Are anti-Discrimination laws just?

This no doubt sounds like a stupid question. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is wrong to discriminate. But, does anyone ever ask why?

If a person owns a business, do we really have a right to force that person to conduct business with people they don't want to?

The Constitution guarantees freedom of association - doesn't that mean that we are free to associate with whom we please, and free not to associate with those we choose not to?

How is it the role of the Federal Government to decide who we choose to invite into our privately owned places business?

What is the justification for using the power of Government to force people to associate each other?

Now of course I am not advocating a return to the days of segregation. I am merely posing the questions above as food for thought.

Does anyone have any solid answers?

RickWhite said:

This no doubt sounds like a stupid question. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is wrong to discriminate. But, does anyone ever ask why?

If a person owns a business, do we really have a right to force that person to conduct business with people they don't want to?

The Constitution guarantees freedom of association - doesn't that mean that we are free to associate with whom we please, and free not to associate with those we choose not to?

How is it the role of the Federal Government to decide who we choose to invite into our privately owned places business?

What is the justification for using the power of Government to force people to associate each other?

Now of course I am not advocating a return to the days of segregation. I am merely posing the questions above as food for thought.

Does anyone have any solid answers?

Click to expand...

You should have just stopped right there.

it is the availability of services, regardless of a person's unchangeable aspects, that defines equality in our society. a person's socioeconomic status may change and his behavior may be altered, but such characteristics as skin color or gender are fixed and should not be used to restrict access to those services. this is among the most basic tenets upon which this country is based. we have altered our outlook on what constitutes a person considerably over the years, realizing that racial differences are actually slight and that gender or physical handicap do not inhibit our reason and capacity for proper social interaction, and these changes have served to create a more just society. personal bias against the inconsequential is a luxury we can ill afford if we are to build an ethical nation.

undertheice said:

it is the availability of services, regardless of a person's unchangeable aspects, that defines equality in our society. a person's socioeconomic status may change and his behavior may be altered, but such characteristics as skin color or gender are fixed and should not be used to restrict access to those services. this is among the most basic tenets upon which this country is based. we have altered our outlook on what constitutes a person considerably over the years, realizing that racial differences are actually slight and that gender or physical handicap do not inhibit our reason and capacity for proper social interaction, and these changes have served to create a more just society. personal bias against the inconsequential is a luxury we can ill afford if we are to build an ethical nation.

Click to expand...

How does a concept like "black pride" fit into that?

Illegal Smile said:

How does a concept like "black pride" fit into that?

Click to expand...

it doesn't. black pride, white pride, brown pride, green pride; they are all just emotional responses to perceived attacks, whether they are real or not. such childish responses to racism are counter-productive and racist in themselves. to be proud of an accident of birth seems more an act of desperation and insecurity than anything else. to honor others with pride in their achievements is certainly commendable, but to act as if their accomplishments somehow reflect glory upon ourselves is nonsensical. we should be humbled by our own inability to live up to the potential shown by the accomplishments of others.

Illegal Smile said:

How does a concept like "black pride" fit into that?

Click to expand...

im not really racist but i aint with all that louis farakahn bullshit...

undertheice said:

it is the availability of services, regardless of a person's unchangeable aspects, that defines equality in our society. a person's socioeconomic status may change and his behavior may be altered, but such characteristics as skin color or gender are fixed and should not be used to restrict access to those services. this is among the most basic tenets upon which this country is based. we have altered our outlook on what constitutes a person considerably over the years, realizing that racial differences are actually slight and that gender or physical handicap do not inhibit our reason and capacity for proper social interaction, and these changes have served to create a more just society. personal bias against the inconsequential is a luxury we can ill afford if we are to build an ethical nation.

Click to expand...

I know you can answer the questions. I was hoping to challenge others to attempt to address these questions analytically. I doubt many here would be able to or even try. Plus, causing others to experience cognitive dissonance amuses me.

RickWhite said:

I know you can answer the questions. I was hoping to challenge others to attempt to address these questions analytically. I doubt many here would be able to or even try. Plus, causing others to experience cognitive dissonance amuses me.

Click to expand...

lol it amuses us all!!!!

Anyone else want to take a crack at this?

I kind of want to know how people can rationalize denying the rights of a private business owner to serve who he pleases. Anyone have an answer?

RickWhite said:

Anyone else want to take a crack at this?

I kind of want to know how people can rationalize denying the rights of a private business owner to serve who he pleases. Anyone have an answer?

