Discrimination vs Rights: liberty really is simple

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: tanstaafl

In a purely philosophical state this conversation can take place.

Did you not recognize that this was a purely philosophical conversation/thread?

In the real world those things are already the choice of the employer more often than not.

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in,m employers have almost none of the Rights I outlined in my questions.

For the first question all a business needs is a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".

Yes - and they get sued all the time by people in one of the 'protected classes', ie, non-white, LGBTXYZ, handicapped,
etc.

And they would absolutely get sued - and would lose t he suit if they fought it - if they put up a sign that said "LGBTXYZ people not welcome here and will not be served."

Did you seriously not know that?

For the second question hiring is almost always the choice of the business.

Employers get sud all the time for 'discrimination' by members of one of the 'protected classes' if they apply and don't get the job.

For the third question that is pretty much the case now. Especially when the business owns the property.

Nope. Lots, and I mean lots, of cities/towns have ordinances that have eliminated smoking or carrying weapons, and the business owners get no say in the matter.

Again - what world is it that you live in? I want to move there...

a reply to: tanstaafl

There are purely philosophical discussions and there is reality. The two are not always the same. I guess you didn't understand that when you started this nonsense.

Obviously you live in a world where you are completely ignorant of how things actually work.

Yes, businesses often get sued. We live in a world of dispute and consequence. However, it is still the right of the business to make those choices. Whether or not they get sued for it was not part of the criteria. And more and more frequently those law suits are being dismissed in favor of the rights of the business owners. In example, very recently the case over the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple. The business won that case. You seriously didn't know that?

Filing suit for not getting hired is almost negligible in all but the most extreme cases, which I allowed for in my original response. Unless forced to hire from a specific group (minority, handicapped, lgbt, etc) employers are free to hire whomever they choose. Firing is a bit more difficult, but the employer can still do pretty much whatever they want. If an employer doesn't want to keep you because you are a minority (or whatever) they start giving you bad reviews, changing your job description, making you want to leave on your own rather than being fired, or they just eliminate your position completely - which they have to maintain for only one year before hiring your replacement.

Yes many places have banned smoking in public places. If I own the business and the property it is not public property is it? I make the rules there, short of breaking federal or state law that is. I assumed your original questions stopped short of criminal acts. Perhaps I gave you too much credit on that one... Or did you mean should a business be able to do whatever it wants, legal or otherwise, with no consequences? That is a very different question than what you asked.

Many places have banned firearms in public. A private business on private land is not public. What part of that do you not understand? Not all businesses have customers walking in the door. Not all businesses involve direct contact with the general public at all. You state some very vague conditions then nitpick responses. Cheap.

I have been the boss. I have had my name on the front door. There are rules and laws meant to govern the way business is conducted. And for every one of those rules or laws there are a dozen ways to get around them.

If I were you I would not worry about which state to live in and just focus on living in reality first.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee
I think I need to know the real underlying reason/question of why you asked this (these) questions.

This kind of questioning is like a trap.

Is it, or is it only that you like the idea of liberty and rights ... but only so long as everyone else uses them to do things of which you approve?

NO!

I'm interested in the "platform" the OP is arguing/debating from.

IMO - - the OP knows where he/she stands on this issue before presenting questions - - that bait.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: tanstaafl

There are purely philosophical discussions and there is reality. The two are not always the same. I guess you didn't understand that when you started this nonsense.

Wtf are you yammering about?!?!

I said that my questions were purely about your personal beliefs. Nowhere did anything that I say mention anything about 'reality', meaning the way things are right now with respect to existing laws.

You are the one conflating the two, and obviously are incapable of rational thought free of biases and the chains of 'reality'.

In example, very recently the case over the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple. The business won that case. You seriously didn't know that?

Yes, after spending how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?

Did you seriously know that in a world where business owners had these Rights, lawsuits for things like that would be dismissed with prejudice by the judge at the very first hearing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted?

You seriously didn't know that?

Filing suit for not getting hired is almost negligible in all but the most extreme cases, which I allowed for in my original response. Unless forced to hire from a specific group (minority, handicapped, lgbt, etc) employers are free to hire whomever they choose.

Do you seriously not see the absurdity of your statement? 'Unless forced to do something against their will, they are free to do whatever they choose'... Rotflmao!

Firing is a bit more difficult, but the employer can still do pretty much whatever they want. If an employer doesn't want to keep you because you are a minority (or whatever) they start giving you bad reviews, changing your job description, making you want to leave on your own rather than being fired, or they just eliminate your position completely - which they have to maintain for only one year before hiring your replacement.

Oh, yes, that is freedom... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Yes many places have banned smoking in public places. If I own the business and the property it is not public property is it?

Many jurisdictions seem to think so.

I make the rules there, short of breaking federal or state law that is. I assumed your original questions stopped short of criminal acts. Perhaps I gave you too much credit on that one... Or did you mean should a business be able to do whatever it wants, legal or otherwise, with no consequences?

Depends... if by 'criminal' you mean violating a local ordinance banning smoking in places of business within the city limits, then yes, I'm saying business owners should be able to violate such an obviously unConstitutional law on its face.

Many places have banned firearms in public. A private business on private land is not public.

Most businesses are not on private land.

You seriously did not know that?

