under the impression greyhound was a private entity. Well it should be.but that’s a different conversation.

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

What stops a bus company from doing that is boycotts. You act as though there's no real solution, that minorities if they put their mind to it can't stop these companies that abuse them. That my sir is what I find really offensive of your demeanor.

Also denying a service =/= being prejudice and given certain services to certain people. You try to make a comparison with the buses, but denying a service is different then treating people like luxury whilst others like cattle. It was bad service to a certain group of people, not the denial of service that did the buses in.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

Because buses are a public service. Hotels are private businesses.

But Greyhound or any other intercity bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldnt they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

Then absolutely they should be if they are private.

[San Lumen]

Jumping in late, so my apologies if this has been brought out.

There does not need to be a right to discriminate in the Constitution, all rights not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the States or to the people in general. The only way that the Civil Rights Act was able to be enforced on local businesses was due to an awful Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). This case, in effect, said that by not participating in interstate commerce one affects interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. This means that no business is free from being under the thumb of the Feds.

In my opinion, if a business owner wants to restrict his customer base by not serving Catholics, Arabs, or Red Headed stepchildren, that is his business decision to make and I may well decide to open up in his town to serve these customers. And yes, I know that is not how the current law works, which is why I said it should be and not it is.

so why dont you challenge it by opening a business and restricting your customer base? I dont see whats wrong with that decision. Everything is interconnected.

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

But Greyhound or any other bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldnt they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

I'm not really too well versed on bus companies, but if they are privately owned then, yes, they should be able to discriminate.

But public transport companies like NJ Transit shouldn't be able to.

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

Because, as I've said a million times now, hotels are private businesses. They aren't public. They exist purely to make money for their owner. You don't have a right to force someone to provide you with a service.

So if Greyhound said we are going to make all non whites sit at the back of the bus that's their right to do so?

And why should someones money not be good because of the color go their skin or who they love? i say again if your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

[San Lumen]

It seems they are a private entity. The government doesnt own them.

And a law was passed to keep other bus companies from doing the same thing and prevent anyone else from discriminating in their business. I dont see what;'s wrong with that.

But Greyhound or any other bus company is privately owned. Its not run by the government so why shouldn't they have the right to serve who they want or segregate their buses?

Why should a hotel be able to deny a paying customer simply for what they look like or who they love? A hotel is different from a home. You can choose who enters your house a hotel doesn't have that right.

A hotel absolutely has the right to choose who does or doesn't enter the premises.
I do have to ask, how would said hotel or any other place know you are gay or not? Are you putting on a parade full of pomp and fare and loudly declaring your sexuality?
Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut and appear gay than to remove all doubt by opening it.

no thats not what i said,

Im referring to two men checking into to a hotel room and the hotel denying them the room because they are gay or assuming they are.

[Grinning Dragon]

A hotel absolutely has the right to choose who does or doesn't enter the premises.
I do have to ask, how would said hotel or any other place know you are gay or not? Are you putting on a parade full of pomp and fare and loudly declaring your sexuality?
Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut and appear gay than to remove all doubt by opening it.

no thats not what i said,

Im referring to two men checking into to a hotel room and the hotel denying them the room because they are gay or assuming they are.

Again how would the clerk even know? The clerk could ask, and the reply can be "no" if asked.

[Yusseria]

Jumping in late, so my apologies if this has been brought out.

There does not need to be a right to discriminate in the Constitution, all rights not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the States or to the people in general. The only way that the Civil Rights Act was able to be enforced on local businesses was due to an awful Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). This case, in effect, said that by not participating in interstate commerce one affects interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. This means that no business is free from being under the thumb of the Feds.

In my opinion, if a business owner wants to restrict his customer base by not serving Catholics, Arabs, or Red Headed stepchildren, that is his business decision to make and I may well decide to open up in his town to serve these customers. And yes, I know that is not how the current law works, which is why I said it should be and not it is.

so why dont you challenge it by opening a business and restricting your customer base? I dont see whats wrong with that decision. Everything is interconnected.

I'm not really too well versed on bus companies, but if they are privately owned then, yes, they should be able to discriminate.

But public transport companies like NJ Transit shouldn't be able to.


Because, as I've said a million times now, hotels are private businesses. They aren't public. They exist purely to make money for their owner. You don't have a right to force someone to provide you with a service.

So if Greyhound said we are going to make all non whites sit at the back of the bus that's their right to do so?

Yes.

And why should someones money not be good because of the color go their skin or who they love?

Because you don't have the right to force them to serve you.

i say again if your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

No.

[San Lumen]

no thats not what i said,

Im referring to two men checking into to a hotel room and the hotel denying them the room because they are gay or assuming they are.

Again how would the clerk even know? The clerk could ask, and the reply can be "no" if asked.

perhaps they simply assume and its a room with one bed.

[Grinning Dragon]

Again how would the clerk even know? The clerk could ask, and the reply can be "no" if asked.

perhaps they simply assume and its a room with one bed.

Meh, I've shared a room with a co worker back in the day, and just requested a cot or one of us would sleep on the floor.

[San Lumen]

perhaps they simply assume and its a room with one bed.

Meh, I've shared a room with a co worker back in the day, and just requested a cot or one of us would sleep on the floor.

Ok and why should a gay couple have to request a cot or one of them sleeps on the floor?

