Arizona SB1062 Discrimination Law

[Famine]

I gathered from your post that you were speaking about all privately-owned businesses, I wasn't quoting directly. If I misunderstood when I presumed you were talking about the legal rights and moral rights being equally applicable to all businesses (in the posts I made earlier) then I apologise.

I'm not really concerned about legally codified rights - immoral and amoral laws exist worldwide and across time. I'm only concerned about what is morally right and yes, that's equally applicable to all businesses.

Moral opinion is a subjective matter

Nope. Legal opinion is. Please read the Human Rights thread for more.

but I don't believe I will ever feel it is morally correct to take the example to the Walmart conclusion.

I explained to you why it is. The purpose of my post was to explain why it is. The last four paragraphs of that post state, quite clearly, why it is.

The existence of laws denying the right to refuse service to a demographic denies freedom of expression and property rights, breeds hatred for that demographic amongst those forced to give them service, hoodwinks the consumer into supporting businesses that hold hateful views, creates suspiscion amongst the demographic that any refusal of service is actually because of their demographic, creates individuals suspected of holding hateful views who don't and, at the root of it all, creates discriminatory legislation.

To sum it up into a bullet point list, if the law says "Businesses cannot refuse service to white people for reasons of being white":

• Someone who hates white people can't refuse them service because they're white
• People who hate racists continue to shop there and support them, because they don't know they're racist
• White people are still refused service, only the guy says it's because they're wearing trainers (sneakers)
• Other businesses refusing service to people wearing trainers face white guys making a civil claim against them because they say it's about their race when it isn't

You might think the first item is laudable - though it's not because it denies freedom of expression and property rights - but I very much doubt you'd think the remainder of the list is, yet that's what you support when you say it can't be morally right to allow a supermarket chain to turn away black people.

If any businesses are actually turning away black people, I want to know about it so I never shop there again - and I think the vast majority of people would too. I don't want it presented as "No shirt, no shoes, no service" (which is acceptable - and legal) when it's actually racism - and I don't want innocent businesses who are not racist but have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy dragged through courts accused of racist behaviour.

Nor do I want laws that demarcate demographics. No law should exist that says "Businesses cannot refuse service to white people for reasons of being white" because that fundamentally guarantees white people different treatment by law - which is state-sponsored racism.

You don't combat racism with more racism. You fight it by getting it out in the open and treating it with the contempt it deserves. You can't promote equal rights by codifying different rights. You promote it by removing any laws that require different treatments.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My belief is that the law removes the legality of differentiation of treatment, and therefore it works.

The "no-shoes-no-shirt" example is slightly different because I believe most of society would think it to be reasonable to ask customers to dress properly when visiting. Any attempt to accuse a store of being technically 'racist' for making such a request would be silly, I'm confident that it would be seen as such by the public, the media and ultimately a court (if a case could even be brought).

What the law says is right is clear. I personally believe that it is morally right that in the US and the UK there are clear laws that prevent discrimination based on certain criteria which, historically, are held by much of society to have been held against people without justification and to their harm.

What happens in practice is also clear, anyone who feels that wrong has been done to them can apply to a court to have their grievance heard. If that grievance makes it to court then the tests of law will be applied to it and a judgement given. That judgement will inform further judgements and so the law will develop.

Who is right or wrong in any given grievance is often subjective and often cases are much more complex than the sample test cases, that's the nature of people.

There's protection for businesses that are implied to have racist thought there too; if I believe that Ted's Nuts'n'Bolts are racist, and I say so, they can take their resulting grievance to court and ask me to produce the evidence. I don't have any, really I was just repeating a story I overheard. The court will protect them and quite rightly so.

I believe the law is correct, it certainly supports the moral stance that I personally take on the issue and I'm led by some replies to wonder if some people don't actually trust the judiciary to make the case-by-case calls correctly? That's not being antagonistic - I'm genuinely asking if anyone feels the reason that implementing laws like the Civil Rights Act are problematic because of the way the courts implement them?

