Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Okay? Not okay, per se, but do I think they have a right to exercise their beliefs even if I find them noxious.

People always come up with, "What if it were blacks?" like that's supposed to be some radically different trump card. No idea why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Likewise the Westboro Baptists have every right to have an anniversary celebration at their church and a gay baker should have every right to decline baking cupcakes with the Westboro logo on them. And he should not have to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Nor should he have to cater an event for a group that advocated traditional family values.

Heh.
A gay atheist baker forced by the state to bake a "God hates queers!" cake.
Heh.

 

[dblack]

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.

Unless the government is we the people. Sigh. And again, I see it more as protecting the victims of irrational discrimination.

But what we deem irrational is, ultimately, subjective. Especially when it's done via democracy. In reality, the biases and discrimination that are targeted are those that are unpopular with government and voters. That means the targets of such laws will always be minorities that have unpopular views.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And again, I see it more as protecting the victims of irrational discrimination.

How do you define "rational" discrimination? Can you give an example?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The bottom line for me is that the gay couple's right to have a wedding should not trump the baker's right to not participate in one. The baker was not discriminating against a person or persons. The baker was discriminating against an event in which he did not wish to participate.

There should never be a law requiring people to participate in activities or events or go to place they morally or ethically or just aesthetically object to.

Likewise the Westboro Baptists have every right to have an anniversary celebration at their church and a gay baker should have every right to decline baking cupcakes with the Westboro logo on them. And he should not have to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Nor should he have to cater an event for a group that advocated traditional family values.

Likewise the KKK has every right to have a convention and promote whatever ideas or thought come into their white sheeted little pointy heds. But the black caterer or the gay florist or the Christian baker should have every right to choose not to participate in that event in any fashion including providing the buffet or setting up the floral displays or dessert table.

This. Americans understand this. These are our core values.

 

[dblack]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

But it does fall under your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination. Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them. Unless a previous commitment is being violated, I don't see how not helping someone can be construed as harming them. By that reasoning, we all walk around harming people every day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Likewise the Westboro Baptists have every right to have an anniversary celebration at their church and a gay baker should have every right to decline baking cupcakes with the Westboro logo on them. And he should not have to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Nor should he have to cater an event for a group that advocated traditional family values.

Heh.
A gay atheist baker forced by the state to bake a "God hates queers!" cake.
Heh.

It would be poetic justice wouldn't it? But I would as strongly support that gay Atheist baker's right to not participate in that event by having to bake a cake for it as I support the Christian baker not being required to participate in any way in a gay wedding. (I wouldn't do the Westboro Baptist event either but I would have no personal problem providing services for a gay wedding.)

It is the principle involved that should be the guiding motive for the law and not because anybody's feelings might get hurt.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

If you're forced to hire someone that you don't want to hire, then can your business even truly be considered your property? The government is the one making the executive decisions about where and to whom your money is going. If you're going to do this, if you're committed to giving government the final say in basic operations like hiring employees, then why not be honest about what you're doing and nationalize the business wholesale? It's already de facto public property at that point anyway. You've already declared that anyone of the general public has an inalienable right to be on the owner's payrole whether they like it or not.

 

[bripat9643]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

It falls under freedom of association.

You claim to be a libertarian, but you obviously don't know the first thing about it.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Unless the government is we the people. Sigh. And again, I see it more as protecting the victims of irrational discrimination.

But what we deem irrational is, ultimately, subjective. Especially when it's done via democracy. In reality, the biases and discrimination that are targeted are those that are unpopular with government and voters. That means the targets of such laws will always be minorities that have unpopular views.

almost all laws are subjective.

 

[percysunshine]

So how is this any different than Colorados

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.

.
The law in Colorado is 'You are free to smoke a doobie'.

The federal government seems to agree.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So how is this any different than Colorados

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.

The law in Colorado is 'You are free to smoke a doobie'.
The federal government seems to agree.
.

You mean disagree. Federal law prohibits this.

 

[percysunshine]

So how is this any different than Colorados

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.

The law in Colorado is 'You are free to smoke a doobie'.
The federal government seems to agree.
.

You mean disagree. Federal law prohibits this.

Which law?

It has always been assumed by pretty much everyone, but where is the beef?

(this is not an attempt to derail a thread. I am making a point about State vs. Federal law)

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

Yeah.. I don't care. I'm not here to debate what is legal and what is not. I'm discussing the merits and principles of those laws - whether they're worth having in the first place. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I'm equally bored with tedious readings of case law. To each his own, eh?

Then you and I are discussing apples and oranges. You want to discuss your personal opinion of what the law should be. I'm discussing what the law is.

Too bad for you that the thread is about what the law SHOULD be, so hiding behind the skirts of "We got a law passed, so that's it" won't work.

Go away, coward.

 

[lake avenue]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

It falls under freedom of association.

You claim to be a libertarian, but you obviously don't know the first thing about it.

Freedom of association is the right to join and leave groups of a person's own choosing. That has nothing to do with denying someone service based on their creed/gender/sexuality

I would try educating yourself before making ridiculous claims; that way you won't look like an idiot.

 

[lake avenue]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

But it does fall under your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination. Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them. Unless a previous commitment is being violated, I don't see how not helping someone can be construed as harming them. By that reasoning, we all walk around harming people every day.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

It falls under freedom of association.

You claim to be a libertarian, but you obviously don't know the first thing about it.

Freedom of association is the right to join and leave groups of a person's own choosing. That has nothing to do with denying someone service based on their creed/gender/sexuality

Of course it does. Doing business with someone is associating with them. Freedom of associating means you are free not to do business with whomever you choose.

Furthermore, these laws require the government to initiate force against innocent people. You obviously aren't aware that libertarians believe initiation of force is the ultimate evil.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

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.

It's true. Right now, the way these laws are being applied, it's illegal to refuse to cater a wedding because it's for gay people, but it's perfectly legal to refuse to cater a party because it's being held by a BDSM group, for example (I know this from the fetish ball my now-defunct party planning business produced). This is because gays are a protected class, and kinky people aren't. In both cases, the refusal is because of a disapproval of the behavior and lifestyle of the people involved, but only one is punishable by law.

 

[lake avenue]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

It falls under freedom of association.

You claim to be a libertarian, but you obviously don't know the first thing about it.

Freedom of association is the right to join and leave groups of a person's own choosing. That has nothing to do with denying someone service based on their creed/gender/sexuality

Of course it does. Doing business with someone is associating with them. Freedom of associating means you are free not to do business with whomever you choose.

Furthermore, these laws require the government to initiate force against innocent people. You obviously aren't aware that libertarians believe initiation of force is the ultimate evil.

Doing business with someone does not fall under your freedom of association because the freedom of association protects your right to leave and join groups of people. I assume you're just going to have me repeating this over and over again until you get it through your head.

 

[bripat9643]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.

But it does fall under your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination. Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them. Unless a previous commitment is being violated, I don't see how not helping someone can be construed as harming them. By that reasoning, we all walk around harming people every day.

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.

Declining to serve them isn't "acting against them."

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.

Mmmm . . . . no. it protects your right not to interact with them in any way.