Should businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?

[jc456]

Correct.

Private organizations have the right to determine who will or will not be a member.

Miss Black America

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks for that. Interesting read. But it doesn't prove what you think. In fact, it acknowledges what I'm saying:




ie the headline is only referring to discrimination re: the protected classes.

Unfortunately, like so many things political, there's a lot of equivocation on this issue. For a lot of people "discrimination" means "illegal discrimination", so saying that all "discrimination is illegal" is redundant. But in reality, there are infinitely many ways to discriminate. Only a very few kinds are, currently, illegal.

But I'm curious about your vision of things should work. For example, could a business discriminate against people who stink? Can a restaurant kick someone out for having a foul odor?

I disagree.
I believe the logic goes like this.
There are special protected classes you specifically are not allowed to discriminate against.
But there can not be special protected classes.
Therefore all people must already be protected, and the special classes were just trying to catch up.

There is NO discrimination that is legal.
When you refuse service, it has to be due to a fear the person would harm your business or the rights of others.
Otherwise it is not legal.
Everyone is has their survival totally dependent up on the fair and equal service of others, and if discrimination were legal, then you could legally cause the death of someone. That would make robbery legal under the defense that they had no other choice in order to survive.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, that's exactly the issue. Some people confuse the two. They actually think that the goal, and effect, of anti-discrimination laws are to prevent ALL kinds of discrimination, or otherwise require businesses to treat everyone equally.

Yes, that HAS to be the intent of the law.
The 1965 Civil Rights Act would be totally illegal if it ONY protected those enumerated protected groups and no others.
You can NOT EVER single out any particular group.
That is illegal discrimination, unequal protection, and voids the whole concept of blind justice.
The intent of the law was just to ensure those protected groups caught up, not surpass.

 

[MinTrut]

I'm saying they are under no legal obligation to do so, and that using government in a vain attempt to force them to is ridiculous and counter productive.

Can't say I agree that it's okay for people to be starved or allowed to die because a business refuses them basic necessities because Trump or Mormon or whatever.

I don't support them doing so - I would complain loudly. But it's their right, and trying to make such a thing illegal is dumb.

Please see above.

 

[Rigby5]

“Should businesses be required to treat everyone equally and impartially?”

‘Required’ by whom – the state or private citizens; no to the former, yes to the latter.

Since we no longer have a frontier where people can forage and hunt, then the survival of everyone is totally dependent upon retail service.
So then retail service can not be denied.
That would provide people with no means of survival left at all, if discriminated against by retailers.
That would violate the basic rights of the individual.
It would then justify the customer being discriminated against to use any violent means necessary in order to survive.

 

[Rigby5]

Correct.

Private organizations have the right to determine who will or will not be a member.

These are not private organizations.
They are totally dependent on the Internet, have to follow the FCC rules against discrimination, and they also have to publicly warn people of their harmful intent.

 

[dblack]

Can't say I agree that it's okay for people to be starved or allowed to die because a business refuses them basic necessities because Trump or Mormon or whatever.

Please see above.

I'll put you down for a "yes".

 

[MinTrut]

I'll put you down for a "yes".

Of course.

See Rigby5 for any other concerns.

 

[dblack]

I disagree.
I believe the logic goes like this.
There are special protected classes you specifically are not allowed to discriminate against.
But there can not be special protected classes.
Therefore all people must already be protected, and the special classes were just trying to catch up.

There is NO discrimination that is legal.

Again. This is a fantasy. Repeating it won't make it come true. Nearly all discrimination is legal.

Regardless, the topic of the thread isn't whether it's currently legal, but rather whether it should be illegal. Clearly you think it should. I think that's insane. It's a violation of fundamental freedom of association, freedom of conscience and, arguably, involuntary servitude.

 

[Rigby5]

True.

And attempting to conflate public accommodations laws with social media fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper regulatory measures authorized by the Commerce Clause that ensure the stability of the markets and overall economic prosperity where businesses open to the general public which refuse to accommodate patrons based on race or religion would be disruptive to the markets and jeopardize economic prosperity.

Twitter is not banning the accounts of subscribers because they’re black or Muslim; they’re banning the accounts of subscribers who violate the rules – such as racist hate speech or inciting terrorist attacks against America’s democracy – completely unrelated to public accommodations laws.

Wrong.
The commerce clause only allowed the federal government to facilitate interstate commerce.
Commerce within a state is totally out of any federal jurisdiction.
And what is covered has nothing to do with stability or economic prosperity.
It only has to do with states discriminating against out of state commerce.

You can ban people who do not follow the rules, but the rules are set by the FCC, and Trump never violated any rules,
Racist hate speech is protected and can not be banned.
Inciting violence is illegal and can be banned, but Trump never did that.

 

[Rigby5]

I said, in my post, that we have discrimination laws to address that.

But the POINT is that there is disagreement about what the discrimination laws prevent.
Some people are claiming they only protect the half dozen specific groups listed, and my point is they also imply everyone as well, and that you can not legally write a law that only protect specific groups and not everyone.

 

[Rigby5]

Again. This is a fantasy. Repeating it won't make it come true. Nearly all discrimination is legal.

