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.

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.

When did Adam Smith say he wanted corporations banned?

 

[dblack]

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.

So, it's the denial of service that does the harm, not the reasoning behind it?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Then you must opposed government social programs, right?

 

[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.

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

How would someone only six years old be working?

You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws:
The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Keating Owen Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The History Place - Child Labor in America Investigative Photos of Lewis Hine
MUCKRAKERS

 

[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.

Then you must opposed government social programs, right?

You got that in English?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

 

[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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

 

[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?

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.

Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Heh. You were right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Told ya...

 

[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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The Jungle" is a work of fiction written by a socialist. Of course, that's the only "proof" that your kind needs.

 

[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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Told ya...

So where is the evidence for the "reality?"

 

[bripat9643]

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Heh. You were right.

PMH is used to being wrong.

 

[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.

Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.

Either you have a direct statement, a refusal to sell, I don't hire *******, etc., or there is a clear and persistent pattern, like a company of 100 people but no blacks in a 12% black population. The courts are not stupid.

 

[dblack]

"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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The Jungle" is a work of fiction written by a socialist. Of course, that's the ony "proof" that your kind needs.

Come on. It was in important expose on really unsanitary food production. Believe it or not, you can be consistent to your principles without putting blinders on and ignoring reality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Told ya...

So where is the evidence for the "reality?"

In American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So where is the evidence for the "reality?"

I've been adding to the list:
The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Keating Owen Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The History Place - Child Labor in America Investigative Photos of Lewis Hine
MUCKRAKERS

You honestly don't think all of this legislation came down because Socialism, do you? You really don't think the pictures of the working conditions and the child workers were faked to punish innocent robber barons?

 

[lake avenue]

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.

So, it's the denial of service that does the harm, not the reasoning behind it?

kinda, another situation like this would be if someone was purposely being rude to someone who's mentally disabled. they might not know someone is being mean to them, doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The Jungle" is a work of fiction written by a socialist. Of course, that's the ony "proof" that your kind needs.

Come on. It was in important expose on really unsanitary food production. Believe it or not, you can be consistent to your principles without putting blinders on and ignoring reality.

That one can't, not a chance in hell.

 

[percysunshine]

"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.

So he did deplore government. I kind of figured.

.