 

[Famine]

My belief is that the law removes the legality of differentiation of treatment, and therefore it works.

How can a law which differentiates in its treatment remove differentiation of treatment?

The "no-shoes-no-shirt" example is slightly different because I believe most of society would think it to be reasonable to ask customers to dress properly when visiting.

Define "properly". How is how I dress not freedom of expression? Why is my choice of clothes different to my choice of religion - particularly if my religion requires items of clothing such as the niqab or turban?

Any attempt to accuse a store of being technically 'racist' for making such a request would be silly, I'm confident that it would be seen as such by the public, the media and ultimately a court (if a case could even be brought).

It happens all the time - we even have a stock phrase for it in the UK, once quoted as a joke by Lewis Hamilton after his repeated visits to the stewards was put to him.

"Is it because I is black?" (sic)

What the law says is right is clear. I personally believe that it is morally right that in the US and the UK there are clear laws that prevent discrimination based on certain criteria which, historically, are held by much of society to have been held against people without justification and to their harm.

It cannot be morally right to force private citizens to give their privately owned property on their own private ground to other citizens if they do not wish to - except in certain circumstances when they can actually refuse. No part of that is moral. It also cannot be morally right to deny them freedom of expression.

It also promotes the exact behaviours you wish to combat - you cannot prevent people holding racist thoughts with legislation that says they can't act racist around other people.

You say that society, in general, holds discriminatory behaviour to be harmful. It should be society then that acts, rather than giving away yet another power to the already vastly bloated and bounds-overstepping governments involved. Stop buying things from businesses who are racist, sexist, homophobic - exercise your right to choose. But to do that we have to know who they are and how can we do that when there's immoral laws getting in our way?

 

[Danoff]

What the law says is right is clear. I personally believe that it is morally right that in the US and the UK there are clear laws that prevent discrimination based on certain criteria which, historically, are held by much of society to have been held against people without justification and to their harm.

It is never moral to use force against a person who is innocent of violating the rights of others. In this case, a businessman is being forced to provide service to someone he doesn't want to (for whatever reason) despite his innocence of any rights violation to any other person. An innocent person is being subjected to force - that is inherently immoral.

...and that's really all that needs to be said on the subject. There are many more angles to this, and I think we've covered them pretty well here. But really it comes down to that - force being used against an innocent person is wrong every single time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An innocent person is being subjected to force - that is inherently immoral.

Would you say that it's equally immoral that a person walking from the street into a store is turned away on the grounds of their race, gender or religion? Those areas of discrimination are specifically noted in legislation due to their divisive nature and their historical significance in subjugation.

I don't think it is immoral that the store should have legal protection to discriminate against someone in those circumstances on those grounds. I think it's right that the law makes it illegal to forceably bar someone from a service that's open without discrimination to other members of the general public when it's on the basis of race, gender or religion.

 

[Danoff]

Would you say that it's equally immoral that a person walking from the street into a store is turned away on the grounds of their race, gender or religion?

No, more below.

I don't think it is immoral that the store should have legal protection to discriminate against someone in those circumstances on those grounds. I think it's right that the law makes it illegal to forceably bar someone from a service that's open without discrimination to other members of the general public when it's on the basis of race, gender or religion.

That's because you're misunderstanding the nature of force. Someone refusing to behave in a particular way is not force. If you offer me $20 for my pen and I don't sell it to you, I have not forced you to do anything. If you want to walk onto my property or into my store and I refuse to allow you to, I have not used force against you - it is my property, I own it, I control it, and you have no claim to it. If you pull a gun (as is the case with government laws) and tell me that I have to let you onto my property or you will lock me away, that is force. That is what having a law preventing discrimination is, force used against the discriminator.

