Civil Rights Movement encroaches on rights?

[prisonermonkeys]

Someone walks into a fancy restaurant. They aren't dressed appropriately for the establishment. They are turned away by the maître d. Restaurant is still full of people otherwise.

Sorry, but your parallel is not at all parallel.

See, upon entering said fancy restaurant, it is expected that you would be dressed appropriately. However, the thread-starter is calling for that fancy restaurant to have the ability ro turn away people who otherwise meet every condition of entry that would be expected of them.

Really? I view any anti-discrimination law - many of which are "affirmative action" and thus pro-discrimination - that affects non-public bodies as beyond inconvenience, and I've been the victim of discrimination.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that a society are not only free to discriminate, but have a right to would somehow be better than a society where people have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of something they have no power to control, like the colour of their skin?

 

[shortcake57]

If that inappropriately dressed person had the ability to pay, how isgmat any different?

 

[Müle]

See, upon entering said fancy restaurant, it is expected that you would be dressed appropriately. However, the thread-starter is calling for that fancy restaurant to have the ability ro turn away people who otherwise meet every condition of entry that would be expected of them.

They may have the ability to, but they still wont, as has already been pointed out multiple times (and you conveniently chose not to reply to).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Furthermore, you haven't answered the question of why anyone should be required by law to serve someone that they don't want to. It doesn't fix bigotry.

I have addressed that.

See, people have rights. But they also have responsibilities. You might have the right to free speech, but you have the responsibility to exercise that right appropriately. Let's say that you don't like the way your local mayor has introduced electronically-monitored parking in the main street of town. You have the right to voice an opinion on that, but you have the responsibility to voice that opinion in an appropriate manner. So what do you think would be more conductive for everyone involved: addressing the mayor in front of an audience at a meeting in the town hall, or leaving a bag of flaming dog poo on his front door and shouting out "No electronic parking montiors!" when he opens the door to put the fire out?

You're acting as if the right to free speech is sacrosanct to the point where people should be entitled to discriminate if that's the way they truly feel. But while you are so quick to embrace those rights, you refuse to so much as acknowledge the responsibilities that go with it. And that's not acceptable. You have the right to open up a place of business - and you have the responsibility to observe the laws that govern the way businesses are to be run. If you don't want to accept those responsibilities, then you forefiet the right to operate your business.

Let's say that you're a doctor, and you're the only doctor in town. And on a personal level, you don't like elderly black Jewish lesbians with amputated legs. One day, an elderly black Jewish lesbian with an amputated leg walks into your practice off the street, complaining of chest pains. What do you do? On the one hand, you don't like her and don't want to treat her. On the other, you have the responsibility to help her.

Finally, answer me this: is money that comes from an African-American person worth any more or any less than money that comes from a Caucasian person? If not, why is it such a problem for you to take that money in exchange for goods or services?

If that inappropriately dressed person had the ability to pay, how isgmat any different?

Because they have the power to control what they wear. They can go home and get changed. On the other hand, people cannot control the colour of their skin. They are born with it, and they have no choice in the matter. How can you reasonably discriminate against someone who cannot control the variable that you are discriminating against? And how can you claim that society would be better off for it if you had the right to do that?

 

[Azuremen]

I have addressed that.

See, people have rights. But they also have responsibilities. You might have the right to free speech, but you have the responsibility to exercise that right appropriately. Let's say that you don't like the way your local mayor has introduced electronically-monitored parking in the main street of town. You have the right to voice an opinion on that, but you have the responsibility to voice that opinion in an appropriate manner. So what do you think would be more conductive for everyone involved: addressing the mayor in front of an audience at a meeting in the town hall, or leaving a bag of flaming dog poo on his front door and shouting out "No electronic parking montiors!" when he opens the door to put the fire out?

This isn't the same, as you are suggesting what is conductive versus what is legally mandated.