Regardless, the topic of the thread isn't whether it's currently legal, but rather whether it should be illegal. Clearly you think it should. I think that's insane. It's a violation of fundamental freedom of association, freedom of conscience and, arguably, involuntary servitude.

Wrong.
In a society where our means of survival on our own has been taken away from use, then service by retailers can never legally be denied,
Association is something you do in private, not in a retail establishment people depend upon.

 

[dblack]

But the POINT is that there is disagreement about what the discrimination laws prevent.
Some people are claiming they only protect the half dozen specific groups listed, and my point is they also imply everyone as well, and that you can not legally write a law that only protect specific groups and not everyone.

The rationale behind protected classes, and the way they worked around the equal protection problem, is that they aren't describing classes of people, but rather classes of traits that cannot be the subject of discrimination. That's why the law doesn't say businesses can't discriminate against old people, for example - instead it says they can't discriminate based on age. It doesn't say they can't discriminate against gays, it says they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. The claim being that everyone is equally protected from discrimination based on the the protected classes. ie everyone has an age and a sexual orientation.

 

[Rigby5]

The rationale behind protected classes, and the way they worked around the equal protection problem, is that they aren't describing classes of people, but rather classes of traits that cannot be the object of discrimination. That's why the law doesn't say businesses can't discriminate against old people, for example - instead it says they can't discriminate based on age. It doesn't say they can't discriminate against gays, it says they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. The claim being that everyone is equally protected from discrimination based on the the protected classes.

Wrong.
The reality is that no one ever actually discriminated in their own mind, based on age, for example.
Instead they discriminated because they projected that an older person is likely going to be less energized for over time, less sharp, more likely to forget things, going to retire soon, etc.
So then again, the entire notion of concept of protected classes is entirely wrong and illegal, and the only way it could possibly be considered remotely legal is if it were intended to simply allow those historically discriminated against classes, to catch up.
If it really were to allow additional protection beyond what anyone else already had, it would obviously be totally illegal.
Classes can not be protected any differently without violating equal protection.
Naming classes is exactly what is illegal, and does not help at all.
What you said makes no sense, because of course you can discriminate based on age, and you can like an older cheese than a newer one.
Or you can discriminate against milk that is too old and gone sauer.
It is only people who you can not discriminate against, because if you did, then society would totally break down.
If society has no individual guarantees, then it would have to be destroyed.

 

[dblack]

Classes can not be protected any differently without violating equal protection.

Protected classes are traits, not classes of people. Do you understand that?

Naming classes is exactly what is illegal, and does not help at all.
What you said makes no sense, because of course you can discriminate based on age, and you can like an older cheese than a newer one.
Or you can discriminate against milk that is too old and gone sauer.

??

You have some radical misconceptions about the way discrimination law works in the US.

Regardless, I'm curious about how you think it should work. For example, a local restaurant gives an informal "locals discount" to everyone who lives or works nearby. That's clearly discrimination. Should I go to the police? Also, I've gotten to know the bartender there and he gives me extra service. And what about senior citizen discounts? Should all these be illegal?

 

[Rigby5]

Protected classes are traits, not classes of people. Do you understand that?

??

You have some radical misconceptions about the way discrimination law works in the US.

Regardless, I'm curious about how you think it should work. For example, a local restaurant gives an informal "locals discount" to everyone who lives or works nearby. That's clearly discrimination. Should I go to the police? Also, I've gotten to know the bartender there and he gives me extra service. And what about senior citizen discounts? Should all these be illegal?

Traits make it worse, not better.
And it can never be illegal to discriminate based on traits, but only because they are PEOPLE, and therefore have rights that also have to be considered.
Again, it is not illegal to discriminate against aged sushi, just aged people.
Yes, locals discounts should be illegal. That is because if you are white, then you could just consider only whites to be local to you.
Senior discounts should not be, because they deserve and earned the extra assurances.

 

[jc456]

I disagree.
I believe the logic goes like this.
There are special protected classes you specifically are not allowed to discriminate against.
But there can not be special protected classes.
Therefore all people must already be protected, and the special classes were just trying to catch up.

There is NO discrimination that is legal.
When you refuse service, it has to be due to a fear the person would harm your business or the rights of others.
Otherwise it is not legal.
Everyone is has their survival totally dependent up on the fair and equal service of others, and if discrimination were legal, then you could legally cause the death of someone. That would make robbery legal under the defense that they had no other choice in order to survive.

Or, giving a group protected class automatically makes another other group discriminated against! That’s logical. Protected class is discrimination

 

[dblack]

Yes, locals discounts should be illegal. That is because if you are white, then you could just consider only whites to be local to you.

I'll notify the police right away.

Senior discounts should not be, because they deserve and earned the extra assurances.

Ahh.. ok, so it's ok to discriminate if someone deserves it?

 

[Rigby5]

Or, giving a group protected class automatically makes another other group discriminated against! That’s logical. Protected class is discrimination

Exactly.
The whole point of Equal Protection under the law required everyone to be the same level of protection.
Not to mention that fact the most basic principle of law is Blind Justice, which would prevent there from being Protected Classes, if they are the only ones protected.

 

[Rigby5]

I'll notify the police right away.

Ahh.. ok, so it's ok to discriminate if someone deserves it?

Just like with progressive income tax rates.