Now, if a business voluntarily signed a contract with all other businesses in the area that they would all avoid discriminatory practices when it came to customers, that would not be force, that would be a voluntary agreement among businesses to the mutual benefit of all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you offer me $20 for my pen and I don't sell it to you, I have not forced you to do anything. If you want to walk onto my property or into my store and I refuse to allow you to, I have not used force against you - it is my property, I own it, I control it, and you have no claim to it. If you pull a gun (as is the case with government laws) and tell me that I have to let you onto my property or you will lock me away, that is force. That is what having a law preventing discrimination is, force used against the discriminator.

If you're selling the pen at your cash register and you refuse to sell it to me on the basis that I'm black, and you then proceed to sell it to the next customer on the basis that she is white, then how is the definition of force relevant?

I would have grounds to make a complaint before a court and I believe that you would be found to have acted against the law.

By demonstrating a racist position I feel you would also have broken one of wider society's moral rules, that racism, sexism and their ilk are wrong.

As you say we've covered the ground pretty well and I accept that there are any number of cases that offer complexities that could test the law to its full extent. I still believe that the overarching principle is correct both in terms of how society should legislate itself in a democracy and how we should act towards others from a moral perspective.

 

[Danoff]

If you're selling the pen at your cash register and you refuse to sell it to me on the basis that I'm black, and you then proceed to sell it to the next customer on the basis that she is white, then how is the definition of force relevant?

There is no force in that example. There is a request for voluntary transaction that is denied, and another request for voluntary transaction that is accepted.

I would have grounds to make a complaint before a court and I believe that you would be found to have acted against the law.

None of which matters - lots of laws are unjust. The US used to have unjust Jim Crow laws for example (yes I picked that on purpose)

By demonstrating a racist position I feel you would also have broken one of wider society's moral rules, that racism, sexism and their ilk are wrong.

Racism, sexism and their ilk are poor, despicable behavior that should not be accepted in society. But, and this is an important point, it is your right to act poorly and think stupid things - like that blacks are inferior because of their skin color. That is your right. Rights do not exist to describe what the best human being is - that's a subjective consideration for each of us to pursue. Rights exist to explain what can be objectively considered wrong.

I still believe that the overarching principle is correct both in terms of how society should legislate itself in a democracy and how we should act towards others from a moral perspective.

That's because you want to force your subjective opinion of what is the best way to act on those around you. This is a rights violation and is, objectively, wrong. Your position is actually more immoral than the person in your example who refuses to sell to a black person. That person isn't advocating force against the innocent the way you are.

 

[GTsail]

Government isn't allowed to discriminate (equal protection under the law).****

I wish that this was always true.

Sometimes, even a government needs a little help to get to this position.

Section 4 of the Texas Constitution says the following:

"Sec.4. Religious Tests. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; no shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.1.pdf

It seems to me that the above section would preclude any atheist from holding any statewide office in Texas. I would consider this State sponsored discrimination.👎

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

@GTsail290

Yea, there are so many unconstitutional actions/laws that the US government engages in that the constitution is almost seen as a nuisance by legislators.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Danoff, that's well put and I see what you're saying in the difference between a right (Constitutionally) and a law.

The problem is that the existence of rights doesn't mean that the greater democratic social good is exercised, the fact that it took the Civil Rights Act in order that all Americans with the right to vote would be able to exercise it shows that a right can often be no good with support in legislation.

Continuing down the path of "rights to act" being stronger than law eventually leads to social breakdown because the legislature is no longer sufficient to control public behaviour and public order.

That's how large societies manage themselves, by assessing right-to-act against determined legislation. Walmart's hypothetical right to bar black customers is outweighed by the hypothetical right of black customers to enjoy the same services as white customers. One single person's right does not automatically outweigh another, legislation is the system by which democracy weighs and judges them.

 

[Danoff]

The problem is that the existence of rights doesn't mean that the greater democratic social good is exercised, the fact that it took the Civil Rights Act in order that all Americans with the right to vote would be able to exercise it shows that a right can often be no good with support in legislation.

Continuing down the path of "rights to act" being stronger than law eventually leads to social breakdown because the legislature is no longer sufficient to control public behaviour and public order.

