Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

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

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

Another bullshit principle of liberalism with no basis in fact. What if you only want to make money off of heterosexuals?

Open a Christian bookstore, be a portrait painter, cater Christian events, start a fee based club. The list goes on and on and on.

You didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your point. You also suck at career counselling.

None of what I listed are considered public accommodation. It is easily possible to tailor your business to serve only the segment you wish to serve.

Yes, it is easy. Simply decline to serve anyone you don't want to serve. Any other required means are infringements on your property rights imposed by a fascist police state.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

 

[boedicca]

Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.

No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.

People used to think that way about their private businesses.

"No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service". I suspect somewhere (likely in San Francisco given the Folsom Street Fair exhibitionist), an Aggrieved LGBT Nudist will claim discrimination for having to wear clothing in a restaurant.

And the nudist would be SOL.

Well, yes, if he were a nudist for RELIGIOUS REASONS, but if it were because he was a Transgender Nudist, I suspect he'd find a large cabal of Moonbats ready to trash the restaurant on his behalf.

There are many things you are sure of that simply aren't true.

Oh P'shaw! I have Discerning Perception, Impeccable Good Taste, and am a Font of Wisdom.

 

[Ravi]

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

My business isn't a public accommodation business. I can serve whomever I please. Anyone is free to do the same.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

The other is discriminatory against a person wanting to buy a product that is available to all and such discrimination should be illegal as a condition of receiving a business license. The black guy can buy anything on the menu, but he has no right to demand that the restaurant provide him with something that isn't on the menu any more than anybody else does.

And there is no law that supports that.

It's only a matter of time until there is.

Right, and soon men will be able to marry dogs.

A woman married a porpoise in England, so that hardly seems far-fetched.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bye bye, old bill.

"House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long announce a fix for the RFRA to ensure it "does not tolerate discrimination against any class of Hoosier," Thursday, April 2, 2015. Matt Kryger/The Star"
Democrats booted from panel to allow vote on RFRA fix

Gay wedding pizza anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

My business isn't a public accommodation business. I can serve whomever I please. Anyone is free to do the same.

As I said previously, thanks for telling us what the bullshit unconstitutional fascist law says. We aren't discussing that.

 

[norwegen]

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Read the next paragraph in your Wikipedia link and show us where it says sexual orientation.

And then try again to understand , eh. Big Brother is telling us how to think.

Many states have added sexual orientation. Why are you against states rights?

If that's a state right, then Indiana has a right not to add such provisions.

You really are an idiot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So ultimately you have a problem with the concept of freedom of association? I'm just saying that, if you don't support a business, then don't enter into a business relationship with it. Don't force people to enter a contract with you and destroy their livelihood should they decline for any reason.

The premise seems to be that any person "engaging in interstate commerce" is implicitly sacrificing their right to freedom of association.

If by that you mean not letting darkies into your hotel, you are correct.

 

[bripat9643]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

I've been hearing this argument for over a decade, but none of them will explain how serving food gives the government the authority to tell you who to serve.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

So you would, for example, support laws banning nightclubs from "curating" who is allowed in? (eg only the attractive or the rich)

I didn't say that did I. I was specific that any customer that meets the reasonable standards of conduct and dress specified by the business owner can buy whatever product the business normally has for sale and can do so without prejudice.

But the customers should not be able to require that the nightclub provide products or services that the nightclub would not normally offer.

 

[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.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

 

[dblack]

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.

Anti-discrimination laws have generally been the result of blatant and historical discrimination against specific minorities. The laws are designed to stop that kind of discrimination.

I am not certain whether these arguments are genuine libertarian concerns, or just end run arguments to allow business's to discriminate against whatever minority a business owner doesn't care for- black- Jewish- Armenian- gay- Mormon.

They're genuine concerns.

I don't know anyone personally who feels repressed because of current anti-discrimination laws, but I tend to avoid racists and bigots and - so far - they've been the primary targets. The concern is that we've now empowered government to target unpopular biases for extinction, and I find that troubling, not only from the perspective of individual liberty, but also regarding the impact this will have on society's ability to voluntarily regulate itself.

 

[Ravi]

Bye bye, old bill.

"House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long announce a fix for the RFRA to ensure it "does not tolerate discrimination against any class of Hoosier," Thursday, April 2, 2015. Matt Kryger/The Star"
Democrats booted from panel to allow vote on RFRA fix

Gay wedding pizza anyone?

That article's title is ironic.

 

[Ravi]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

No, it is still a private business. A private business that is a public accommodation business has to serve the general public.

 

[Ravi]

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Read the next paragraph in your Wikipedia link and show us where it says sexual orientation.

And then try again to understand , eh. Big Brother is telling us how to think.

Many states have added sexual orientation. Why are you against states rights?

If that's a state right, then Indiana has a right not to add such provisions.

You really are an idiot.

Yes they do and people in Indiana had a right to get upset about it. That's basically what happened. Good old democracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

So ultimately you have a problem with the concept of freedom of association? I'm just saying that, if you don't support a business, then don't enter into a business relationship with it. Don't force people to enter a contract with you and destroy their livelihood should they decline for any reason.

The premise seems to be that any person "engaging in interstate commerce" is implicitly sacrificing their right to freedom of association.

Again I think all businesses should have to sell products they normally have in stock to anybody who comes in to buy them so long as reasonable standards of dress or conduct are not violated. That doesn't really violate 'freedom of association' and assures public access to all without prejudice.

But again, the business owner should not be required to provide a product he/she would not normally carry nor attend or be present or participate in anything off premises that he/she chooses not to participate in. That assures freedom of association and respects the individual choices and rights and beliefs of the individual.

 

[bripat9643]

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Read the next paragraph in your Wikipedia link and show us where it says sexual orientation.

And then try again to understand , eh. Big Brother is telling us how to think.

Many states have added sexual orientation. Why are you against states rights?

If that's a state right, then Indiana has a right not to add such provisions.

You really are an idiot.

Yes they do and people in Indiana had a right to get upset about it. That's basically what happened. Good old democracy.

You mean a small minority of queer Nazis got upset about it. Democracy is how the law came into being, dingbat.

 

[bripat9643]

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

No, it is still a private business. A private business that is a public accommodation business has to serve the general public.

Where does the Constitution say that?