You're acting as if the right to free speech is sacrosanct to the point where people should be entitled to discriminate if that's the way they truly feel. But while you are so quick to embrace those rights, you refuse to so much as acknowledge the responsibilities that go with it. And that's not acceptable. You have the right to open up a place of business - and you have the responsibility to observe the laws that govern the way businesses are to be run. If you don't want to accept those responsibilities, then you forefiet the right to operate your business.

There is no legal precedent that a business must serve all customers. Many have signs in plan sight they say they can refuse service to anyone, because they can.

Let's say that you're a doctor, and you're the only doctor in town. And on a personal level, you don't like elderly black Jewish lesbians with amputated legs. One day, an elderly black Jewish lesbian with an amputated leg walks into your practice off the street, complaining of chest pains. What do you do? On the one hand, you don't like her and don't want to treat her. On the other, you have the responsibility to help her.

No, you really don't. Secondly, how easily could that doctor "fail" at the medical procedure, ultimately allowing him to act on his dislike?

Finally, answer me this: is money that comes from an African-American person worth any more or any less than money that comes from a Caucasian person? If not, why is it such a problem for you to take that money in exchange for goods or services?

There isn't a good reason, which is why racism has fallen out of style, derp

But why is it any different for a loud or rude person, or perhaps someone with no shirt on, etc? In a world where you consider people equal, skin color and clothing aren't any different in telling people apart, but you want what should be a trivial difference made into law.

Because they have the power to control what they wear. They can go home and get changed. On the other hand, people cannot control the colour of their skin. They are born with it, and they have no choice in the matter. How can you reasonably discriminate against someone who cannot control the variable that you are discriminating against? And how can you claim that society would be better off for it if you had the right to do that?

Have you not, at all, thought this this all still happens despite laws? Do you magically think racism in workplaces and business has disappeared because some law was passed?

Do you also fail to realize that due to this kind of policies, when a white guy is fired no one really cares, but if a black/asian/gay/woman/minority is fired, questions are asked? How is that encouraging equal treatment?

 

[Tornado]

Sorry, but your parallel is not at all parallel.

"any reason other than their ability to pay for them"

Your words. Refusing (or being unable to) to conform to a dress code is a reason to not serve someone. Disrupting the experience of other customers (which someone walking around in a T-Shirt would likely do to patrons of such a restaurant) is another, related reason to not serve someone. Are they doing business?

Because they have the power to control what they wear. They can go home and get changed.

If they have/afford the required type of clothing. I couldn't go into such a restaurant because I don't fit either category, neither having a sport jacket/suit or being able to afford to buy one.

Do I have a right to demand that they serve me anyway?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If they have/afford the required type of clothing. I couldn't go into such a restaurant because I don't fit either category, neither having a sport jacket/suit or being able to afford to buy one.

No. Because you have the power to control that variable. You don't have the money to afford a suit so that you can eat at that restaurant, but you can earn enough money to buy a suit, and then you can eat at that restaurant. It may take time, yes, and it's entirely possible that that restaurant may close down before you have the opportunity to eat there - but the fact that it is physically possible for you to change your socio-economic situation so that you can eat there proves my point.

Conversely, how is an African-American meant to be able to control the colour of their skin so that they can eat at a place that only serves white people? Refusing to serve them in the first place is racist. Expecting them to undergo a series of expensive, extensive, invasive and unnecessary operations to change the colour of their skin (Michael Jackson underwent the procedure for vitiligo, a rare auto-immune disease) just so that they can eat at said establishment in appallingly racist.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Good point. *ATH Point Sound* Most establishments often times require you to have a shirt and shoes, does that infringe on basic human rights? No, because they do it because of the public health.

Some establishments require a more formal dress like a tie, but does that discriminate against minorities? No. That is because they want a certain sort of clientele at their establishment. It would be like you go to Wolfgang Puck's place here in Dallas wearing something that you would go hunting in. You would get laughed out the door.

