Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, I'm not. You are trying to be too simplistic. My first 2 examples are of 2 parties agreeing to enter into a contract on mutual terms. If the terms are not mutual then, no contract is sealed. My 3rd example has the backing of many that are against guns, and those same people question a contract with a business, which is based on terms of mutual agreement, signed and sealed, would never question a businesses right to refuse service, if it is against their principles, in the case of a legal permit carrying gun owner.

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.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Yes, you are overthinking it. A muslim restaurant doesn't sell pork anymore than it sells car washes. Failing to sell a product your business doesn't sell isn't 'discrimination'.

If you sell cake, then you have to sell cake to everyone. if you sell pizza, then you have to sell pizza to everyone.

Its actually quite simple.

So if you sell a cake with only the pre-listed wedding tops, then that is all they sell. So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[lake avenue]

No, I'm not. You are trying to be too simplistic. My first 2 examples are of 2 parties agreeing to enter into a contract on mutual terms. If the terms are not mutual then, no contract is sealed. My 3rd example has the backing of many that are against guns, and those same people question a contract with a business, which is based on terms of mutual agreement, signed and sealed, would never question a businesses right to refuse service, if it is against their principles, in the case of a legal permit carrying gun owner.

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.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Yes, you are overthinking it. A muslim restaurant doesn't sell pork anymore than it sells car washes. Failing to sell a product your business doesn't sell isn't 'discrimination'.

If you sell cake, then you have to sell cake to everyone. if you sell pizza, then you have to sell pizza to everyone.

Its actually quite simple.

So if you sell a cake with only the pre-listed wedding tops, then that is all they sell. So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

The issue is that bakeries who have the ability to make these cakes purposely not selling them to gays.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

didnt mean to put a y in front of it. kind of irrelevant, though.

When you do it in every post, it is probably not a typo.

.

I did it in one post to my knowledge. If you care that much, I live in maryland.

.
So you are British...I knew it.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

 

[lake avenue]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

No, I believe that a free market means that anyone can buy anything legally. I also believe that it's the government's duty to protect it's citizens from baseless discrimination that is not protected by freedom of speech. If those two overlap, oh well.

 

[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.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

didnt mean to put a y in front of it. kind of irrelevant, though.

When you do it in every post, it is probably not a typo.

.

I did it in one post to my knowledge. If you care that much, I live in maryland.

.
So you are British...I knew it.

.

they found me out

 

[percysunshine]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.

The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

 

[percysunshine]

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

He wasn't a huge fan or enemy. Concentrated power and wealth both made him jumpy, since they are easily abused.

 

[dblack]

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?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

How would you characterize when it is, and when it's not?

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc).

So, would it be correct to surmise that, in your view, if they didn't know they were being discriminated against because of their race, no harm would be done?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Tbh there has to be some level of regulation just to keep companies from filling out meat with sawdust and firing their employees on their sixth birthday like in the old days. The problem is finding the minimum level of regulation necessary to prevent abuse.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

The only "good reason," is that the world is populated with bootlicking servile toadies who want government running everyone's life. There is also a large class of people who don't want to work and prefer to be parasites. Only government can make that possible.

 

[bripat9643]

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Tbh there has to be some level of regulation just to keep companies from filling out meat with sawdust and firing their employees on their sixth birthday like in the old days. The problem is finding the minimum level of regulation necessary to prevent abuse.

I suppose you have evidence that any company filled meat with sawdust?

How would someone only six years old be working?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

They definitely would. They would win too. So much money, propaganda, and power play would go into it that it couldn't work out any other way.

 

[lake avenue]

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?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

How would you characterize when it is, and when it's not?

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc).

So, would it be correct to surmise that, in your view, if they didn't know they were being discriminated against because of their race, no harm would be done?

No, it's still discrimination regardless of if the recipient knows it or not.