Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[dblack]

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

 

[Skylar]

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Nope. As those using a religious justification found when they refused to serve gays. It doesn't matter if you do it because you hate gay folks....or your religion prevents it. The act is what is regulated.

But hey, give us some examples. Lets say you run a business that won't serve black folks in your neighborhood. Give us a few examples of WHY you're discriminating that wouldn't violate PA laws.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Good luck in court with that. Unless the guy was dressed only in a g-string at your family restaurant you're pretty well fucked.

 

[dblack]

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

 

[Ravi]

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

 

[dblack]

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Nope. As those using a religious justification found when they refused to serve gays. It doesn't matter if you do it because you hate gay folks....or your religion prevents it. The act is what is regulated.

The act is refusing service. That isn't illegal unless you do it for prohibited reasons.

And my question is - why should only certain reasons, only certain biases, be targeted? Why should only certain protected classes be able to demand equal treatment? How is that equal rights? That's why I asked the question in the OP. Do you believe everyone should have the right to not be discriminated against? Or just those covered the current list of protected classes?

 

[dblack]

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

 

[dblack]

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Good luck in court with that. Unless the guy was dressed only in a g-string at your family restaurant you're pretty well fucked.

It happens all the time.

Oh - almost forgot - Fuck you troll!

 

[Skylar]

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Nope. As those using a religious justification found when they refused to serve gays. It doesn't matter if you do it because you hate gay folks....or your religion prevents it. The act is what is regulated.

The act is refusing service. That isn't illegal unless you do it for prohibited reasons.

Alright. Lets test the theory. Lets say you run a business that won't serve black folks in your neighborhood. Give us a few examples of WHY you're discriminating that wouldn't violate PA laws.

And my question is - why should only certain reasons, only certain biases, be targeted?

Because we agree it does. There are certain types of acts that we find egregious enough that we legislate against it. Others are merely frowned upon, though not illegal.

We've already had this philosophical discussion of the basis of law. And we're not dismantling all discrimination laws because you disagree with that basis.

 

[dblack]

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Nope. As those using a religious justification found when they refused to serve gays. It doesn't matter if you do it because you hate gay folks....or your religion prevents it. The act is what is regulated.

The act is refusing service. That isn't illegal unless you do it for prohibited reasons.

Alright. Lets test the theory. Lets say you run a business that won't serve black folks in your neighborhood. Give us a few examples of WHY you're discriminating that wouldn't violate PA laws.

Nah. I'm not a lawyer, and unless I'm going to bill you lawyer rates, I'm not interested in such a tedious exercise. I AM interested in the moral principles used to justify these laws, and I appreciate that you are not.

 

[Skylar]

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

Nope. As those using a religious justification found when they refused to serve gays. It doesn't matter if you do it because you hate gay folks....or your religion prevents it. The act is what is regulated.

The act is refusing service. That isn't illegal unless you do it for prohibited reasons.

Alright. Lets test the theory. Lets say you run a business that won't serve black folks in your neighborhood. Give us a few examples of WHY you're discriminating that wouldn't violate PA laws.

Nah. I'm not a lawyer, and unless I'm going to bill you lawyer rates, I'm not interested in such a tedious exercise. I AM interested in the moral principles used to justify these laws, and I appreciate that you are not.

Translation: there is no such basis. As its the act of discrimination that's regulated. Not the reason for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 matter how offended he may be by doing so, a Jewish baker must indeed bake a wedding cake for a Nazi couple.

 

[Ravi]

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

No it doesn't but the next time a poor fat old person gets turned down for a cake, get back to me and we can address it.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

I depends on why you're discriminating. Are you really denying that? If you don't serve a gay because he's dressed funny, that's legal. If it's because you don't approve of his sexual orientation, that's not - in some states.

He's trying to tell you "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service is legal" no matter if you are gay or not .....................

I can legally refuse service when you fail to meet dress codes of my establishment, while I can't refuse to serve properly dressed gays or blacks.............

Come on think, I know it is above your pay grade.

 

[dblack]

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

No it doesn't but the next time a poor fat old person gets turned down for a cake, get back to me and we can address it.

What do you mean? Are you saying everyone should be protected from discrimination? That's what I was trying to get at with the OP? Is the protected classes list really trying to protect everyone, and just missing the mark? Or is it just a set aside to target certain biases?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

You miss the point. If a business doesn't serve or sell pork, you can't expect them to sell you pork. Religion has nothing to do with it. But if the business sells wedding cakes, then expecting them to sell you a wedding cake is reasonable.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

You miss the point. If a business doesn't serve or sell pork, you can't expect them to sell you pork. Religion has nothing to do with it. But if the business sells wedding cakes, then expecting them to sell you a wedding cake is reasonable.

If the gays want to walk in and buy a generic cake off the shelf that is fine, if they expect toe baker to interact with them against their will that is totally different.

I have asked this question repeatedly and yet to get an answer, so when does the rights of the protected class trump the rights of the non protected class??

When do you have the right to force them to bake against their moral values / religion with your biased laws??

 

[Ravi]

Just give me a couple of examples.

Jeez... ok., Two women apply for a job at Hooters. One is a twenty something hottie who's never held a job, the other a frumpy grandmother with an excellent resume in the service industry. Who wins? Why?

Bunch of people are lined up outside an exclusive LA nightclub. The bouncer/doorman is picking and choosing who gets in based on how they look - and the good-looking/well-to-do clearly get preference. You've really never heard of such a thing?

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

No it doesn't but the next time a poor fat old person gets turned down for a cake, get back to me and we can address it.

What do you mean? Are you saying everyone should be protected from discrimination? That's what I was trying to get at with the OP? Is the protected classes list really trying to protect everyone, and just missing the mark? Or is it just a set aside to target certain biases?

I think PA laws cover people that are discriminated against for irrational reasons. There are some rational reasons to discriminate. Because gays or blacks or Christians make you squeamish is not a rational reason.

So, no, it wouldn't make sense to say that everyone should be protected against discrimination. Then we'd have men sleeping in tents with girl scouts and how stupid would that be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

My personal feeling is that with things everyone basically contributes to - government entities, essentially - we have a right to non-discrimination. Private citizens and privately-owned businesses? Their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of association takes precedence over any desire of others, because there is no right to have other people like you, approve of you, or pretend that they do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

The issue is commerce. If its commerce related, the State's authority to regulate intrastate commerce is unquestioned.

Outside of commerce, not so much.

Where does the law actually say that the State has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce? It's says interstate in the Constitution. And it certainly doesn't indicate the sweeping, absolute power you ascribe to it.