Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Skylar]

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

We know the law. The point is the law violates our rights. You don't refute that by continually citing the law.

Your right to treat someone else like shit and treat them unfairly? These seem to be the only rights many conservatives value.

Commerce is a public activity, not necessarily a private one. Commerce is the method by which we distribute goods and services. We need these goods and services to survive and prosper. Thus, free access to commerce is an expression of practical freedom.

You're approaching commerce strictly as a private act, with no public implications. And admittedly, there are methods of commerce that fall into this category. PA laws apply to those forms of commerce that are public. And consequently, fall both legally and rationally within the authority of the state to regulate.

 

[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.

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.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Freedom of association means you aren't required to interact with them in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, you complete avoided responding to the initiation of force issue.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

 

[lake avenue]

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.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wrong, Sparkles. What part of the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" made you think it was okay to say, "Think what you want, but don't tell anyone or act on it"? The First Amendment is written the way it is because our Founding Fathers understood that true belief and freedom of conscience requires more than just thinking; it requires doing.

And sorry, but choosing not to cater a wedding is not "acting against" anyone. It's just choosing not to participate. Acting against would be trying to prevent other people from catering it, or burning down the reception hall, or whatever.

Americans don't have the right of self-determination? Since when? This assertion is based on what evidence? What designer drug are you on today?

 

[bripat9643]

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

We know the law. The point is the law violates our rights. You don't refute that by continually citing the law.

Your right to treat someone else like shit and treat them unfairly? These seem to be the only rights many conservatives value.

Commerce is a public activity, not necessarily a private one. Commerce is the method by which we distribute goods and services. We need these goods and services to survive and prosper. Thus, free access to commerce is an expression of practical freedom.

You're approaching commerce strictly as a private act, with no public implications. And admittedly, there are methods of commerce that fall into this category. PA laws apply to those forms of commerce that are public. And consequently, fall both legally and rationally within the authority of the state to regulate.

All commerce between individuals and privately owned businesses is private commerce. The "public "commerce" meme is just some bullshit liberals invented so they could pretend these laws didn't violate your freedom of association. So-called "public commerce" doesn't even exist. It's a meaningless term.

Just as you have no right to enter another person's house, you have no right to remain in a private business if the owner tells you to leave, for whatever reason. You certainly have no right to force him to provide you with any product or service.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Wrong. Freedom of association means you aren't required to interact with them in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, you complete avoided responding to the initiation of force issue.

Says who?

 

[bripat9643]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Where does it say you can't?

The First Amendment was intended precisely to protect your right to be an asshole. Being popular doesn't need to be protected

 

[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.

Wrong, Sparkles. What part of the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" made you think it was okay to say, "Think what you want, but don't tell anyone or act on it"? The First Amendment is written the way it is because our Founding Fathers understood that true belief and freedom of conscience requires more than just thinking; it requires doing.

And sorry, but choosing not to cater a wedding is not "acting against" anyone. It's just choosing not to participate. Acting against would be trying to prevent other people from catering it, or burning down the reception hall, or whatever.

Americans don't have the right of self-determination? Since when? This assertion is based on what evidence? What designer drug are you on today?

The part where it doesn't say you have the right to not do business with people based on their creed/sexuality/gender. Because it doesn't.

I never said otherwise. Choosing to not cater a wedding based on their creed/race/sexuality, however, is.

American's dont have the right to self-determination because self-determination is the process of a nation becoming independent. It's like saying I have the right to be a washing machine; neither statement makes any damn sense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Freedom of association means you aren't required to interact with them in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, you complete avoided responding to the initiation of force issue.

Says who?

The dictionary.

 

[lake avenue]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Where does it say you can't?

The First Amendment was intended precisely to protect your right to be an asshole. Being popular doesn't need to be protected

Typically I would say it doesn't say that because it doesn't mention anywhere about denying people business, but I assume that makes too much sense for you considering you asked that question in the first place.

 

[Skylar]

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

We know the law. The point is the law violates our rights. You don't refute that by continually citing the law.

Your right to treat someone else like shit and treat them unfairly? These seem to be the only rights many conservatives value.

Commerce is a public activity, not necessarily a private one. Commerce is the method by which we distribute goods and services. We need these goods and services to survive and prosper. Thus, free access to commerce is an expression of practical freedom.

You're approaching commerce strictly as a private act, with no public implications. And admittedly, there are methods of commerce that fall into this category. PA laws apply to those forms of commerce that are public. And consequently, fall both legally and rationally within the authority of the state to regulate.

All commerce between individuals and privately owned businesses is private commerce.

Not if you're doing business with the public. And it is this public business that PA laws regulate.

The "public "commerce" meme is just some bullshit liberals invented so they could pretend these laws didn't violate your freedom of association. So-called "public commerce" doesn't even exist. It's a meaningless term.

Says you. And your version of 'freedom of association' is also just you citing you. Neither citation of yourself define any legal principle or definition.

Back in reality, the type of commerce that PA laws regulate are the public kind.

Just as you have no right to enter another person's house, you have no right to remain in a private business if the owner tells you to leave, for whatever reason.

Oh, the owner can certainly insist that 'we don't serve black folks here'. But he's be in violation of the commerce regulation of his state. And thus subject to fines. Commerce is necessary for the survival of a State and a people. And its both right and proper that a State should establish standards of fairness and equality in business.

You insist that commerce is an explicitly private act. Our law has never, not from the moment of our founding, agreed with you.

You certainly have no right to force him to provide you with any product or service.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skylar]

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.

Wrong. Freedom of association means you aren't required to interact with them in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, you complete avoided responding to the initiation of force issue.

Says who?

The dictionary.

Then quote the dictionary saying this. Because so far, you're only quoting yourself.

 

[lake avenue]

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.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

While I agree with much you've said up until now, I do have to point out that this is a fulfillment of Godwin s Law and you've automatically thrown the argument by invoking it.

 

[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.

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.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

 

[bripat9643]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

While I agree with much you've said up until now, I do have to point out that this is a fulfillment of Godwin s Law and you've automatically thrown the argument by invoking it.

Godwin's law isn't a law. It's liberal horseshit designed to protect liberals from valid associations.