A Person HAS the Right to Discriminate...the Government Does Not

a reply to: Metallicus

Let me ask, do people (individuals) have the right to infringe on another persons (individuals) rights?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

BULLSNIP!

We don't have Rights because of the government or because of men, we have governments to defend the sanctity of our God-given rights from the violations and intrusions of man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The forefathers didn't agree that we "have" those rights, they observed that God had granted all men those rights and that any government based outside of the same was a pile of crap, doomed to failure.

a reply to: Slanter

But if you come to me ... I'm not harassing you. In order to harass you, I would have to seek you out and irritate or torment you, maybe follow you around like BLM is following around the Donald Trump campaign these days.

So, if I am inside MY business, and you come to me, I cannot be harassing you.

In fact, if I deny you service and you keep coming back even knowing I will not serve you, it could be said that you are then harassing me instead.

a reply to: Metallicus

You have that all backwards.

This is the way things ACTUALLY work.

You have the right to hold an opinion, but you do not have the right to affect someone else's life in what they would see as a negative fashion, because of that opinion.

For example, denying a person service because they happen to be homosexual or lesbian, is something you do not have the right to do. Denying service to Muslims, persons of colour, circus performers, or parking wardens, just because of those metrics is not something you have the right to do. If you offer a service to anyone, you offer it to everyone, and CERTAINLY if you have a business which is on a public thoroughfare.

Now, you are free not to make friends with people of whom you have a negative opinion, and you are free, in your PERSONAL life to choose whether or not you spend time around people of whom you have a low opinion. That is not in the least in question. However, in the event that a homosexual walks into a bar you are frequenting, you do not have the right to make your problem into their problem. If you REALLY have a phobia sooooo entrenched, that you cannot drink beer in the same room as a homosexual, guess who can leave the bar? YOU CAN!

You see, the way things are now, means that those who harbour ill feeling toward their fellow human beings based on whatever metric might be involved, from sexuality to gender, from colour to creed, the person with the problem is obligated to maintain ownership of that problem, without making everyone around them suffer because they, in their infinite lack of wisdom, have an issue.

Don't like black guys? That's your problem. Own it. If you must own such terrible feelings toward your fellow man as to ulcerate your very gut, then man up, buy some Rennies and a 500ml bottle of water and deal with it. If you hate homosexuals so much that you cannot stand the sight of them, then get your man pants on, get some eye drops and cry about it later. Don't like democrat voters? Deal with it, because all the individuals you encounter in your daily life have the exact same rights as you, and you have the right to be served in any bar you roll into as long as you are not already intoxicated, at any bakery you might wander through on the way to work, at the post office, the burger joint, the hotel you stay in on the way to visit family, or on vacation.

Because you have that right, and the right to do these things without being harassed, you can expect to receive no crap from people, unless those people tend toward the sociopathic and simply do not care about their conduct or its legality. But your possession of these rights automatically grants the same to everyone else you encounter in your personal and professional life, and so if you would not like to be treated differently by a person, you had better not treat them like crap either, because the moment you step out of line, you are in violation not only of ethics, but probably of at least one law, depending on how overt you are about letting your inner bastard out.

That is your personal choice. Because your rights end, where those of others begin, you are obligated to take ownership of your problems, rather than creating circumstances where another person cannot help but be affected by them.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So if I am a photographer and someone wants to hire me to shoot subjects outside my preferred area of clientele (ie a nature photog being asked to shoot someone's senior pics), I cannot deny their business?

Say I am a small office caterer, and the local porn shoot wants to engage me. Do I have a right to say no then? What if the local black caterer gets engaged by the local Aryan Nation group who wants them to dress and act in all ways like slaves throughout the engagement? Should they be forced to take that job?

Fact of the matter is that people can and do refuse service to people and groups all the time. The only reason anyone cares about this now is because the victim groups might have a piece of their business refused.

originally posted by: Metallicus

Having your feelings hurt doesn't mean a crime has been committed and denying service to someone doesn't hurt them in a tangible way.

But it does. Let's say you own an apartment house and are advertising apartments for rent. If you deny a rental to someone because of their color or sexual orientation, you have quite definitely "hurt them in a tangible way" because you have denied them housing. That's discrimination. It;s against the law, and you can be prosecuted for it.

You can argue that you don't agree with this all you want, but it's still against the law and you cannot get away with that kind of behavior.

Game over.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Guys seriously.

Are we going to try and explain this to these numbskulls again?

I get sick of thinking that maybe THIS time they might get a clue......

I'm waiting for the day when people with poor credit ratings form a coalition and start suing everybody for denying them services, credit, loans etc.

Just a matter of time.

a reply to: schuyler

I don't think the OP is so much about whether or not we can now, but how it should be. The law should not discriminate, and quite frankly, anti-discrimination laws do discriminate because they clearly do not list every single category of person that should be protected from discrimination which is to say everyone should be or none should be as all should be treated the same under the law.

So if the law singles out some, it discriminates and is (or should be) invalid.

