Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[ChrisL]

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Wrong.

'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.

The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.

Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Hopefully this is just a joke.

It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?

As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life. If you open a business, the rules are different.

Only a little. You can still discriminate against most people. As long as you steer clear of the protected classes.

Yes, you can discriminate against a person for personal reasons I believe. Like, this guy robbed my store before or was caught stealing. Things like that, yes.

 

[dblack]

The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.

Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Hopefully this is just a joke.

It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?

As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life. If you open a business, the rules are different.

Only a little. You can still discriminate against most people. As long as you steer clear of the protected classes.

Yes, you can discriminate against a person for personal reasons I believe. Like, this guy robbed my store before or was caught stealing. Things like that, yes.

It doesn't have to personal. You can discriminate based on anything you like as long as it's not covered by the protected classes.

 

[dblack]

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class. Lol.

And would you still support the law if it is added?

 

[ChrisL]

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class. Lol.

And would you still support the law if it is added?

Sorry, I'm not going to humor you. That is just silly. Keep it real, K?

 

[dblack]

You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again, and think about it before responding.

Sorry but you are just wrong. What else can one say?

Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say why you think someone is wrong.

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry but you are just wrong. What else can one say?

Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say why you think someone is wrong.

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

No, when you violate another person's civil rights, by discriminating against them, that is where your "freedom" to do what you want ends, and this is how it is applied to business associations because it is in NOBODY's best interest, and especially not the state's best interest or the people's best interest. The idea behind the law is that everyone has access and no one can discriminate.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada. My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

From Wikipedia

Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.

All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada. My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

From Wikipedia

Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.

All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.

I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice. Eww.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada. My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

From Wikipedia

Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.

All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.

I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice. Eww.

I know, right?

Can you imagine if this man walked in? LOL! Would you like your back hair combed or braided? Yikes!

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't wanna think about that anymore.

 

[ChrisL]

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada. My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

From Wikipedia

Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.

All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.

I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice. Eww.

I know, right?

Can you imagine if this man walked in? LOL! Would you like your back hair combed or braided? Yikes!

All kinds of sweaty, gross, smelly dudes. Man, a person must be really desperate to do that for a living.

 

[dblack]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada. My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

What are you talking about? I suppose you're missing the point on purpose, rather than addressing it. Can you just answer the question? Should such women be legally prevented from turning people down for the "wrong" reasons? Or should that remain a personal choice, even though money might change hands, even though they might work in a 'public accommodation'?

 

[dblack]

Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say why you think someone is wrong.

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

No, when you violate another person's civil rights, by discriminating against them, that is where your "freedom" to do what you want ends, and this is how it is applied to business associations because it is in NOBODY's best interest, and especially not the state's best interest or the people's best interest. The idea behind the law is that everyone has access and no one can discriminate.

That's indeed how it's supposed to work. The only justification for limiting our rights is the protection of the rights of others. But that's not what's happening here. There is no individual right to not be discriminated against

 

[Ravi]

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry but you are just wrong. What else can one say?

Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say why you think someone is wrong.

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

 

[dblack]

Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say why you think someone is wrong.

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

 

[dblack]

Were you hiring a hooker?

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.

You think the majority will aways be on your side?

 

[Ravi]

For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

 

[Ravi]

No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.

You think the majority will aways be on your side?

The majority is rarely on my side.