Click to expand...

i agree with you. if a privete owner owns his own bizzness he should be able to do bizzness with who he or she wants....but at the same time....thats not good bizzness....... black, brown, yellow, tan dallars are still just has green has any white mans

Discrimination is in the end a self defeating behavior for business owners. By denying your consumers from purchasing your product you are in essence depriving yourself of income. That's why smart business people never discriminate, they get iron clad contracts signed instead.

NoDrama said:

Discrimination is in the end a self defeating behavior for business owners. By denying your consumers from purchasing your product you are in essence depriving yourself of income. That's why smart business people never discriminate, they get iron clad contracts signed instead.

Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense.

For example, let's say that a big-nosed Jew that hates gays and thinks that it is fine for Israel to continue grab other's land comes in. To deny that person service would be taking money out of your own pocket.

NoDrama said:

Discrimination is in the end a self defeating behavior for business owners. By denying your consumers from purchasing your product you are in essence depriving yourself of income. That's why smart business people never discriminate, they get iron clad contracts signed instead.

Click to expand...

Of course this is true. But, doesn't that just prove that we don't need all these laws to prevent discrimination?

I want to hear some solid reasons for why the Government ought to suppress the rights of private citizens to associate with, or do business with whom they chose.

So many in this forum are so fond of this question with regard to other issues, I just want to see what their reasoning will be with respect to this one. Plus, I want to see certain people demonstrate analytical ability.

upnorth2505 said:

That makes perfect sense.

For example, let's say that a big-nosed Jew that hates gays and thinks that it is fine for Israel to continue grab other's land comes in. To deny that person service would be taking money out of your own pocket.

Click to expand...

Instead of the usual insults why not try to answer the question?

Because you Liberals have only dogma, you can't even break down your own arguments.

Need me to do it for you?

This no doubt sounds like a stupid question. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is wrong to discriminate.

Once again, I find myself in full agreement with IllegalSmile. You should have just stopped right there.

But, does anyone ever ask why?

Well, yeah. That is why anti-discrimination laws exist. Enough folks contemplated the issue, realized they were necessary, and petitioned for them. The fact that you even ask this question is proof enough you are an idiot.

If a person owns a business, do we really have a right to force that person to conduct business with people they don't want to?

Why do so many businesses I see have signs that allow them to 'reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason'? Or are you referring to laws that prevent discrimination in hiring? Those should be self explanatory, you said so yourself: Pretty much everyone agrees that it is wrong to discriminate.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of association - doesn't that mean that we are free to associate with whom we please, and free not to associate with those we choose not to?

I am also gauranteed freedom of speech by the constitution, but still I may not yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. They taught me that in 1st grade. I could point to examples mroe relevant to the question you are asking, but this should get the point across without writing an essay.

How is it the role of the Federal Government to decide who we choose to invite into our privately owned places business?

Again, I see lots of businesses that reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Are you not one of those? Boo hoo. So sad. Again, if you are referring to hiring practices, then there is good reason for anti-discrimination laws.

What is the justification for using the power of Government to force people to associate each other?

Loaded question. Please rephrase in a less retarded manner. No government agent has ever held a gun to my back and told me to associate with someone.

Now of course I am not advocating a return to the days of segregation. I am merely posing the questions above as food for thought.

Who the fuck said you are advocating for a return to segregation? The mere fact that you mentioned it makes me believe (even moreso) that you do want to return to 'separate but equal' status that was ruled against by our supreme court decades ago. Why don't you try answering your own damn questions first? Why don't you read what the Supreme Court has had to say about it, including the dissenting opinions?

Does anyone have any solid answers?

Do you?

i discriminate, so what ! but i am not racist. i discriminate al the time based on attitude, intelligence, ignorance and predisposition to bias regardles of your race color religion or socioeconomic class. i think everyone does to some extent

landracer said:

i discriminate, so what ! but i am not racist. i discriminate al the time based on attitude, intelligence, ignorance and predisposition to bias regardles of your race color religion or socioeconomic class. i think everyone does to some extent

Click to expand...

Agreed, we all discriminate in the ways you describe. You discriminate on factors not related to 'race color religion or socioeconomic status' as you said, so nothing wrong with that.

I think Rick's question was moreso about anti-discrimination laws, which tend to deal with people who refuse to hire on basis of race, gender, sexual preference, and other protected statuses. But hell, I could be wrong...am I Rick?