Then there are the very few that require a suit and tie. Again, I ask, does that discriminate? No. Most of the time, these establishments are at high-end casinos and you would want to make it appear that you are a big spender.

No. Because you have the power to control that variable. You don't have the money to afford a suit so that you can eat at that restaurant, but you can earn enough money to buy a suit, and then you can eat at that restaurant. It may take time, yes, and it's entirely possible that that restaurant may close down before you have the opportunity to eat there - but the fact that it is physically possible for you to change your socio-economic situation so that you can eat there proves my point.

Conversely, how is an African-American meant to be able to control the colour of their skin so that they can eat at a place that only serves white people? Refusing to serve them in the first place is racist. Expecting them to undergo a series of expensive, extensive, invasive and unnecessary operations to change the colour of their skin (Michael Jackson underwent the procedure for vitiligo, a rare auto-immune disease) just so that they can eat at said establishment in appallingly racist.

What health concern is there if my shirt isn't on while I walk into McDonalds one summer afternoon to buy an ice cream cone?

Isn't preventing someone from dining at a restaurant because they don't have a jacket and tie, potential economic discrimination? Why can't I wear hunting gear in Wolfgang Pucks? It's clothing so I'm not exposed in any way. Nothing illegal about my clothing. But Wolfgang Puck's can refuse to serve me because I have a certain kind of clothing on? How is that not discrimination?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How is that not discrimination?

Because there is an understanding of what is considered to be acceptable and appropriate. If you arrive dressed in an unacceptable or inappropriate fashion, you could reasonably be turned away because there is nothing to stop you from going home, getting changed and returning to the establishment dressed in something that is acceptable and appropriate, and be allowed in without hesitation.

However, you cannot discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin, because they do no have the luxury of going home and changing it. They cannot be turned away because they are African-American, go home and come back half an hour later as a white person and gain entry.

How do you not recognise that these are two entriely different situations?

 

[Azuremen]

How do you not recognise that these are two entriely different situations?

Different only in semantics if you truly consider people equal. Economic discrimination is just as valid as any other form.

Further, you've yet to even address the fact that, despite policy, discrimination still happens.

 

[Zenith]

^^

And that forcing someone to provide a service with their property is a violation of their rights.

An auto mechanic has no obligation or responsibility to fix your car. A shop owner has no responsibility to sell you his wares regardless of whether or not you can pay what other people pay. This goes for all people and professions, especially fancy restaurant owners.

 

[Tornado]

No. Because you have the power to control that variable. You don't have the money to afford a suit so that you can eat at that restaurant, but you can earn enough money to buy a suit, and then you can eat at that restaurant.

So your answer to why economic discrimination doesn't count as real discrimination is because you can just tell those people to come back when they're rich?

Conversely, how is an African-American meant to be able to control the colour of their skin so that they can eat at a place that only serves white people? Refusing to serve them in the first place is racist. Expecting them to undergo a series of expensive, extensive, invasive and unnecessary operations to change the colour of their skin (Michael Jackson underwent the procedure for vitiligo, a rare auto-immune disease) just so that they can eat at said establishment in appallingly racist.

None of this explains why that needs to be corrected through legislation. Is it racist? Yup. Is it any more discriminatory in practice than elaborate dress codes, or any other type of customer exclusion (of which economic is just one type)? Nope.

Refusing pregnant women the chance to go on rides in an amusement park is discrimination. Not allowing people under a certain age into malls after a certain time of day is discrimination. Giving certain groups of people reduced rates for food based on how old they are is discrimination. Not having your place of business be accessible by wheelchair is discrimination. Not allowing service animals in your establishment is discrimination.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Further, you've yet to even address the fact that, despite policy, discrimination still happens.

And you've yet to address the implication of your own posts that because discrimination happens in spite of legislation, that legislation is unnecessary and people should be entitled to discriminate however, whenever and wherever they please without consequence.

forcing someone to provide a service with their property is a violation of their rights.

