Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[dblack]

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?

Ok, that makes sense. That's the way I see those laws too. They're not about protecting equal rights, but squelching irrational biases. I just think government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which biases are irrational and which aren't.

 

[dblack]

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.

I find that citing the commerce clause is almost an admission of how weak the legal justification for these laws is. As if squelching racism has anything to with trade regulation. It's just a technicality they use to facilitate some social engineering otherwise not authorized constitutionally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Actually, they could have. I'm not sure, but I actually believe Woolworth's had separate lunch counters, one for blacks and one for whites. I know they had separate sales counters.

The real point of the civil rights movement, which liberals forget or never knew, was the institutionalized racism, not the individual racists. While Woolworth's had a company policy, in many cases, the segregation was mandated by law, not by the companies, and that was the widespread problem that the movement was really trying to bring attention to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Nonsense.

It's appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy with regard to markets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Actually, they could have. I'm not sure, but I actually believe Woolworth's had separate lunch counters, one for blacks and one for whites. I know they had separate sales counters.

The real point of the civil rights movement, which liberals forget or never knew, was the institutionalized racism, not the individual racists. While Woolworth's had a company policy, in many cases, the segregation was mandated by law, not by the companies, and that was the widespread problem that the movement was really trying to bring attention to.

Wrong.

The origin of the discriminatory policy has no bearing on the merits of PA laws.

Your lies intended to make legitimate discrimination is typical of most on the right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).

In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?

I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.

Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.

 

[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.

I'd be happy to discriminate against you!

but that would be based on him being vile... not the color of his skin, his religion or anything else that's protected.

You're the last person in the world who should be attacking the right to be vile.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

These are state laws. Now federal laws. Making any reference to the federal commerce clause irrelevant.

The PA laws are federal laws.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

It only includes transaction that cross state lines. The baker and the Pizzaria don't fit the bill.

For the federal interstate commerce clause. Which is irrelevant to this discussion. As PA laws are State laws, involving INTRAstate commerce.

You've confused inter state and intra state, despite the two terms being exact opposites.

Any reference to the federal commerce clause is irrrelevant ignorance. It doesn't apply to State PA laws. Or limit state authority over the regulation of intrastate commerce in anyway.

States may have their own PA laws that extend the federal laws to homosexuals, but otherwise federal law is what we're talking about.

 

[dblack]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Actually, they could have. I'm not sure, but I actually believe Woolworth's had separate lunch counters, one for blacks and one for whites. I know they had separate sales counters.

The real point of the civil rights movement, which liberals forget or never knew, was the institutionalized racism, not the individual racists. While Woolworth's had a company policy, in many cases, the segregation was mandated by law, not by the companies, and that was the widespread problem that the movement was really trying to bring attention to.

Wrong.

The origin of the discriminatory policy has no bearing on the merits of PA laws.

Your lies intended to make legitimate discrimination is typical of most on the right.

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

 

[bripat9643]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

Hooray, someone gets it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

... 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...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

You don't know much about event planning and catering, clearly.

 

[bripat9643]

... 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...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

You don't know much about event planning and catering, clearly.

You could have stopped at "you don't know much."

 

[Skylar]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

Hooray, someone gets it.

Of course I get it -- I'm not a control-seeking liberal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

 

[hunarcy]

... 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...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

Ah, so what you're REALLY saying is that people should not be allowed to own and operate a business unless you agree with how they run that business.

 

[Skylar]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion. They regulate actions of those engaged in commerce. And the state has every authority to regulate commerce.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

... 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...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

Ah, so what you're REALLY saying is that people should not be allowed to own and operate a business unless you agree with how they run that business.

If you won't follow our rules, don't open the business.