How does an atheist nation have 'god-given' rights?

I believe the term is unalienable rights.

a reply to: ketsuko

A nature photographer would not be properly qualified to photograph a...what is that, senior? Are we talking a prom here or what?

In any case, the skill set and equipment necessary to perform nature photography is not conducive to event photography in the least. It takes a totally different eye for one thing, and most nature photography is done at distance, with extremely carefully arranged preset camera options, which each photographer would devise for themselves. A nature photographer would be totally out of their depth photographing a shindig.

And as for office caterers being asked to cater for a porn shoot, I do not know what you think a porn shoot looks like, but if it involves a fabricated set, like most kinds of videography do, then the chances are that most of it is going to be shot at some sort of studio, which will have off set rooms. Most studios have their own provision for food and drink, but in the event that this is some truly low rent place, there is next to always a room in which a table can be set up for food. In short, you are not going to be forced to witness porn stars in their birth garments, because they will be clothed or at least robed off set. Again, own your problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your post perfectly illustrates what a slippery slope it was for this country to start creating protected classes of people.

The law isn't equal. I can be asked to leave a restaurant for wearing a shirt with a profanity on it because "it may offend some of our customers" and no issue will be made in the courts (law or public opinion). However, if the same restaurant asks a person to leave who is wearing a rainbow flag shirt because "it may offend some of out customers" a HUGE issue will be made in the courts (law and public opinion.)

It's complete BS. The proprietor of a business OWNS not only the business, but all risk associated with said business. The customer owns no risk. Under the rules of free markets, if the owner takes it too far, the public will effectively penalize them via taking their business elsewhere. Conversely, if the public agrees with the store owner and continues to do business with them, that is NONE of the government's business nor should the lowest common denominator be bowed to to ensure the owner gets penalized when the public feels none is warranted.

Needless to say, I am a 100% firm believer in "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" being defended, upheld, and supported by the law. The recent shift away from that has been a ridiculous farce driven by a miniscule percentage of society and is not in the interest of the greater good in any way.

I don't understand how you think that you can't harass somebody in your own business, whether they came to you or you came to them doesn't matter. If you're being verbally or physically aggressive with someone against their will you are harassing them.

And yes, if they came into your business after you had kicked them out they would be harassing you. Actually, they'd be trespassing because you'd already denied them access to your business. So I still don't understand how this logic works.

a reply to: peck420

Declaration of Independence is pretty clear: "endowed by their Creator." Perhaps if I was an atheist, I'd get hung up on the semantics, too... but I'm not and I won't.

a reply to: TrueBrit

As the caterer, I wouldn't want it on my reputation that I cater to such things. It wouldn't be conducive to landing my preferred clientele of office catering. At least it wouldn't be in the market I currently live in, so would I be able to turn them down even if the scale of the job is within my capabilities?

Yes, senior pictures are pics people take for their last year in high school. Someone sees a listing for professional photographer and calls ... do I have the right to turn it down?

You are basically saying that anyone who calls me for any reason at all I am bound to serve simply because I opened a business. I am asking if you can admit that there are times when this might not always be the case.

Oh, I have another example. I work for a smaller company that contracts with a larger one to carry out a certain type of business. If they approach us with requests for more business and we look at our capability and realize we simply cannot handle what they want from us, do we have the right to tell them NO? I mean they are approaching us with the request for doing business ...

a reply to: TrueBrit

Do you have the right to refuse your employers request or direction if you find that direction morally wrong?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I get that you don't like personal liberty, but the fact is society or government is FORCING someone to do something against their will. This isn't a Christian thing because I am not religious it is a Liberty thing for me. Just because YOU are okay with forcing people to transact business against their will doesn't make it right.

I am NOT defending the beliefs I am saying people shouldn't FORCE other people to do what THEY think it right. You either are okay with forcing your beliefs on others or you are not.

I will NEVER force another human being to do something against their will.

You guys are supporting Authoritarianism.

originally posted by: Slanter
I don't understand how you think that you can't harass somebody in your own business, whether they came to you or you came to them doesn't matter. If you're being verbally or physically aggressive with someone against their will you are harassing them.

And yes, if they came into your business after you had kicked them out they would be harassing you. Actually, they'd be trespassing because you'd already denied them access to your business. So I still don't understand how this logic works.

To harass someone is an action. I have to actively do something to you in order to be harassing you and I have to do it persistently in order to be tormenting you. Look up harass.

To simply say "No" to someone is not harassing them in any way, shape or form, especially if YOU came to me.

Good lord, by your outlook on it. I am actively harassing my 5-year-old on a daily basis because I make free use of the word NO.

a reply to: TrueBrit

What should the penalty be against an enlisted soldier who disobeys or refuses an order he or she feels in immoral or unjust?

a reply to: Metallicus

But that doesn't extend to being verbally attacked against their will? because all these arguments aren't people upset because they can't refuse service to a group of people, the right to refuse service has never been the issue because it's never changed. These are people that are upset that they can't be abusive AFTER they've refused service.