How is it a violation of their rights when they are the ones choosing to provide that service with their property in the first place?

Once again, you display the "my rights are more important than the rights of ten other people" attitude.

An auto mechanic has no obligation or responsibility to fix your car.

Yes, he does. Because if he doesn't fix your car properly, he's a) going to go out of business, and b) liable if his poor work results in an accident.

None of this explains why that needs to be corrected through legislation.

And none of that explains why the right of some to discriminate is more important than the right of many not to be the victim of discrimination.

 

[Tornado]

Because the latter isn't a right. That's basically just taking the "right to not be offended" silliness from the homosexuality thread and changing a couple words.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've never bothered to take part in that discussion (seriously) so I wouldn't know anything about that.

Nevertheless, reading back over this discussion, I see a whole lot of idle talk. You all insist that legislation intended to prevent discrimination encoraches on your own personal rights, but when you go out into the world tomorrow, you'll still be observing them. Those of you who own businesses won't be denying anyone goods and services because of someone's skin color or sexuality or whatever reason you don't like. For all you claims and insinuations that the right to discriminate is more important than the right not to be a victim of discrimination, you'll still toe the line because you know that if you don't, there will be consequences, and that whatever comfort you take from the knowledge that you were able to discriminate as you saw fit will not be enough to make up for what you have lost as a result of those consequences. And you'll never act on it, either; you'll never lead or support some kind of social revolution where those civil rights established forty years ago are repealed, because you know that it will never take off, much less succeed, and that even if it did succeed, all you will have done is create a state where anarchy can take over as people are free to discriminate. I'm also willing to bet that if ever it did take hold, some of you would be among the first to complain the moment they were on the receiving end of discrimination.

So ultimately, you'd acheived nothing. Your entire arguments are meaningless, because they only exist in cyberspace.

 

[Azuremen]

And you've yet to address the implication of your own posts that because discrimination happens in spite of legislation, that legislation is unnecessary and people should be entitled to discriminate however, whenever and wherever they please without consequence.

If you had bother to read, several members have already pointed out that there would be economic consequences if a business carried out such practices in this day. I believe you yourself even said something along these lines.

So ultimately, you'd acheived nothing. Your entire arguments are meaningless, because they only exist in cyberspace.

Mature

 

[Zenith]

So ultimately, you'd acheived nothing. Your entire arguments are meaningless, because they only exist in cyberspace.

Possibly the most mature statement I've read on this site.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Mature

Go ahead, lead a revolution for the right to discriminate against whomever you please for whatever reason you please. Then, and only then, will your sarcastic response actually prove your point.

 

[Tornado]

So ultimately, you'd acheived nothing. Your entire arguments are meaningless, because they only exist in cyberspace.

Well, crap son. I'll send Jordan a PM right now to close down the entire Opinions subforum based on that logic.


Actually... Might as well scuttle the entirety of GTP while we're at it.

Go ahead, lead a revolution for the right to discriminate against whomever you please for whatever reason you please. Then, and only then, will your sarcastic response actually prove your point.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is meaningless, because it only exists in cyberspace.

 

[Diego440]

So ultimately, you'd acheived nothing. Your entire arguments are meaningless, because they only exist in cyberspace.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is meaningless, because it only exists in cyberspace.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is meaningless, because it only exists in cyberspace.

No, my argument is meaningful because I actually practice what I preach in real life. You seem to think that the right to discriminate is something that everyone should have. However, you don't discriminate in real life, and you don't do anything about it despite all your claims that it is something that you should have. So as long as you keep doing nothing about it, my argument is meaningful wherever I express it. Yours, however, only has any substance if you don't act on it. Claiming that my argument is meaningless because it only exists in cyberspace falls under the category of "not acting on your argument", thereby proving that my argument is meaningful.