That's how large societies manage themselves, by assessing right-to-act against determined legislation. Walmart's hypothetical right to bar black customers is outweighed by the hypothetical right of black customers to enjoy the same services as white customers. One single person's right does not automatically outweigh another, legislation is the system by which democracy weighs and judges them.

See my signature for a rebuttal. The Walmart example is not a conflict of rights, no one has a right to be treated the same way as anyone else by everyone they encounter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

See my signature for a rebuttal. The Walmart example is not a conflict of rights, no one has a right to be treated the same way as anyone else by everyone they encounter.

I believe it conflicts the right to Liberty of all men* created equally as they are. I actually hold that to be the most basic underlying American right.

*Contextual 'men' from the genderless old Norse noun.

 

[Danoff]

I believe it conflicts the right to Liberty of all men* created equally as they are. I actually hold that to be the most basic underlying American right.

Liberty is being free to treat people differently, not forcing people to behave in a particular way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Liberty is being free to treat people differently, not forcing people to behave in a particular way.

It's also the freedom to act unfettered, is it not?

 

[Danoff]

It's also the freedom to act unfettered, is it not?

If by that you mean unaffected by the world around them, then no.

Rights cannot exist that require the people around you to do something - to have such a right would interfere with their rights. Rights stem from the fact that the initiation of force is immoral. Someone choosing not to sell you something is not an initiation of force against you. You requiring someone to sell you something is an initiation of force against them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If by that you mean unaffected by the world around them, then no.

Rights cannot exist that require the people around you to do something - to have such a right would interfere with their rights. Rights stem from the fact that the initiation of force is immoral. Someone choosing not to sell you something is not an initiation of force against you. You requiring someone to sell you something is an initiation of force against them.

I know I'm being picky; but in the Walmart example the customer doesn't get to choose a product or to approach the point-of-sale. They're simply not allowed into the store!

Who's applying force (let's say the door is wedged open and there's merely a peaceful verbal interchange between the approaching black customer and the store representative who is denying entry).

 

[Danoff]

I know I'm being picky; but in the Walmart example the customer doesn't get to choose a product or to approach the point-of-sale. They're simply not allowed into the store!

Who's applying force (let's say the door is wedged open and there's merely a peaceful verbal interchange between the approaching black customer and the store representative who is denying entry).

Nobody.

Someone requested permission to enter someone else's property and was denied permission. It's as though someone asked to enter your house and you denied them permission. The house is yours to control, they're asking for access to your property.

 

[Famine]

A supermarket is private land. The store representative is upholding the store's property rights - the purported customer has no right of free access to the land and attempting to enter is attempting to force access to the property.

The verbal exchange that informs him that he is not permitted to do so means that no rights were violated by any party.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Messed up post, sorry

 

[TenEightyOne]

A supermarket is private land. The store representative is upholding the store's property rights - the purported customer has no right of free access to the land and attempting to enter is attempting to force access to the property.

The verbal exchange that informs him that he is not permitted to do so means that no rights were violated by any party.

And where is that right actually noted? I can't find anything that supersedes the Bill of Rights or Civil Rights Act?

US law for private land where non-invitational business services are offered is no different from that in the UK as I understand it.

 

[Imari]

And where is that right actually noted? I can't find anything that supersedes the Bill of Rights or Civil Rights Act?

It's pretty much required if you're going to have the concept of ownership of property. Whether it's recognised in law or not, it is a requirement. If people can just waltz in whenever they like regardless of your permission, then your ownership is worthless. Probably worse than worthlessless, because you'll still be paying upkeep and maintenance and the people abusing your property won't.

Why are stores a special case in that they can only grant everyone or no one permission to enter their property? Everyone else has the choice to let all, some or none of the people who wish to enter their private property enter. Why are stores stripped of the choice of only having some people enter? I mean, apart from the countless examples of stores that do exactly that?

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's pretty much required if you're going to have the concept of ownership of property. Whether it's recognised in law or not, it is a requirement. If people can just waltz in whenever they like regardless of your permission, then your ownership is worthless. Probably worse than worthlessless, because you'll still be paying upkeep and maintenance and the people abusing your property won't.

