Anti-discrimination laws un-American?

[Dante]

competing interests conflicting with a mani-Randian-Objectivist nitwitticism? Why am I NOT surprised?

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.

 

[Dante]

Originally Posted by mani:
Quote:
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[sic], 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?

I'm saying you should be free to NOT hire anyone you please for any reason you please.

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.


Absolute freedom?

For an ethical moralist like you (you did introduce morals and principles as reasoning), is it ever okay to deny others the freedom to exercise their personal, discriminating judgment, however offensive it may be to your personal moral compass and principles?

What about when IT comes to competing interests? What would you do nothing? Would you not take a stand?

What type of freedom do you espouse a subjective freedom, as in an absolute freedom within reason?

 

[Ravi]

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.

I never thought of it that way. Interesting. Though it does make me wonder...can you discriminate against someone for their intrinsic values if not their skin color? Say Michael Jackson. Could I refuse him a room in my hotel because I think he's a creep?

 

[Dante]

I never thought of it that way. Interesting. Though it does make me wonder...can you discriminate against someone for their intrinsic values if not their skin color? Say Michael Jackson. Could I refuse him a room in my hotel because I think he's a creep?

ravi, this is a straw man issue. All one has to do is post "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in most cases that is sufficient. It is when one gives reasons that one allows for the law to enter. A public place can refuse individuals service, it can ignore them and more. People are looking to play victim here. It is part of the victimization of America.

 

[del]

I never thought of it that way. Interesting. Though it does make me wonder...can you discriminate against someone for their intrinsic values if not their skin color? Say Michael Jackson. Could I refuse him a room in my hotel because I think he's a creep?

he's not coming anywhere near your hotel until you get the driveway fixed.

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

I agree with it ... 50%. While in hiring for jobs and the like the anti-discrimination laws are more likely and actually do hurt the country more, anti-discrimination laws protecting needed services help the country. There needs to be a line in the sand on this, as I have seen the laws taken advantage of way to often, usually resulting in harm to the area or business it is applied. Also, I would like to add, minority scholarships are bull to.

 

[William Joyce]

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.

Anything can be justified by invoking the greater good. If the "greater good" of blacks were served by killing all whites -- as many (our President?) think -- would that be OK?

 

[William Joyce]

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.

Yes, the social contract involves curtailment. But that's hardly the end of the story. To communists, it meant curtailment of EVERYTHING -- the right to own, to make money, to free speech, everything.

Your example of a ban on killing doesn't compare well to anti-discrimination laws. Declining to do business with someone, sell them a house or hire them is not doing any violence to them... and when they force you to with anti-discrimination laws, it's THEY WHO DO THE VIOLENCE TO YOU!

Funny, we consider rape a crime because it violates a woman's right not to have sex with men she doesn't want to have sex with. Anti-discrimination laws essentially make it a crime to object to rape!

 

[manifold]

The fact that even extremists sometimes make valid points really does muddy the waters sometimes doesn't it?

 

[Dante]

Anti-discrimination laws essentially make it a crime to object to rape!

The fact that even extremists sometimes make valid points really does muddy the waters sometimes doesn't it?

shame on you mani. shame!

 

[Dante]

I agree with it ... 50%. While in hiring for jobs and the like the anti-discrimination laws are more likely and actually do hurt the country more, anti-discrimination laws protecting needed services help the country.

What? How? hahahahaha...

Forcing the public transit authority to hire women and people of color hurts the country how?

There needs to be a line in the sand on this, as I have seen the laws taken advantage of way to often, usually resulting in harm to the area or business it is applied. Also, I would like to add, minority scholarships are bull to.

What businesses have you seen harmed? Care to name the ones you've seen it happen to?

and as far as things being taken advantage of...why not get rid of everything that is taken advantage of? But please, answer the questions above

 

[William Joyce]

What businesses have you seen harmed? Care to name the ones you've seen it happen to?

Affirmative action costs the economy BILLIONS.

Do you know what percentage of the federal docket is taken up by racial discrimination cases?

Ten percent.

Know how many of those cases are successful?

Less than ten percent.

Know how much that all costs?

Me neither, but we all pay for it.

Face it: the multiracial society is a colossal fucking FAILURE, propped up by happy corporate media images, including the one created by our new president.

 

[Anguille]

Funny, we consider rape a crime because it violates a woman's right not to have sex with men she doesn't want to have sex with. Anti-discrimination laws essentially make it a crime to object to rape!

If you don't want to allow someone in your vagina or your home because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you have that right. That right has nothing to do with the laws you must comply with if you want to enjoy the privilege of operating a business in this country.

 

[Dante]

What businesses have you seen harmed? Care to name the ones you've seen it happen to?

Affirmative action costs the economy BILLIONS.

Do you know what percentage of the federal docket is taken up by racial discrimination cases?

Ten percent.

Know how many of those cases are successful?

Less than ten percent.

Know how much that all costs?

Me neither, but we all pay for it.

Face it: the multiracial society is a colossal fucking FAILURE, propped up by happy corporate media images, including the one created by our new president.

so you couldn't name any businesses either?

 

[William Joyce]

so you couldn't name any businesses either?

I guess that would be "most of them" because even most too small to be sued for racial discrimination still have to pay high insurance premiums, a cost generated by that, higher costs for goods and services made more expensive by the inefficiencies of affirmative action, and so on.

But ultimately, as with something like higher gas prices, it's the consumers who pay... businesses just pass it along.

Numbers:

Affirmative Action: The Robin Hood Effect

 

[KittenKoder]

I agree with it ... 50%. While in hiring for jobs and the like the anti-discrimination laws are more likely and actually do hurt the country more, anti-discrimination laws protecting needed services help the country.

What? How? hahahahaha...

Forcing the public transit authority to hire women and people of color hurts the country how?

There needs to be a line in the sand on this, as I have seen the laws taken advantage of way to often, usually resulting in harm to the area or business it is applied. Also, I would like to add, minority scholarships are bull to.

What businesses have you seen harmed? Care to name the ones you've seen it happen to?

and as far as things being taken advantage of...why not get rid of everything that is taken advantage of? But please, answer the questions above

Many under qualified people are hired to fill the minority 'quotas' enforced by these laws. Though a qualified person should not be discriminated against, forcing businesses to hire the unqualified person just because of skin color or minority status only hurts them and those who rely on their products and services.