Twist it however you like - the only way your arguments hold any value is if you actually try to make good on them in the flesh. So, go ahead; march on Capitol Hill and demand the right to discriminate against whomever you list for whatever reason you like whenever you like. Lead the revolution to repeal the civil rights movement. I'll stay here and keep an eye on the news headlines, because I'm sure you'll make headlines around the world, even if you aren't successful.

 

[Joel]

And you've yet to address the implication of your own posts that because discrimination happens in spite of legislation, that legislation is unnecessary and people should be entitled to discriminate however, whenever and wherever they please without consequence.

Let's look at the Chick-fil-A controversy from this summer. Some of Chick-fil-A's top management (IIRC it was their COO) made statements about how they support the traditional family and how gay marriage was an affront to their values. The only thing they did was donate to organizations that supported these values (admittedly, some of these organizations were pretty ridiculous). They did not bar gays from eating or working in their restaurants, nor did they say there was anything inherently wrong with homosexuality. They simply stated that the company operates and has a deep respect for the traditional family and Christian values (which isn't just posturing, they don't open on Sundays and the company's management has always been vocal about that).

Look at what happened to them. Keep in mind that all they did was say that gay marriage was against traditional family values. They did not bar gays from eating there, or actively discriminate against them. Within weeks of this happening, protests were staged at Chick-fil-A locations, gay couples publicly kissed at Chick-fil-A locations on August 3rd, 2012, and the Jim Henson company pulled their toys from Chick-fil-A kids meals, and announced it was ending their business relationship with Chick-fil-A. That being said, August 1st became a day where many Christians made a sort of pilgrimage to Chick-fil-A locations, to support family values. However, I doubt that the total hit on their image is made up for by one day of boosted sales.

See what happened here? A company made statements that the general public considered to be out of line and they showed their views accordingly. Chick-fil-A did not outwardly express contempt for homosexuals, only gay marriage itself. They did not forbid gays from eating or working there, they did not publicly state anything other than an issue with gay marriage from a Christian values perspective. Despite this, the general public still called out Chick-fil-A, made an effort to stop eating there, and their image has been forever tarnished because of it. All this for simply stating that they think gay marriage is wrong. Now imagine if instead of simply saying they oppose gay marriage because of their values, they said they want to keep gays out of their restaurants as employees or customers. Given the way the public reacted to the former, can you imagine the ramifications of the latter?

The issue with what happened to Chick-fil-A, and why I believe these "compassionate" laws are wrong, is demonstrated by Boston mayor Thomas Menino. Menino publicly stated that he wishes to do everything in his power to block a hypothetical Chick-fil-A franchise in Boston. All because they said they think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Chick-fil-A has never discriminated against gays as either customers or employees, yet the mayor of Boston felt that he should actively try to work against them setting up a franchise in Boston. Of course, there's very little he could practically do against the company, but the mere fact that a mayor of a city would claim such a thing shows me the root of the issue.

The slippery slope often is labelled as a fallacy, but from my observation it is not fallacious when applied to governments and law. The civil rights act was initially enacted to break down barriers and allow all to work, shop, and live in the same areas, regardless of race. It has been extended to include things like affirmative action, and laws based on "offensive" speech. This is the problem, give a government an inch to govern on the basis of social equality, and they won't stop.

 

[Tornado]

No, my argument is meaningful because I actually practice what I preach in real life. You seem to think that the right to discriminate is something that everyone should have. However, you don't discriminate in real life, and you don't do anything about it despite all your claims that it is something that you should have. So as long as you keep doing nothing about it, my argument is meaningful wherever I express it.

So what you're saying is, in order to "practice what I preach," I personally need to be discriminatory towards groups? Or, to use the example you keep trotting out to the point of ignoring other, similar ones; to support someone else's right to be a racist, I need to be a racist myself (I can only imagine what implications such logic holds for things like Freedom of Speech)?



...



Do you even read your posts before you push "Submit Reply," or what? Or are you so full of yourself that you've twisted your personal ideals into a universal truth stateme-

Twist it however you like - the only way your arguments hold any value is if you actually try to make good on them in the flesh.