Not all businesses involve direct contact with the general public at all. You state some very vague conditions then nitpick responses. Cheap.

Not at all. I was talking in general. Businesses open to the public. Business in strip malls and along the street in the Town Square. Businesses who are simply leasing the space for their business.

It is humanly impossible to suck an blow at the same time.

a reply to: tanstaafl

There is no philosophy with you. You are incapable of embracing the concept. Example, you make this statement:

I said that my questions were purely about your personal beliefs. Nowhere did anything that I say mention anything about 'reality', meaning the way things are right now with respect to existing laws.

Then I express my philosophy, and you counter with this statement:

Yes, after spending how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?

And this one:

Depends... if by 'criminal' you mean violating a local ordinance banning smoking in places of business within the city limits, then yes, I'm saying business owners should be able to violate such an obviously unConstitutional law on its face.

You immediately abandon philosophy and argue with alleged facts from very real circumstances. No philosophy there...

Then you make this pedantic bs statement:

You are the one conflating the two, and obviously are incapable of rational thought free of biases and the chains of 'reality'.

And in doing so prove you completely missed the point of my statement and the irony of your relying on reality to defend you allegedly philosophical discussion.

Then, instead of philosophy or fact you introduce rogue judges to support your bs claims:

Did you seriously know that in a world where business owners had these Rights, lawsuits for things like that would be dismissed with prejudice by the judge at the very first hearing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted?

Then you completely miss the point yet again and laugh your stupid ass off at your own misunderstanding.

Do you seriously not see the absurdity of your statement? 'Unless forced to do something against their will, they are free to do whatever they choose'... Rotflmao!

Unless an employer is forced to hire a specific individual against their will (which could only happen in the most narrow of circumstances and would only result in that position being eliminated) the employer is free to pursue the applicant of their choosing. I said the employer might be forced to select an applicant from a specific group. I did not say the employer would be forced to select an individual they did not want. You really do miss the point a lot don't you... I won't laugh at you. I was taught not to laugh at 'challenged' people.

Then you deposit this gem of cogent thought:

Oh, yes, that is freedom... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

You are willing to introduce the concept of rogue judges to support your bs but deny the fact that a business has many avenues with which they can accomplish their goals. You really are twisted aren't you...

Then this piece of uncited bs:

Many jurisdictions seem to think so.

Show me one piece of legislation that makes it illegal to smoke on your own property in your own building...

Then this drivel:

Depends... if by 'criminal' you mean violating a local ordinance banning smoking in places of business within the city limits, then yes, I'm saying business owners should be able to violate such an obviously unConstitutional law on its face.

There is so much wrong there I won't even go into it. BTW, I am sure you can find the definition of criminal if you try really hard.

Then this gem of genius:

Most businesses are not on private land.
You seriously did not know that?

A public property does not belong to any one person but to the public at large and are not restricted to any one individual's use or possession. Private properties are lands and buildings owned by individuals and corporations.

Most businesses are on public land? Really? What makes it even funnier is that you toss that indignant 'you seriously did not know that' in there...lmao You have absolutely no phucking idea what you are talking about and demonstrate that at the drop of a hat...any hat...and you try to feign some bizarre sense of superiority on top of it.

Priceless...

So I give you examples of businesses that don't fit your incredibly weak and narrow minded argument to which you counter:

I was talking in general.

General when its convenient. Specific when its convenient. Just make it up on the fly. As long as you can change the rules at will any time you want you would think you had a better chance of winning something. Yet you fail anyway. Rig the game in your favor and still lose.

From now on I call you hillary.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
...Then I express my philosophy,

You didn't express your philosophy, you stated what the current laws were.

In fact, you have yet to engage in anything even remotely resembling a philosophical discussion.

and you counter with this statement:

"Yes, after spending how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees?"

And this one:

"Depends... if by 'criminal' you mean violating a local ordinance banning smoking in places of business within the city limits, then yes, I'm saying business owners should be able to violate such an obviously unConstitutional law on its face."

You immediately abandon philosophy and argue with alleged facts from very real circumstances. No philosophy there...

Of course not - because I was responding to your comments based on factual events and existing laws.

You want to debate philosophy - you have to actually speak in philosophical terms.

You seriously did not know that?

I relegate the rest of your nonsensical diatribe to the place reserved for all nonsensical commentary...

a reply to: tanstaafl

I will type this v e r y s l o w l y because I know that is how you will read it...or have it read to you...

My philosophy is that businesses should function within the law and will always have loopholes and work-arounds for situations they don't like. What good is a philosophical discussion that you can't apply to real world situations? Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. You cant have a philosophical discussion without the concurrent reality. You seriously didn't know that? (BW, that doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound like a whiny bitch)

I knew better than to get in to this discussion. The second part of my tag says it all...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
My philosophy is that businesses should function within the law and will always have loopholes and work-arounds for situations they don't like.

Well, since that has absoltely nothing to do with my OP, what you should have done is simply not responded.

To answer a purely philosophical set of questions with purely non-philosophical answers is... well, the word 'dumb' really jumps out at me.

Discrimination vs Rights: liberty really is simple

Throw which side of the political aisle one sits on and you get a very different answer.

Discrimination is socially acceptable.

Depending on what the topic is at any given moment.