Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

 

[Ravi]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

I'd be happy to discriminate against you!

 

[Ravi]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

 

[Skylar]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

The issue is commerce. If its commerce related, the State's authority to regulate intrastate commerce is unquestioned.

Outside of commerce, not so much.

 

[depotoo]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Nope.

 

[Skylar]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Nope.

So businesses have no right to refuse service to a potential customer based on their beliefs, except when those beliefs are the same as yours? Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage then afford a Muslim owned business the right not to serve pork because they have a deep moral conviction that eating pigs is a sin? Don't get me twisted here either. I totally understand the argument that business owners have no right to freedom of association. I don't agree with it but I can respect it. I just can't respect hypocrisy.

 

[depotoo]

No, I'm not. You are trying to be too simplistic. My first 2 examples are of 2 parties agreeing to enter into a contract on mutual terms. If the terms are not mutual then, no contract is sealed. My 3rd example has the backing of many that are against guns, and those same people question a contract with a business, which is based on terms of mutual agreement, signed and sealed, would never question a businesses right to refuse service, if it is against their principles, in the case of a legal permit carrying gun owner.

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm not. You are trying to be too simplistic. My first 2 examples are of 2 parties agreeing to enter into a contract on mutual terms. If the terms are not mutual then, no contract is sealed. My 3rd example has the backing of many that are against guns, and those same people question a contract with a business, which is based on terms of mutual agreement, signed and sealed, would never question a businesses right to refuse service, if it is against their principles, in the case of a legal permit carrying gun owner.

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Yes, you are overthinking it. A muslim restaurant doesn't sell pork anymore than it sells car washes. Failing to sell a product your business doesn't sell isn't 'discrimination'.

If you sell cake, then you have to sell cake to everyone. if you sell pizza, then you have to sell pizza to everyone.

Its actually quite simple.

 

[norwegen]

Forcing us not to discriminate is to think for us.

Liberalism has given birth to Big Brother, our savior.

 

[Skylar]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Nope.

So businesses have no right to refuse service to a potential customer based on their beliefs, except when those beliefs are the same as yours? Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage then afford a Muslim owned business the right not to serve pork because they have a deep moral conviction that eating pigs is a sin? Don't get me twisted here either. I totally understand the argument that business owners have no right to freedom of association. I don't agree with it but I can respect it. I just can't respect hypocrisy.

Nope. As a Muslim restaurant doesn't sell pork to anyone. While a baker sells cake to everyone.

Failing to sell a product you don't carry isn't 'discrimination'. Failing to sell a product you do carry most definitely can be.

 

[Foxfyre]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

IMO if we would return to a concept of regulating society via custom and culture instead of via demand and trying to control people, we would eliminate a lot of uglies in our society.

 

[Skylar]

Forcing us not to discriminate is to think for us.

Liberalism has given birth to Big Brother, our savior.

Its requiring a minimum code of conduct while performing business in a given state.

 

[Skylar]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

 

[Ravi]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

IMO if we would return to a concept of regulating society via custom and culture instead of via demand and trying to control people, we would eliminate a lot of uglies in our society.

A Christian baker can already choose to sell only heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

 

[norwegen]

Forcing us not to discriminate is to think for us.

Liberalism has given birth to Big Brother, our savior.

Its requiring a minimum code of conduct while performing business in a given state.

A "minimum code of conduct."

Still an undergrad in Poli. Sci.?

 

[Skylar]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?