Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[San Lumen]

Recently I have seen comments and heard several politicians say there ought to be a right to discriminate by privately owned business of which the rationale I dont understand

According to some the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws should apply only to government owned business or essential services like a hotel, that it is the owners right to choose who they do business with or who they hire.

Where in the constitution is this alleged right?

No one should face discrimination simply because of what they look like or because they are LGBT. Everyone is equal under the law and deserves to be treated equally .

If you want to discriminate then open a private club though I dont think even a business like Costco would be able to get away with only allowing certain groups of people to shop there. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

[Sperio]

NO. Discrimination is not nor will ever be a right

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

[San Lumen]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

[Tornado Queendom]

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.

[Tornado Queendom]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

I agree TBH

[Estanglia]

Recently I have seen comments and heard several politicians say there ought to be a right to discriminate by privately owned business of which the rationale I dont understand

According to some the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws should apply only to government owned business or essential services like a hotel, that it is the owners right to choose who they do business with or who they hire.

Where the constitution is this alleged right?

A right doesn't need to be in the constitution to be a right.

No one should face discrimination simply because of what they look like or because they are LGBT. Everyone is equal under the law and deserves to be treated equally .

If you want to discriminate then open a private club though I dont think even a business like Costco would be able to get away with only allowing certain groups of people to shop there. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

If your business isn't funded by the government or isn't an essential service, then yes. You should be able to choose who you do and don't serve or hire.

[Vaxian Imperium]

Yes there should be in my opinion.

[Tornado Queendom]

Yes there should be in my opinion.

I agree, because the alternative would be everything edgier than Care Bears (Which sucks IMO) being illegal.

[San Lumen]

Recently I have seen comments and heard several politicians say there ought to be a right to discriminate by privately owned business of which the rationale I dont understand

According to some the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws should apply only to government owned business or essential services like a hotel, that it is the owners right to choose who they do business with or who they hire.

Where the constitution is this alleged right?

A right doesn't need to be in the constitution to be a right.

No one should face discrimination simply because of what they look like or because they are LGBT. Everyone is equal under the law and deserves to be treated equally .

If you want to discriminate then open a private club though I dont think even a business like Costco would be able to get away with only allowing certain groups of people to shop there. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?

If your business isn't funded by the government or isn't an essential service, then yes. You should be able to choose who you do and don't serve or hire.

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?

[San Lumen]

Yes there should be in my opinion.

why?

[Vaxian Imperium]

A right doesn't need to be in the constitution to be a right.




If your business isn't funded by the government or isn't an essential service, then yes. You should be able to choose who you do and don't serve or hire.

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.

[Tornado Queendom]

A right doesn't need to be in the constitution to be a right.




If your business isn't funded by the government or isn't an essential service, then yes. You should be able to choose who you do and don't serve or hire.

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?

Because it has pushed too far, and an abolition of the discrimination ban would be an excuse for other companies to hire other races as their advantage. Besides, other companies banning discrimination would be perfect for an ad anyways. Also, some people only feel comfort from their own race.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Not to strawman people, but if you think there should be a right to discriminate, shouldn't there also be a right to murder? A right to steal? A right to arson? All three could be justified in the name of free speech, along with several other crimes that I can't mention because this is PG-13. In fact, murder, theft and arson have a stronger case for free speech: all three have been used as forms of political protest and have a justification for being so.

[Salcanceacy]

Its a no brainer we naturally discriminate. It's not a matter if we should be allowed to discriminate, it's where the limit is. Which these days a simple critic, warrants as disproportionate amount of backlash.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

Under the 1st Amendment legally.
The Court has recognized the freedom of association.
N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000)

[Hystaria]

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.

[Estanglia]

A right doesn't need to be in the constitution to be a right.




If your business isn't funded by the government or isn't an essential service, then yes. You should be able to choose who you do and don't serve or hire.

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

Ask the courts.

We're talking about whether there should be a right. The fact that it doesn't exist in law right now doesn't matter to whether it should exist unless you think that the law is absolute.

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

It wouldn't.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, freedom of association and all that.

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

Lots of courts have recognized it. It comes from the first amendment.
From the Google search page on the first amendment.

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects five basic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free- dom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. These civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.

[Tornado Queendom]

Not to strawman people, but if you think there should be a right to discriminate, shouldn't there also be a right to murder? A right to steal? A right to arson? All three could be justified in the name of free speech, along with several other crimes that I can't mention because this is PG-13. In fact, murder, theft and arson have a stronger case for free speech: all three have been used as forms of political protest and have a justification for being so.

I actually want these three to be legal too, because it can usually be solved by fighting back anyways.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

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.

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?

Because it has pushed too far, and an abolition of the discrimination ban would be an excuse for other companies to hire other races as their advantage. Besides, other companies banning discrimination would be perfect for an ad anyways. Also, some people only feel comfort from their own race.

And some people feel comfort if they murder or strip in public or sexually assault people. But we don't let them get away with it. We also don't let people tie themselves to buildings or squat even if they find it more comfortable. In fact, many people only feel comfortable from torture and violence. This is a very slippery slope.

[San Lumen]

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.

And? Open a private club then. You do not have a right to pick and choose who you serve.

Where in the Constitution is this freedom of association and why has no court recognized it?

Under the 1st Amendment legally.
The Court has recognized the freedom of association.
N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000)

Then why not declare this right exists for all business?

[Tornado Queendom]

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.

[Estanglia]

Not to strawman people, but if you think there should be a right to discriminate, shouldn't there also be a right to murder? A right to steal? A right to arson? All three could be justified in the name of free speech, along with several other crimes that I can't mention because this is PG-13. In fact, murder, theft and arson have a stronger case for free speech: all three have been used as forms of political protest and have a justification for being so.

No because they're quite different. The right to discriminate comes from the idea of Freedom of Association. Murder, arson and stealing don't fall under Freedom of Association.

[Ifreann]

Always love when people propose going back to a situation that, in its day, brought about exactly the thing they don't like about today.

Bring back legal discrimination? Last time discrimination was legal people got it banned. Make it legal again and people will ban it again. Duh.