Ah.

 

[Azuremen]

Go ahead, lead a revolution for the right to discriminate against whomever you please for whatever reason you please. Then, and only then, will your sarcastic response actually prove your point.

Are you suggesting your statement wasn't laced with sarcasm and condescension?

And you seem to think that without laws the world would turn racist over night because people would have the right, suggesting that they currently do not. If you think either of these is the case, you have a very odd notion of how people operate.

 

[jcm]

So much hate in this thread

Relax

Use more smilies

Racism or discrimination isn't on the same level as a dress code, right? I can see where PM is going with his story and some what agree. But I can also see the other side of the story and some what agree.

Ah, I love how life can be confusing.

Why can't we all just agree that Dennisch is right?

(If anyone actually answers that with a multi-paragraph post about how it will eventually lead to Big Brother arresting you for thoughtcrime, I will not only punch 1984 for being influential, but I will go to war with Eastania and Eurasia at the same time! )

 

[arora]

You cannot weigh and find infringements of individual rights less important then an oppression of a minority, or your mob rule mentality will simply run full circle. In the judicial system all men should be treated equal, that is the check imo and I'm sure if I searched I could back it up. Here is a supreme court case upholding segregation(Plessy v. Ferguson), and here is a supreme court decision to repudiate "separate but equal"(Brown v. Board of education)

It's important to understand how a checks and balance system works but I'll give you a hint, there is no need for a slew of legislation overcompensating every time some silly little thing occurs in a society. Of course going from slavery to equality is something that takes time, we got there but it was not easy.

 

[McLaren]

Let's look at the Chick-fil-A controversy from this summer. Some of Chick-fil-A's top management (IIRC it was their COO) made statements about how they support the traditional family and how gay marriage was an affront to their values. The only thing they did was donate to organizations that supported these values (admittedly, some of these organizations were pretty ridiculous). They did not bar gays from eating or working in their restaurants, nor did they say there was anything inherently wrong with homosexuality. They simply stated that the company operates and has a deep respect for the traditional family and Christian values (which isn't just posturing, they don't open on Sundays and the company's management has always been vocal about that).

Look at what happened to them. Keep in mind that all they did was say that gay marriage was against traditional family values. They did not bar gays from eating there, or actively discriminate against them. Within weeks of this happening, protests were staged at Chick-fil-A locations, gay couples publicly kissed at Chick-fil-A locations on August 3rd, 2012, and the Jim Henson company pulled their toys from Chick-fil-A kids meals, and announced it was ending their business relationship with Chick-fil-A. That being said, August 1st became a day where many Christians made a sort of pilgrimage to Chick-fil-A locations, to support family values. However, I doubt that the total hit on their image is made up for by one day of boosted sales.

See what happened here? A company made statements that the general public considered to be out of line and they showed their views accordingly. Chick-fil-A did not outwardly express contempt for homosexuals, only gay marriage itself. They did not forbid gays from eating or working there, they did not publicly state anything other than an issue with gay marriage from a Christian values perspective. Despite this, the general public still called out Chick-fil-A, made an effort to stop eating there, and their image has been forever tarnished because of it. All this for simply stating that they think gay marriage is wrong. Now imagine if instead of simply saying they oppose gay marriage because of their values, they said they want to keep gays out of their restaurants as employees or customers. Given the way the public reacted to the former, can you imagine the ramifications of the latter?

The issue with what happened to Chick-fil-A, and why I believe these "compassionate" laws are wrong, is demonstrated by Boston mayor Thomas Menino. Menino publicly stated that he wishes to do everything in his power to block a hypothetical Chick-fil-A franchise in Boston. All because they said they think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Chick-fil-A has never discriminated against gays as either customers or employees, yet the mayor of Boston felt that he should actively try to work against them setting up a franchise in Boston. Of course, there's very little he could practically do against the company, but the mere fact that a mayor of a city would claim such a thing shows me the root of the issue.