Why are stores a special case in that they can only grant everyone or no one permission to enter their property? Everyone else has the choice to let all, some or none of the people who wish to enter their private property enter. Why are stores stripped of the choice of only having some people enter? I mean, apart from the countless examples of stores that do exactly that?

You keep repeating yourself, find the justification in law that supports that right and provide evidence to support that claim, I've provided you with my evidence. If you have no right in law you have no right in a democracy... recourse to law is one of the pillars of modern society. Show some examples of the kind of thing happening that you claim is happening, presumably it must be in pretty plain sight?

I spoke with a colleague who can't see where the property ownership comes into effect when judging a right from the Bill of Rights against the Civil Rights Act (as would be done in a case like our hypothetical store case) regardless of the location of the act when one operates a business that people are normally free to approach and use (ie a non-invitational contract).

Business are allowed to discriminate in certain normalised circumstances but society has added specific exceptions to these in order to rid itself of historic wrongs. That's how right in democracy works.

You're from the Antipodes although I dimly remember you saying you live in Japan now. Australia's law set inherits the Constitutional model from the English model in exactly the same way that the US does. In each case the laws are, of course, different but the model of judgement and ratification is the same.

 

[Imari]

You keep repeating yourself, find the justification in law that supports that right and provide evidence to support that claim, I've provided you with my evidence. If you have no right in law you have no right in a democracy... recourse to law is one of the pillars of modern society. Show some examples of the kind of thing happening that you claim is happening, presumably it must be in pretty plain sight?

I spoke with a colleague who can't see where the property ownership comes into effect when judging a right from the Bill of Rights against the Civil Rights Act (as would be done in a case like our hypothetical store case) regardless of the location of the act when one operates a business that people are normally free to approach and use (ie a non-invitational contract).

Business are allowed to discriminate in certain normalised circumstances but society has added specific exceptions to these in order to rid itself of historic wrongs. That's how right in democracy works.

You're from the Antipodes although I dimly remember you saying you live in Japan now. Australia's law set inherits the Constitutional model from the English model in exactly the same way that the US does. In each case the laws are, of course, different but the model of judgement and ratification is the same.

I've explained to you before that I'm not debating legal rights, my argument is based on natural rights. I even made it very clear in that post that even if the legal right exists that allows the public to enter without permission, it violates the natural right.

You keep ignoring this.

 

[Rich S]

Its always been my opinion that religion shouldn't be a part of government, obviously you have this massive range of views amongst conservatives and "right wingers." Some want government to kick in money and influence to help their various causes from building a church to making sure they never pay any taxes, creating anti gay laws, etc. I honestly dont know why so much time and effort is put in by Christians these days against gays, they could accomplish so much more if they spent their time on something else. Imagine how many hours of time are spent lobbying & fighting against gays during the year when that time could be spent giving back to the local community.

 

[Famine]

And where is that right actually noted? I can't find anything that supersedes the Bill of Rights or Civil Rights Act?

US law for private land where non-invitational business services are offered is no different from that in the UK as I understand it.

You keep repeating yourself, find the justification in law that supports that right

I'm not really concerned about legally codified rights - immoral and amoral laws exist worldwide and across time. I'm only concerned about what is morally right

Law isn't a justification of rights. Law is law - and can often be used to deny rights. Just take a look at slavery or, in the present, Uganda's new laws about homosexuality - laws that you'd say are justify the most appalling treatment of human beings and is normal because that's what society wants but that I'd say are immoral and deny their rights. And I'm right.

As I said previously, please refer to the Human Rights thread.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Law isn't a justification of rights. Law is law - and can often be used to deny rights. Just take a look at slavery or, in the present, Uganda's new laws about homosexuality - laws that you'd say are justify the most appalling treatment of human beings and is normal because that's what society wants but that I'd say are immoral and deny their rights. And I'm right.

As I said previously, please refer to the Human Rights thread.

