Should businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?

[dblack]

Of course it is not and can not be a federal policy.
But all cities and states always have regulations preventing discrimination if you are going to be open to the public.

I don't believe you. Post some proof.

 

[dblack]

Government is in charge of all crimes.
That is the decision we made when we created mercenary police.
A risky choice, but it does reduce lynching.

???

 

[Rigby5]

I don't believe you. Post some proof.

This is just ACLU discussion, but they are generally right in my opinion.

{...

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate​

...
New Mexico is one of 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) that prohibit businesses who hold themselves out to the general public from discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation. But Elane Photography argues that the law cannot be applied to its services because – unlike the services provided by a restaurant or retail store – photography is a form of expression and forcing Elane Photography to provide services on an equal basis would therefore unconstitutionally “compel speech.”

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.
...}

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate | ACLU

www.aclu.org

People depend upon private enterprise in order to survive.
So it is a basic infringement on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to discriminate.
It is fundamental.

 

[Rigby5]

???

The alternative to having government enforce laws against crime, is to go back before we had police, around 1900.
Or even further is you want to go back before we had judges, prisons, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Before you answer "yes", ask yourself of you --really-- believe a buisness should be required to treat Trump supprters equally and impartially.

 

[dblack]

This is just ACLU discussion, but they are generally right in my opinion.

{...

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate​

...
New Mexico is one of 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) that prohibit businesses who hold themselves out to the general public from discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation. But Elane Photography argues that the law cannot be applied to its services because – unlike the services provided by a restaurant or retail store – photography is a form of expression and forcing Elane Photography to provide services on an equal basis would therefore unconstitutionally “compel speech.”

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.
...}

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate | ACLU

www.aclu.org

People depend upon private enterprise in order to survive.
So it is a basic infringement on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to discriminate.
It is fundamental.

Thanks for that. Interesting read. But it doesn't prove what you think. In fact, it acknowledges what I'm saying:

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic.

ie the headline is only referring to discrimination re: the protected classes.

Unfortunately, like so many things political, there's a lot of equivocation on this issue. For a lot of people "discrimination" means "illegal discrimination", so saying that all "discrimination is illegal" is redundant. But in reality, there are infinitely many ways to discriminate. Only a very few kinds are, currently, illegal.

But I'm curious about your vision of things should work. For example, could a business discriminate against people who stink? Can a restaurant kick someone out for having a foul odor?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

In another thread we were discussing what Trump and the Republicans are after with the lawsuit against Twitter, and their desire to "crack down" on social media.

bripat9643 offered the following:


I'm not calling out bri here, just wondering if that's a general consensus. Should we require businesses to treat everyone equally and impartially?

I voted yes, assuming the intention of your query was with regard to equal opportunity related to federally-protected classes like race, religion, disability, etc. Current law, basically.

If you mean things like giving everyone the same raise, or give men maternity leave and rest rooms as "nice" as the women have, or equal outcomes, I'm strongly against that.

Please clarify what you mean by "treat everyone equally and impartially." An example or two relative to what you are thinking would be helpful.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[dblack]

I voted yes, assuming the intention of your query was with regard to equal opportunity related to federally-protected classes like race, religion, disability, etc.

If you mean things like giving everyone the same raise, or give men maternity leave and rest rooms as "nice" as the women have, or equal outcomes, I'm strongly against that.

Well, that's exactly the issue. Some people confuse the two. They actually think that the goal, and effect, of anti-discrimination laws are to prevent ALL kinds of discrimination, or otherwise require businesses to treat everyone equally.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Out of curiosity, if you own a website and don't want to let Trump supporters post, do you think that should that be allowed?

No, because that happens to be the 1984 shit, via the internet & gadgets aiming to twist our minds in their favor by primarily global left elite. However, your everyday business owner should have every right to refuse service of their labor within common sense terms, I mean WTF, you going to refuse service still cuz someone is black? Wholly shit, that's rooted Democrat shit, even they figured some things out eventually. The smart ones just blow off the people they dislike and make up a reason, happens all the time, FREEDOM.

 

[jc456]

In another thread we were discussing what Trump and the Republicans are after with the lawsuit against Twitter, and their desire to "crack down" on social media.

bripat9643 offered the following:


I'm not calling out bri here, just wondering if that's a general consensus. Should we require businesses to treat everyone equally and impartially?

sure, once you explain what you're looking for. All businesses treat employees equally and impartially. name one who doesn't.

 

[jc456]

What do you think about the topic? Should all businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?

who doesn't?

 

[dblack]

sure, once you explain what you're looking for. All businesses treat employees equally and impartially. name one who doesn't.

All of them.

 

[dblack]

who doesn't?

Everyone.

 

[jc456]

All of them.

how? name how they don't treat each employee equally? anyone can just make a stupid statement like you did. back it up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Should businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?”

‘Required’ by whom – the state or private citizens; no to the former, yes to the latter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Twitter has rules of conduct
So does USMB

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned

Correct.

Private organizations have the right to determine who will or will not be a member.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Twitter and Facebook treated Trump impartially

Even if they didn’t, even if they were unfair to Trump, it still doesn’t ‘justify’ government violating the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are a fair number of people who support getting rid of all public accommodation laws.

And they’re almost always the people that know it wouldn’t affect themselves whatsoever.

True.

And attempting to conflate public accommodations laws with social media fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper regulatory measures authorized by the Commerce Clause that ensure the stability of the markets and overall economic prosperity where businesses open to the general public which refuse to accommodate patrons based on race or religion would be disruptive to the markets and jeopardize economic prosperity.

Twitter is not banning the accounts of subscribers because they’re black or Muslim; they’re banning the accounts of subscribers who violate the rules – such as racist hate speech or inciting terrorist attacks against America’s democracy – completely unrelated to public accommodations laws.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong.
The problem with minorities is they do not have enough economic clout to alter the actions of businesses, which is why law enforcement is necessary.
It matters little to the retailer if he is constrained by law to not discriminate, but it makes a huge difference to the victims of discrimination.
Discrimination can never be allowed.
Once you fail to prosecute discrimination, you don't have a democracy any more and the whole system if a fraud that has to be destroyed and started over.

I said, in my post, that we have discrimination laws to address that.

 

[dblack]

how? name how they don't treat each employee equally? anyone can just make a stupid statement like you did. back it up.

I forgot what an idiot you are. Nevermind.