The slippery slope often is labelled as a fallacy, but from my observation it is not fallacious when applied to governments and law. The civil rights act was initially enacted to break down barriers and allow all to work, shop, and live in the same areas, regardless of race. It has been extended to include things like affirmative action, and laws based on "offensive" speech. This is the problem, give a government an inch to govern on the basis of social equality, and they won't stop.

Actually, the general public widely supported Chick Fil A & the company's right to donate to who they want & hold the beliefs they choose to. The company broke sales records that day & polls later showed over half of the people asked would continue to eat there.

But, I understand your point. And you're right that the real injustice was the politicians wanting to ban the company from their city just because they held a different point of view without actually discriminating anyone. The fact this whole controversy supposedly caused Chick Fil A to stop donating to organizations that do not support same-sex marriages is ridiculous. You have the right to donate to whomever you want.

 

[Famine]

No, my argument is meaningful because I actually practice what I preach in real life. You seem to think that the right to discriminate is something that everyone should have. However, you don't discriminate in real life, and you don't do anything about it despite all your claims that it is something that you should have. So as long as you keep doing nothing about it, my argument is meaningful wherever I express it. Yours, however, only has any substance if you don't act on it. Claiming that my argument is meaningless because it only exists in cyberspace falls under the category of "not acting on your argument", thereby proving that my argument is meaningful.

Twist it however you like - the only way your arguments hold any value is if you actually try to make good on them in the flesh. So, go ahead; march on Capitol Hill and demand the right to discriminate against whomever you list for whatever reason you like whenever you like. Lead the revolution to repeal the civil rights movement. I'll stay here and keep an eye on the news headlines, because I'm sure you'll make headlines around the world, even if you aren't successful.

This is what voting is for. We vote for the people who would support freedom. It's also what discussing is for. We discuss it with people so that they too will vote for the people who would support freedom. Since society seems to now equate the support of the plurality with what is right (which is demonstrably false), the only way to effect change is to gain the support of the plurality - which we do with rational and logical arguments presented in discussion.


It is simply not laudable to behave in any manner for fear of what happens if you don't. You can't threaten goodness into people. It's only laudable to do what's right when free to choose not to. Being legally required not to discriminate doesn't end discrimination - it propogates it by legally recognising that certain groups need more favourable support, which is itself discrimination in law.

 

[arora]

Popular 60's slogan; The moral majority is neither.

My own more popular slogan; You cannot legislate morality.

 

[homeforsummer]

And you've yet to address the implication of your own posts that because discrimination happens in spite of legislation, that legislation is unnecessary and people should be entitled to discriminate however, whenever and wherever they please without consequence.

Before turning the argument on others, it's probably best to read your own posts:

As soon as you start denying those goods and services to people who are capable of paying for them for any reason other than their ability to pay for them, you are no longer doing business (also, discriminating agaisnt customers would likely drive other customers away once they learned of it). Only a fool would turn paying customers away. Since you are not doing business, there is no point in the business existing.

That, surely, is the consequence of "discriminating however, whenever and wherever they please". They'd go out of business. Several of us pointed this out before you jumped into the thread and started accusing people of being racist.

You still haven't answered the request as to how people somehow managed to avoid being racist before legislation against it was introduced, and how some people have managed to continue being racist despite legislation being introduced.

The answer you're looking for is that everyone is different and people are entirely capable of acting on their own moral standards. Some people know that racism is stupid, unnecessary, harmful and abhorrent. Others don't, or don't care, and do it anyway.

And the latter group is going to struggle a whole lot more on a macro level because of it. In modern society, most people try and distance themselves from those with extremist views. People won't eat at a racist restaurant. A business won't hire an openly racist person. People who come out with bigoted views on TV are quickly vilified.

And amazingly, no legislation need be introduced to control any of this. The racist seals his or her own fate.