I can't disagree with that in the global context that you present it. In the context of this thread however we were talking about the legality or right (in yet another subcontext) as inherited into American law from the Bill of Rights. Countries may not rule against HRA if they are signatory but they must include the HRA in their balance of law.

I hold that right as interpreted in that case is correct and that my moral and legal stance on right in that context is correct.

Without going deeply into the Ugandan situation (I'm aware there's a thread for that) I'd say that countries pursing agendas of social division should be policed by the remainder of the world. In Uganda's case we've seen that they are already incurring sanctions. Does that work perfectly? Certainly not, but the Ugandan case of applying division through law is different from the American case of trying to remove division through war and is certainly and an agenda that the world should seek to discourage.

When arguing in the US context its more complex because of the enshrinement of legally determined rights. Neither person's "human right" in the Walmart hypothesis supersedes the other (despite the property argument I couldn't find a colleague in the legal team who could say why that might come into such a case, the property argument is subjunct to the service) and therefore the recourse to balance is in law. As I said earlier, if such a case can be found I'd love to look at the details out of genuine interest.

The emboldening of right was just to help me read it back

 

[Touring Mars]

Racism, sexism and their ilk are poor, despicable behavior that should not be accepted in society. But, and this is an important point, it is your right to act poorly and think stupid things - like that blacks are inferior because of their skin color. That is your right. Rights do not exist to describe what the best human being is - that's a subjective consideration for each of us to pursue. Rights exist to explain what can be objectively considered wrong.

Although this all depends on what is considered a right and what isn't. Conservatives have a tendency to dismiss rights such as the right to equal treatment as not a right, but simply wishful thinking. By treating people differently because of something they are (as opposed to on merit or based on what that person has done/is doing) is considered a violation of the right to equal treatment, in such places where that right is recognised at least.

Racism/sexism etc. are despicable and should not be accepted in society - hence I can see why this bill was vetoed and why there is such support for the veto, because it appears to allow for this kind of behaviour and suggests that such behaviour is perfectly OK when it is not. If, as you say, such behaviour should not be accepted in society, then why do we need laws that specifically allow for it to happen?

 

[Famine]

I can't disagree with that in the global context that you present it. In the context of this thread however we were talking about the legality or right (in yet another subcontext) as inherited into American law from the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights. It* protects them from rule of law by limiting the powers of government.

Countries may not rule against HRA if they are signatory but they must include the HRA in their balance of law.

By "HRA" do you mean the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Only... have you read it? Many of the points are contradictory of each other and almost all of them require the complete lack of respect for property rights - property rights that are integral to the right to the efforts of your own labour. We had a term a couple hundred years ago for people to whom society was legally permitted the efforts of their own labour - and the USA had a bit of an internal spat with it as a leading reason.

I hold that right as interpreted in that case is correct and that my moral and legal stance on right in that context is correct.

Your moral stance can only be correct if it is logical. It is not logical to say that rights are codified, because that would require rights are different in different territories and fundamentally disagree - the root of the very word "right" demands veracity and you cannot have two disagreeing truths.

Women do not have the legal right to drive cars alone in Saudi Arabia. Women do have the legal right to drive cars alone in Belgium. The laws disagree - so which is actually a right**?

despite the property argument I couldn't find a colleague in the legal team who could say why that might come into such a case, the property argument is subjunct to the service

The problem is bolded.

I'll say again. I'm not concerned about what is legal - I cannot and will not support laws that are not moral. It is not moral to force private property holders to grant free access to that property, despite how legal it is (in some territories).

Please go read through the Human Rights thread, because you're basically treading the same ground that has been covered there and many posters who are active in this forum have come to accept that the legal definitions of rights are insufficient when it comes to defining rights. Though many laws do an excellent job of upholding them, it's just the centre of a Venn Diagram.

Although this all depends on what is considered a right and what isn't. Conservatives have a tendency to dismiss rights such as the right to equal treatment as not a right, but simply wishful thinking.

