Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[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.

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.

Not everyone can move. That assumes that one has a job lined up in another city or state (and most employers would rather hire someone already in the area), that a person has savings, that a person can afford the costs of moving. It's not a thing anyone can do.

[Tornado Queendom]

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?

Yes, it's because of left-wing extremism. It's as bad as Jihadism, if not slightly worse. And Jihadism is EVIL! The best for us is a monarchy, because we need a KING to deal with this.

[Page]

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?

Yes, it's because of left-wing extremism. It's as bad as Jihadism, if not slightly worse. And Jihadism is EVIL! The best for us is a monarchy, because we need a KING to deal with this.

We all remember when left-wing SJWs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings

[Tornado Queendom]

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.

Not everyone can move. That assumes that one has a job lined up in another city or state (and most employers would rather hire someone already in the area), that a person has savings, that a person can afford the costs of moving. It's not a thing anyone can do.

Well, they can always start their own company. Private enterprise exists, you know. Or they can stay in their mother's basement, which might be their best option.

[North Acren]

To a degree, yes. Freedom of Speech is something many people forget now-a-days. Take this example: A pretty popular streamer on Twitch got her account banned for saying there is only two genders. (Lets not start a debate about this, please keep it focused on the debate at hand, yes?) She just mentioned her beliefs and she was permanently banned as her words "Might offend anyone in the LGBT community." But isn't there an Amendment that says "Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press"? To me that is outright wrong of them to do that, regardless of how the conversation started, but due to the increasing pressure and support for these groups companies will blatantly ignore the 1st Amendment to keep other people happy. This is wrong and should not be happening. However if this right gets misinterpreted by some racist idiot things can turn violent, even deadly. So while you should be able to say what you think this doesn't mean you need to take action against said group.

[Page]

Not everyone can move. That assumes that one has a job lined up in another city or state (and most employers would rather hire someone already in the area), that a person has savings, that a person can afford the costs of moving. It's not a thing anyone can do.

Well, they can always start their own company. Private enterprise exists, you know. Or they can stay in their mother's basement, which might be their best option.

Yes, anyone can just up and start their own company, cause we all have lots of capital to do just that...

Did you grow up in the kind of house that the kid in your school whose parents drove a 2 year old Lexus was considered the poor kid?

[Saiwania]

My belief is that there is a right to discriminate for private individuals, but not so for businesses.

I can choose to not live where Black people live, but so far as hiring decisions or customer service goes, you can't just turn them away out of hand. Their money is presumably still good and we can't have businesses disenfranchising people like individuals can, otherwise it'll be bad for the economy and social order.

My ideal scenario: people do what is more right or professional at work, but after work hours- people can do or be more like what they really want provided they're "off the clock."

[Abdu Sabduli]

Actually, there SHOULD be a right. Discrimination almost always counts as free speech, and banning Discrimination will lead to the slow death of free speech. Why? Because there is no end! The left will keep moving the goalpost, and eventually, anything even remotely edgy (example: The WWE's Attitude and Ruthless Aggression eras) would be banned. We should deal with discrimination in a different way.

Exactly! If a business wants to make less money by not serving people then who is to force them to sell to everyone equally. Let the market decide. The government shouldn’t tell us how to run our own businesses. It’s ridiculous

[San Lumen]

Actually, there SHOULD be a right. Discrimination almost always counts as free speech, and banning Discrimination will lead to the slow death of free speech. Why? Because there is no end! The left will keep moving the goalpost, and eventually, anything even remotely edgy (example: The WWE's Attitude and Ruthless Aggression eras) would be banned. We should deal with discrimination in a different way.

Exactly! If a business wants to make less money by not serving people then who is to force them to sell to everyone equally. Let the market decide. The government shouldn’t tell us how to run our own businesses. It’s ridiculous

And what if a store is the only one in town? too bad?

[Des-Bal]

And what if a store is the only one in town? too bad?

What if there aren't any stores in town? too bad?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

there absolutely should not be. only fascists think otherwise.

[San Lumen]

And what if a store is the only one in town? too bad?

What if there aren't any stores in town? too bad?

what kind of question is that? No municipality is required to have a type of store in town.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

There needs to be a basis in law. Why has no court ruled this right exists?

Why would a whites only restaurant or only whites need apply be ok?

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

Nazi.

[Trumptonium1]

Ideally no but this is impossible to achieve.

Kaepernick was fired because of discrimination, and so were right-wing Google employees. This is impossible to stop, so generally I'm open to discrimination on political grounds in all cases including employment.

I'm also very much open to discrimination on other basis including status (Costco etc.) and every other choice out there, including religion.

I don't think any other form of discrimination against a non-chooseable characteristic should be allowed except in cases of ensuring national security for the greater good, although I realise that's very vague and pretty abuseable.

[Estanglia]

there absolutely should not be. only fascists think otherwise.

Yeah. Totally.

[Des-Bal]

what kind of question is that? No municipality is required to have a type of store in town.

And yet the world hasn't ended. The guy the store won't sell to will probably be fine, just like he would if that store closed.

[Trumptonium1]

Exactly! If a business wants to make less money by not serving people then who is to force them to sell to everyone equally. Let the market decide. The government shouldn’t tell us how to run our own businesses. It’s ridiculous

And what if a store is the only one in town? too bad?

The British Army is the only Army in the UK. It has an explicit policy against self-identified fascists joining up.

Is this not discrimination going by your logic?

[Liriena]

Not insofar as denying others goods, services, housing or employment.

[San Lumen]

what kind of question is that? No municipality is required to have a type of store in town.

And yet the world hasn't ended. The guy the store won't sell to will probably be fine, just like he would if that store closed.

Not selling to certain people is quite different from going out of business. The store closing hurts everyone in town not some.

[Tornado Queendom]

And what if a store is the only one in town? too bad?

The British Army is the only Army in the UK. It has an explicit policy against self-identified fascists joining up.

Is this not discrimination going by your logic?

OK, so the government shouldn't discriminate based on politics. However, private enterprise should be able to discriminate if they want to.

[New haven america]

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?

Is that why MTV and FX are constantly showing reruns of them? Because they're too edgy (Read: Tame) for modern day TV?

[Des-Bal]

Not selling to certain people is quite different from going out of business. The store closing hurts everyone in town not some.

Yes but to the individual there's no difference, he lives in an area where a service is unavailable.

[San Lumen]

The British Army is the only Army in the UK. It has an explicit policy against self-identified fascists joining up.

Is this not discrimination going by your logic?

OK, so the government shouldn't discriminate based on politics. However, private enterprise should be able to discriminate if they want to.

again why?

Not selling to certain people is quite different from going out of business. The store closing hurts everyone in town not some.

Yes but to the individual there's no difference, he lives in an area where a service is unavailable.

As does everyone else if the store closes.

[Hammer Britannia]

To an extent, yes, but it should always go both ways.

If Africans don't want whites in their private business, so be it. If whites don't want Africans in their private business so be it.

But don't come crying to me when you go bankrupt for discriminating against X% of the population.

[Des-Bal]

As does everyone else if the store closes.

And there's no difference to the individual.