Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

 

[Mr. H.]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

 

[dblack]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Discussion's of public accommodation laws center on two basic areas: discussion of how the laws work and what the laws should be. Two different things.

But with that said, I agree with Goldwater, and while I can understand why they were created I think in the long term it was a mistake. Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed to respect the rights of individual business owners of association and property.

On the other hand, there is the States power to regulate commerce. Yes remember there are PA laws that are enacted by the State legislatures.

The two extremes, overly broad PA laws on one side which encompass all private business and on the other no protections for consumers in the realm of business accessibility are oft an individuals position.

Over the years though I've seen two compromise proposals:

1. One is to limit PA laws and to narrowly tailor their application to only those businesses involved in "vital" commerce. Raw food sales on site, on-site foods sales, gas, transportation, housing, medical care, etc. Non-vital and personal service businesses would not be subject to such restrictions.

2. The second option is a public notice option whereby businesses are required to make information available to the public in advance of their business practices. A statement of public access would be maintained on file with the businesses license and would be open to public review. In addition the business would be required to include in advertising a statement of access and have it prominently posted where the customer could see it (entrances, cash resister, etc.). If the business didn't want to service a certain sector of the public, they must provide notice to the public - in advance. A business would be held accountable under PA laws for the policies they say they will follow. A business could change their policy but must do so in writing, filing a new statement of access with their license, and would take effect 30-days after such filing is recorded. The business gets to set their own policies and the public can then make their purchase decisions in an informed manner.​

With that said PA laws should always apply to government entities as to how they conduct business and should include restrictions on government entities ability to contract with private entities. If a business wants to operate under a discriminatory business model, not a problem go for it. However they would be ineligible for (a) government contracts and (b) the sales of goods and services to government entities.


>>>>

 

[Mr. H.]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.

Please expound.

 

[BlackFlag]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.

I haven't quite given up on this one yet.

 

[ChrisL]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

That's what a bigot would say.

 

[ChrisL]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.

I haven't quite given up on this one yet.

Don't let the door hit you . . . .

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.

I haven't quite given up on this one yet.

Don't let the door hit you . . . .

I'm taking off the hinges. Shouldn't be a problem.

 

[PratchettFan]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

 

[Slyhunter]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

 

[PratchettFan]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

 

[Slyhunter]

I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

 

[PratchettFan]

You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

 

[dblack]

My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

 

[PratchettFan]

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?