It's a requirement of public bodies that represent (or take funding from!) all people. It's not a requirement of private citizens because it would require their right to freedom of expression to be ignored. Something that requires other rights to be ignored isn't a right.

Racism/sexism etc. are despicable and should not be accepted in society - hence I can see why this bill was vetoed and why there is such support for the veto, because it appears to allow for this kind of behaviour and suggests that such behaviour is perfectly OK when it is not. If, as you say, such behaviour should not be accepted in society, then why do we need laws that specifically allow for it to happen?

We don't.


It's actually surprising how few laws we actually need. Something I find interesting about law is that is fundamentally impossible for a person who is expected to follow it to understand. It's public record, so you can look it up if you have a spare fifteen years (lawyers live and breath it for four years of pretty hard study - but they end up specialising because it is so fundamentally complex), but day to day you could be breaking the law a handful of times without knowing it. Worse still, even after looking up laws, people can still disagree on the interpretation of them - one only has to look at motoring forums to see the arguments over exactly what this section of the Road Traffic Act (Construction and Use) means...

Doesn't that strike anyone as untenable? Citizens are expected to follow the law and, as we often hear, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we have no idea what the law actually is to be able to follow it and even if we do, other people may interpret it differently and we're boned when the man in the funny wig taps his otherwise purposeless mallet.

There is some necessity for complexity in law - catch-alls can be fundamentally unfair - but the greater the specificity, the more specifics need to be added and the more loopholes are left. The Bill of Rights in the USA is an excellent starting point because it effectively says "these are things the government can never tell you to do" (largely hinting at a tacit understanding of rights), but it doesn't really cover how citizens may treat each other - the Bill of Rights doesn't define what a murder is, how much nitrogen dioxide in the air is safe to breathe or how fast you should be allowed to drive past a school - so a body of law is needed thereafter (which is why the Bill of Rights is even better, as it* restricts what the laws can be).

But the bloated rule of law we have, that is supposed to protect citizens' rights by clearly determining what citizens are allowed to do to one another, seems to be unfit for the purpose by making the requirements too complex for any one citizen to understand.


*Add "is supposed to", since successive Presidents, Senates and Supreme Courts have allowed laws to pass that trample on it.
**Actually it's neither - driving is a privilege and restrictions placed upon it are entirely at the fiat of the government. However, it is not right for the government to impose unequal restrictions upon individuals who have passed the same competency test.

 

[Exorcet]

Although this all depends on what is considered a right and what isn't. Conservatives have a tendency to dismiss rights such as the right to equal treatment as not a right, but simply wishful thinking. By treating people differently because of something they are (as opposed to on merit or based on what that person has done/is doing) is considered a violation of the right to equal treatment, in such places where that right is recognised at least.

Is there a right to equal treatment, outside of everyone having the same rights? If there are two nearly identical people with the same personality and nearly the same appearance, the only difference being skin color, is it a problem if a person favors one of them over the other in choosing who to marry due to their own preferences? Does the rejected person have a right to live the same life as the near-twin?

Racism/sexism etc. are despicable and should not be accepted in society - hence I can see why this bill was vetoed and why there is such support for the veto, because it appears to allow for this kind of behaviour and suggests that such behaviour is perfectly OK when it is not. If, as you say, such behaviour should not be accepted in society, then why do we need laws that specifically allow for it to happen?

Ideally it's not about allowing racism, etc, it's about not unfairly restricting people. I think that there are cases where it makes sense to discriminate based on race, sex, etc. Example if you're making a play and you want a female character played by a female, why not outright deny any men applying for the position? A law forcing non discrimination means you must allow men to apply, and the vast majority will probably be discriminated out of the running by not looking/acting/etc like women.

What reason is there to apply to this kind of logic to a place like Walmart? I can't think of any. That doesn't mean that a valid reason doesn't exist, and if a valid reason does exist people should be able to act on that reasoning. If no valid reason exists, then anyone discriminating is likely to find it challenging to make any progress, unless the vast majority of people want to discriminate, which probably makes any law moot.