[Grinning Dragon]

Meh, I've shared a room with a co worker back in the day, and just requested a cot or one of us would sleep on the floor.

Ok and why should a gay couple have to request a cot or one of them sleeps on the floor?

I'm just saying two guys can rent a room and wasn't a big deal.

[San Lumen]

so why dont you challenge it by opening a business and restricting your customer base? I dont see whats wrong with that decision. Everything is interconnected.

So if Greyhound said we are going to make all non whites sit at the back of the bus that's their right to do so?

Yes.

And why should someones money not be good because of the color go their skin or who they love?

Because you don't have the right to force them to serve you.

i say again if your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

No.

So this case was wrongly decided according to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browder_v._Gayle

That's the case that declared the bus law in Montomgery and across the state unconstitutional as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment protections for equal treatment.

And what if in small town in Mississippi or Missouri no one will serve anyone whose non white? They should all just move or drive to the next town?

[San Lumen]

Ok and why should a gay couple have to request a cot or one of them sleeps on the floor?

I'm just saying two guys can rent a room and wasn't a big deal.

You know what Im saying. Your just dodging.

[The Great-German Empire]

It depends on what one means by 'discrimination'. Of course one should be able to act on their preferences for certain people or types of people, but a problem arises when those preferences manifest themselves in an outright prejudice for some group of people or other - and such a prejudice is held by powerful members of society whose will affects the opportunities, dignities and livelihoods of thousands, is not millions, of people. Due to this occurrence, I hold that there should not be one universally accepted standard on discrimination, but if I were to personally draw the line I would allow discrimination to happen when it's on a bilateral level. One person likes or dislikes another for any reason, that's alright. There's an argument also to be made for small businesses acting individually to have unorthodox standards on who they hire and who they serve. With large utility and necessity providers, however, discrimination in hiring and service is unacceptable.

[San Lumen]

It depends on what one means by 'discrimination'. Of course one should be able to act on their preferences for certain people or types of people, but a problem arises when those preferences manifest themselves in an outright prejudice for some group of people or other - and such a prejudice is held by powerful members of society whose will affects the opportunities, dignities and livelihoods of thousands, is not millions, of people. Due to this occurrence, I hold that there should not be one universally accepted standard on discrimination, but if I were to personally draw the line I would allow discrimination to happen when it's on a bilateral level. One person likes or dislikes another for any reason, that's alright. There's an argument also to be made for small businesses acting individually to have unorthodox standards on who they hire and who they serve. With large utility and necessity providers, however, discrimination in hiring and service is unacceptable.

Why should the size of the business matter?

[Grinning Dragon]

I'm just saying two guys can rent a room and wasn't a big deal.

You know what Im saying. Your just dodging.

I'm not dodging.
Get a room, request a cot if you want to throw off suspicion, then don't use the cot. Sheesh.
You know, lie? Lie like a mother fucker. They aren't going to know if you don't say anything.

[San Lumen]

You know what Im saying. Your just dodging.

I'm not dodging.
Get a room, request a cot if you want to throw off suspicion, then don't use the cot. Sheesh.
You know, lie? Lie like a mother fucker. They aren't going to know if you don't say anything.

And why should they have too?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

I'm not dodging.
Get a room, request a cot if you want to throw off suspicion, then don't use the cot. Sheesh.
You know, lie? Lie like a mother fucker. They aren't going to know if you don't say anything.

And why should they have too?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?
Seriously get a grip, it’s someone else’s property, they make the rules.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And why should they have too?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?
Seriously get a grip, it’s someone else’s property, they make the rules.

Agreed, on all accounts.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The other thing is that honestly I don’t think anti discriminator laws work

They do. You don’t see any “Whites Only” signs anymore.

[San Lumen]

And why should they have too?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?
Seriously get a grip, it’s someone else’s property, they make the rules.

Ok let me put this into a scenario maybe you could sympathize with.

A gay couple is attending a wedding in a small town on the sea at Oceanview Hotel and they live far away in a big city. The bride and groom pre book a bunch of rooms for those attending. Our gay couple shows up with their luggage and says they are here for the wedding of John and Sarah. They never thought to ask for cot as the room was pre booked and paid for them.

The clerk says "sorry but we don't serve gay couples here and I will not check you in. You'll have to find another place to stay" or however they phase it. Why should their experience of the wedding be ruined and perhaps that of the bride and groom be ruined too?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?
Seriously get a grip, it’s someone else’s property, they make the rules.

Ok let me put this into a scenario maybe you could sympathize with.

A gay couple is attending a wedding in whatever town at X Hotel and they live far away in a big city. The bride and groom pre book a bunch of rooms for those attending. Our gay couple shows up with their luggage and says they are here for the wedding and John and Sarah. They never thought to ask for cot as the room was pre booked and paid for them.

The clerk says "sorry but we don't serve gay couples here and I will not check you in. You'll have to find another place to stay" or however they phase it. Why should their experience of the wedding and perhaps that of the bride and groom be ruined too?

It’s someone else’s property they make the rules.

[The Great-German Empire]

Why should the size of the business matter?

Because marketshare. This is one of those issues where there is no objective moral good side, so there needs to be a certain setting in which principles are mostly upheld but without an unreasonable cost to overall quality of life.