Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[dblack]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

Sure. The social contract is an agreement to what extent government will be empowered to issue mandates. I think you agree it should be limited in scope and reach.

 

[dblack]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.

But why? And how does this translate to the grey area between business owner and employee. There's more than you might think.

 

[bripat9643]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.

Business owners are people, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

Sure. The social contract is an agreement to what extent government will be empowered to issue mandates. I think you agree it should be limited in scope and reach.

The "social contract" is a liberal myth. It doesn't exist, and it never has.

 

[lake avenue]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.

But why? And how does this translate to the grey area between business owner and employee. There's more than you might think.

I don't see a gray area. If you're a business owner, you own the means of production (in an effort to not sound like a commie), if you want to own the means of production than you have to make sacrifice. Business owners are also in a minority, so it's in the best interest of a democracy to represent the majority.

 

[bripat9643]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

When did I or anyone living agree to these rules?

 

[lake avenue]

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

When did I or anyone living agree to these rules?

The policies are those voted for by the majority. That's a democracy. The discrepancy you're having is called 'tyranny of the majority'. If you have a problem with people you don't vote for making policies you don't like, then you should advocate for reform to something other than a representative democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

When did I or anyone living agree to these rules?

The policies are those voted for by the majority. That's a democracy.

Then it's not a contract. No valid contract has ever been approved by a majority vote. A valid contract requires the explicit consent of everyone who is bound by its terms.

The discrepancy you're having is called 'tyranny of the majority'. If you have a problem with people you don't vote for making policies you don't like, then you should advocate for reform to something other than a representative democracy.

I have been for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

And here I agree that I should not be required to do business with somebody I choose not to do business with whether or not I am a customer or a business owner.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

Sure. The social contract is an agreement to what extent government will be empowered to issue mandates. I think you agree it should be limited in scope and reach.

It should be what the people want it to be. Under liberty they get to say what limits, scope, and reach there will be. How much authority do you want to give the cop to enforce the law? Does the cop get to decide that? No.

How much authority do you give the Fire Chief to regulate fire hazards? Does the Chief get to decide that? No.

But at some point, for the mutual benefit of all, the people choose to have a police force, a fire department, speed limits, traffic lights, or shared water, sewer, natural gas supply etc. And because they don't want to have to go to a town meeting to vote on every expenditure or new ordinance, they delegate that authority to a Mayor and/or City Council to administrate.

Somewhere in there I can see the people voting to have a city wide non discriminatory policy and making that a condition of the business license issued to new businesses. But I also believe a free people would not vote to take away the ability of those in their town to exercise their consciences and ability to say no regarding special orders or participation in activities or events that they cannot approve or condone.

 

[lake avenue]

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

When did I or anyone living agree to these rules?

The policies are those voted for by the majority. That's a democracy.

Then it's not a contract. No valid contract has ever been approved by a majority vote. A valid contract requires the explicit consent of everyone who is bound by its terms.

I'm not talking about whatever contract you guys are talking about, I honestly don't know what that conversation is about.

 

[dblack]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.

But why? And how does this translate to the grey area between business owner and employee. There's more than you might think.

I don't see a gray area. If you're a business owner, you own the means of production (in an effort to not sound like a commie), if you want to own the means of production than you have to make sacrifice. Business owners are also in a minority, so it's in the best interest of a democracy to represent the majority.

Well, everyone owns some share of the "means of production" (at the very least their mind and body), so that in itself creates quite a lot of grey area. A friend of mine is an independent software developer. He has, at any given time, small numbers of clients. He usually codes from home on his own machine, though he does employ the internet heavily to deliver his products to his customers. Is he a business? Does he own the "means of production"? Are his rights the "rights of the people" or does he take a back seat?

How about a small housecleaning service, owned and operated by a pair of sisters with three employees - family members. Do they own the "means of productions". Are they people? Or are they a business?

 

[dblack]

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

When did I or anyone living agree to these rules?

The policies are those voted for by the majority. That's a democracy. The discrepancy you're having is called 'tyranny of the majority'. If you have a problem with people you don't vote for making policies you don't like, then you should advocate for reform to something other than a representative democracy.

Tyranny of the majority can't be prevented by voting or advocacy. It's prevented by previous agreement limiting the scope and reach of government (in our case, codified in a constitution). Without such clear limits, tranny of the majority is an everpresent danger.

 

[lake avenue]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.

But why? And how does this translate to the grey area between business owner and employee. There's more than you might think.

I don't see a gray area. If you're a business owner, you own the means of production (in an effort to not sound like a commie), if you want to own the means of production than you have to make sacrifice. Business owners are also in a minority, so it's in the best interest of a democracy to represent the majority.

Well, everyone owns some share of the "means of production" (at the very least their mind and body), so that in itself creates quite a lot of grey area. A friend of mine is an independent software developer. He has, at any given time, small numbers of clients. He usually codes from home on his own machine, though he does employ the internet heavily to deliver his products to his customers. Is he a business? Does he own the "means of production"? Are his rights the "rights of the people" or does he take a back seat?

How about a small housecleaning service, owned and operated by a pair of sisters with three employees - family members. Do they own the "means of productions". Are they people? Or are they a business?

The means of production does not include the body. No, your friend is not necessarily a business owner. No, he does not own the means of production. A small housecleaning service including employees is a business. In this case, they own the means of production privately. They would take a backseat. A business is defined by a institution that provides a service or produces a good that hires multiple employees. Also as clarification, taking a backseat only applies to legislation applying to business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention all manner of things. It covers them generally, and then subsequent lesser laws spell out the specifics. "Freedom of speech" inherently covers the right to say things that other people consider "asshole-ish". Freedom of religion covers the right to believe things that other people consider "asshole-ish". Free exercise covers acting on beliefs that other people consider "asshole-ish".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

In other words, you know you were wrong, but you're too big a douche to own up. Thanks. Dismissed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

They're not pro-gay. They're anti-government interference in private lives. As am I, quite frankly. I don't think the government has any business hassling gay people, either. Or anyone else.

Doesn't make me pro-gay. I'm just apathetic about other people's lives, and wish they'd leave me out of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

It is if you're a liberal and think that people - approved people - are entitled to the money, service, and approbation of others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

If someone's drowning, and you refuse to save them, you could be seen as harming them.

That's about all I've got.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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). 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.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't harming them. And frankly, I have trouble understanding why their feelings would be particularly hurt. Possibly they should learn to care less about what other people think of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Their underlying issues and lack of handling them are not my problem, my fault, or my responsibility. Denying people service is definitely part of the free market: you freely choose who to do business with and who to not do business with.