Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

So where is the evidence for the "reality?"

In American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.

Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.

Start here: United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And here: Pure Food and Drug Act A Muckraking Triumph

And here: Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're using a case where government got scammed as proof that the free market needs to be regulated? Since when is government part of the free market?

I've already explained that legislation proves nothing other than that some politicians wanted to get their names in the papers.

I'll just stick with the real world for now, where every nation on earth with capitalism regulates it.

Is that the real world where many nations in the world throw gays off the top of buildings, prevent them from getting married and generally persecute them?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The U.S. Army is not the free market. Government is free to put whatever controls on its own processes it likes to prevent it from getting scammed. That proves nothing about the need for regulating the market. Government needs to regulate itself first.

I don't think you bothered to read the link. The Army didn't butcher nor pack the meat. It bought the meat from three big Chicago companies. They weren't government owned. They simply sold the government beef - highly adulterated, unsanitary, spoiled, toxic, dangerous beef. The beef that sickened and killed our soldiers in Cuba was the exact same product they were selling to the public here in the United States. Why? Because they could. Nobody was stopping them until the muckrakers stirred enough shit about it that the government had to come down with the legislation you don't believe in and end their free reign to poison our people in the name of saving a buck.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

No. I believe in the Freedom of Association clause in the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

The U.S. Army is not the free market. Government is free to put whatever controls on its own processes it likes to prevent it from getting scammed. That proves nothing about the need for regulating the market. Government needs to regulate itself first.

I don't think you bothered to read the link. The Army didn't butcher nor pack the meat. It bought the meat from three big Chicago companies. They weren't government owned. They simply sold the government beef - highly adulterated, unsanitary, spoiled, toxic, dangerous beef. The beef that sickened and killed our soldiers in Cuba was the exact same product they were selling to the public here in the United States. Why? Because they could. Nobody was stopping them until the muckrakers stirred enough shit about it that the government had to come down with the legislation you don't believe in and end their free reign to poison our people in the name of saving a buck.

That's not what your article says:

The contract for the meat was arranged hurriedly and at the lowest-possible price by Secretary of War Russell A. Alger from the Chicago "big three" meatpacking corporations, Morris & Co, Swift & Co, and Armour & Co. In the atmosphere of pre-regulation-era Chicago, the companies took advantage of Alger's inattention and favorable attitude to the industry (as well as the Army's immediate need for large amounts of cheap beef to provision the expeditionary forces) by further cutting corners and reducing quality on the (already heavily adulterated) product they shipped for the US contract.​

I don't see any evidence about the quality of the beef they didn't sell to the army. The two were obviously not the same. The term "heavily adulterated" is so vague as to be meaningless.

 

[Ravi]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

It depends.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

That's right. No one's religious beliefs empower them to deny services to anyone that are provided to everyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No. I believe in the Freedom of Association clause in the Constitution.

Private association.

 

[dblack]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

 

[bripat9643]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

That's right. No one's religious beliefs empower them to deny services to anyone that are provided to everyone else.

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Oh but it does, in the real world, that you don't live in.

 

[bripat9643]

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Oh but it does, in the real world, that you don't live in.

Note the word "legitimate." Apparently you don't know what that means.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Oh but it does, in the real world, that you don't live in.

Note the word "legitimate." Apparently you don't know what that means.

I know what it means, just as I know that you are an infant.

The world you want to live is doesn't exist, anywhere on this whole ******* planet, unless you are on an island of one.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I thought we settled over 50 years ago what "open to the public" meant.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

 

[dblack]

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.

I thought we settled over 50 years ago what "open to the public" meant.

Not so much.

 

[dblack]

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Would a requirement that all customers are treated equally be reasonable? Would, say, senior citizen's discounts qualify as discrimination from that perspective? Should they be allowed? If they were prohibited, would that be a violation of the business owner's rights?

It sounds more like what you're saying is that, locally and within reason, it's fine for government to violate a business owner's rights in the name of public interest. And that's ok, I suppose. It happens all the time and will no doubt always be the case. But I think you can appreciate that I'm trying to hammer out the principle behind this and see how it plays out more broadly. Because that seems to be where we're headed.

 

[bripat9643]

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Oh but it does, in the real world, that you don't live in.

Note the word "legitimate." Apparently you don't know what that means.

I know what it means, just as I know that you are an infant.

The world you want to live is doesn't exist, anywhere on this whole ******* planet, unless you are on an island of one.

Neither does the world you want to live in, thank god.

In this world monsters like you aren't free to kill Jews:

 

[bripat9643]

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Would a requirement that all customers are treated equally be reasonable? Would, say, senior citizen's discounts qualify as discrimination from that perspective? Should they be allowed? If they were prohibited, would that be a violation of the business owner's rights?

It sounds more like what you're saying is that, locally and within reason, it's fine for government to violate a business owner's rights in the name of public interest. And that's ok, I suppose. It happens all the time and will no doubt always be the case. But I think you can appreciate that I'm trying to hammer out the principle behind this and see how it plays out more broadly. Because that seems to be where we're headed.

There is no principle behind it other than the principle of "gibs me dat."

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

That's right. No one's religious beliefs empower them to deny services to anyone that are provided to everyone else.

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Of course the Constitution legitimately empowers the government that power. Now it's the end of story.