Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You're telling me there are no gay bakers and florists out there to give business to? Puhleeze.

 

[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.

"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.

Well, it doesn't mean that. Sorry to have to burst your misinformed bubble.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I think it depends on the product or activity. If it's needed for the health or safety of the public, the merchant should not refuse to sell it unless his refusal is based on sound business reasons. All decisions a business owner makes in regard to what to sell and who to sell it to should a business decision.

Unless it's your business, that's not your determination to make.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

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.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

What product you choose to sell, and who you choose to sell to are two entirely different issues.

CVS no longer sells cigarettes. By your demented reasoning, they are liable for discriminating against smokers.

Don't you turds claim a business is discriminating against women if it refuses to pay for birth control or abortions?

As a woman, I'm more concerned that my health insurance doesn't cover hearing aids for my failing hearing than I am about having it pay for my contraception. Depo provera shots cost $70 for a three-month shot, and I can buy a 30-pack of condoms for $15, if I really have to. Hearing aids cost $500+, depending on how advanced it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. And "the people" have no right to forced servitude.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

You're telling me there are no gay bakers and florists out there to give business to? Puhleeze.

There are black ones too. Let's let the whites only crowd be above the law too, eh?

 

[initforme]

Yes it is my entitled right not to be discriminated against if I am a law abiding citizen.

 

[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?

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.

Yeah. Guess I just don't see the clear line. In my current position, I work with a consulting company for multiple clients. The owner of the consulting company manages the clients. She deals with the contracts, collects payment, drum up new clients, etc... I perform the work. The companies we contract with provide whatever equipment is required. Who's the business here? Who own's the "means of production"?

 

[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.

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.

Well, it doesn't mean that. Sorry to have to burst your misinformed bubble.

You were right, they can't say anything about the free market that is actually true.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it is my entitled right not to be discriminated against if I am a law abiding citizen.

Wrong. What if the cute white girl doesn't like your kind and refuses to go out with you as a result?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

You're telling me there are no gay bakers and florists out there to give business to? Puhleeze.

There are black ones too. Let's let the whites only crowd be above the law too, eh?

Let's abolish this fucking fascist law. Problem solved.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'm talking about the requirements that determine whether a contract is valid. The so-called "social contract" doesn't meet the test.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I'm talking about the requirements that determine whether a contract is valid. The so-called "social contract" doesn't meet the test.

Bripat, do you know how many different definitions there are for contract?

1. Agreement
2. A binding legal agreement
3. Marriage
4. A kind of document
5. The number of tricks you expect to take in a hand of bridge
6. What the Mafia puts out on you if you make them mad.
7. Bringing on oneself such as contracting pneumonia
8. To accept a specific job (what contractors do)
9. To make smaller or closer together

There are probably more but that's off the top of my head.

And social contract is none of those but is a two word term meaning the agreement by which a group of people or society organizes itself for mutual benefit.

 

[hjmick]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Why must it be the job of the government? Why does society seemingly lack the common decency to treat everyone equally on its own?

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

If that is true and I agree with you that it is, how many bakeries did the gay couple have to go through before they found the Christian?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

If that is true and I agree with you that it is, how many bakeries did the gay couple have to go through before they found the Christian?

The fact is the gay people had apparently been trading at this bakery for some time with no problems. It was not the gay women the bakery refused but participation in a gay wedding that the business owner couldn't condone.

I do think though that it is no mistake that the activists do go from business to business trying to find one that will choose not to participate in whatever activity and then they make an example of that business. These kinds of incidents have been cropping up far too frequently lately to be pure coincidence.

 

[Ravi]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Why must it be the job of the government? Why does society seemingly lack the common decency to treat everyone equally on its own?

You can read Bripats posts and still ask that question?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'm talking about the requirements that determine whether a contract is valid. The so-called "social contract" doesn't meet the test.

Bripat, do you know how many different definitions there are for contract?

1. Agreement
2. A binding legal agreement
3. Marriage
4. A kind of document
5. The number of tricks you expect to take in a hand of bridge
6. What the Mafia puts out on you if you make them mad.
7. Bringing on oneself such as contracting pneumonia
8. To accept a specific job (what contractors do)
9. To make smaller or closer together

There are probably more but that's off the top of my head.

And social contract is none of those but is a two word term meaning the agreement by which a group of people or society organizes itself for mutual benefit.

We all know that the kind of contract we are discussing is a binding legal agreement, and that means that the Constitution doesn't fit the bill. It certainly isn't binding on me since I didn't agree to it.

If you are admitting that this so-called "social contract" isn't a binding legal agreement, then fine. But then, what the hell is it? Why use the word "contract" if you don't mean a binding legal agreement? The answer is because that's what you want people to think. In other words, you're trying to con them.

 

[bripat9643]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Why must it be the job of the government? Why does society seemingly lack the common decency to treat everyone equally on its own?

You can read Bripats posts and still ask that question?

That's another way of saying you can't answer the question.