Anti-discrimination laws un-American?

[manifold]

IMO, it is hypocritical and un-American to claim to value freedom and liberty while at the same time support laws that deny others the freedom to exercise their personal, discriminating judgement, however offensive it may be to another's personal moral compass and principles. I see so many people, especially on the left, claim to oppose legislating morality. Why make an exception here?

 

[Tech_Esq]

IMO, it is hypocritical and un-American to claim to value freedom and liberty while at the same time support laws that deny others the freedom to exercise their personal, discriminating judgement, however offensive it may be to another's personal moral compass and principles. I see so many people, especially on the left, claim to oppose legislating morality. Why make an exception here?

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

 

[Amanda]

IMO, it is hypocritical and un-American to claim to value freedom and liberty while at the same time support laws that deny others the freedom to exercise their personal, discriminating judgement, however offensive it may be to another's personal moral compass and principles. I see so many people, especially on the left, claim to oppose legislating morality. Why make an exception here?

It's an interesting question... I will be eager to see if anyone on the Left will answer it seriously.

 

[manifold]

Are you saying I should be free to hire whoever I please to resurface my driveway?

No. I'm saying you should be free to NOT hire anyone you please for any reason you please. The difference is subtle but material.

 

[manifold]

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

A bigoted, bible thumping landlord who refuses to rent apartments to gays, blacks and atheists. I'd consider such a person a total asshole, but I wouldn't seek to deny him his freedom to be such an asshole.

 

[manifold]

I don't get the difference, please explain. If I can refuse to hire anyone for any reason then I am also free to hire anyone for any reason.

If you don't get it, no amount of me trying to explain will likely do any good.

 

[manifold]

Too bad for you...

That I left that worm alone!

 

[Modbert]

A bigoted, bible thumping landlord who refuses to rent apartments to gays, blacks and atheists. I'd consider such a person a total asshole, but I wouldn't seek to deny him his freedom to be such an asshole.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to apartments?

It does apply to things like colleges, and work places though if I am remembering correctly.

 

[Jon]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to apartments?

It does apply to things like colleges, and work places though if I am remembering correctly.

And it shouldn't. I think mani has made a great point.

I really think affirmative action is complete bullshit. Always have, always will. It's the exact definition of reverse racism.

 

[William Joyce]

IMO, it is hypocritical and un-American to claim to value freedom and liberty while at the same time support laws that deny others the freedom to exercise their personal, discriminating judgement, however offensive it may be to another's personal moral compass and principles. I see so many people, especially on the left, claim to oppose legislating morality. Why make an exception here?

Someone's gonna call Homeland Security on you for thinking rationally.

The truth is that the freedom to decide with whom you'll work and live is more basic than even speech. But we don't have that freedom. That's because we live in a nation that's descended into multiracial madness, and the main screw-targets are whites.

Think about it: declining to associate with someone is a completely non-violent course of action. What if men spurned could force, by law, the female object of their affections to date them? That's essentially what anti-discrimination law is. It forces the willing and unwilling together. That's complete bullshit.

All anti-discrimination laws should be trashed.

And, by the way, that would mean blacks could discriminate against whites, if they wanted.

 

[manifold]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to apartments?

You'd be mistaken.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

 

[Amanda]

I was just sure there would be lots of liberals here to refute these ideas.

 

[dilloduck]

I was just sure there would be lots of liberals here to refute these ideas.

They've been taking a pretty good licking tonight

 

[Amanda]

They've been taking a pretty good licking tonight

You should start a "how long do Liberals like to be licked" thread. I won't tell Gunny.

 

[dilloduck]

You should start a "how long do Liberals like to be licked" thread. I won't tell Gunny.

oh damn hon----you know he locks those !!!

 

[Anguille]

You'd be mistaken.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

Maybe I can explain it to you, why it's right for the government to outlaw discrimination in employment and rental housing.

It's a question of the greater good of the commonwealth outweighing the wishes of an individual.

It's harmful to society for the citizens to be segregated and denied opportunities according to race, religion, sexual preference etc.

If you want to run a business in this country you are obliged to comply with laws that protect the public from harmful business practices. Same as having to comply with laws that protect the environment.

Some property owners think that owning property equals the right to establish a fiefdom. But no one really truly owns property other than their own bodies. And just barely that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

A bigoted, bible thumping landlord who refuses to rent apartments to gays, blacks and atheists. I'd consider such a person a total asshole, but I wouldn't seek to deny him his freedom to be such an asshole.

I see. Well, you would have to be careful not run afoul of "Right to Travel" laws. Basically, you, as an owner of a "public accommodation" like a restaurant or hotel, cannot discriminate. See the Heart of Atlanta Motel case for more info.

There are various other "rights" that the Supremes have anointed us with that you may not be able to find in the Constitution and you would have to not violate any of those "rights" with discrimination. Remember when there is a "right" there is a winner and a loser. A person claims a right to do something at a "cost" to some other group of people.

In this case the right to be able to freely travel the roads and cities of America trumps the right of private owners to discriminate against individuals.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Part of the social contract entails giving up some liberties. If you live under a state, you are at least tacitly accepting the rules and norms imposed on you by that state- and in fact, in any state you live, you are always giving up some freedom.

Lets say that state has a law that you can't kill somebody... Well, that's an explicit curtailing of you natural freedom to do as you choose. Maybe whoever you want to kill deserves it. But you can't do it, because the state limits your freedom. You can argue that you're not hurting anybody by talking, but others can argue differently, and that appears to be the louder voice, consider that you live in a supposedly democratic society.

What I'm wondering is, I mean, if discrimination laws and social services provided by the state are just SUCH a problem, if your liberty is SO curtailed by that, then why not either 1) try to change it or 2) move somewhere where there's none of that? I mean, if you don't like any of these things, why not move to Somalia or Western Pakistan? They don't have any of that there. You're free to discrimnate, kill, and NOT use public utilities to your hearts content. Just food for thought.

 

[Dante]

And it shouldn't. I think mani has made a great point.

I really think affirmative action is complete bullshit. Always have, always will. It's the exact definition of reverse racism.

this idiot keeps repeating this like the more he says it the truer it could become.

rectifying past actions by society and the powers that be, is not the same thing as the text book definition of racism. the difference between the two is deeper and starker than the difference here between mani and ravi:


Originally Posted by Ravi:
Quote: Are you saying I should be free to hire whoever I please to resurface my driveway?

Originally Posted by mani:
Quote: No. I'm saying you should be free to NOT hire anyone you please for any reason you please. The difference is subtle but material.


Originally Posted by Ravi:
Quote:
I don't get the difference, please explain. If I can refuse to hire anyone for any reason then I am also free to hire anyone for any reason.

Originally Posted by mani:
Quote:
If you don't get it, no amount of me trying to explain will likely do any good.

 

[Dante]

but I am one. And I will refute whatever ideas worth refuting that you are/were talking about. Which ones were you talking about besides the ones mani posted if any?

I was just sure there would be lots of liberals here to refute these ideas.