Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
who has more rights? Page 5 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Pay particular attention to the last sentence.


Which part of it do you want me to pay particular attention to? The Privileges or Immunities Clause? The Due Process Clause? The Equal Protection Clause? Maybe you'd like to give us a disquisition on the history and meaning of each of them.

Apparently you hate one very important feature of that sentence--the fact it applies to *states.* Pay particular attention to these words: "No *state* shall . . . nor shall any *state* deprive . . . nor deny . . . ." The doctrine of "state action" the Supreme Court has developed in a series of decisions (just let me know if you'd like the citations) means that the 14th Amendment applies only to actions taken by a state--not by an individual. Which tracks what I said earlier.

When a person knows as little about constitutional law as you've made clear you do, he can't begin to make an informed judgment about whether anyone else is "cherry picking" the Constitution to suit his prejudices. But your own prejudices are too strong to let a little detail like stand in your way.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 102
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 5:58:40 PM
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So sorry for your disdain of the intent and purpose of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You repeatedly show your prejucice and hood and sheets. It is partisan, and based in disdain of rights for people who are not white, to the right and in dire need of protection for their prejudices. The same crap ya'll used to justify apartheid, discrimination, anti-miscogenation lawas, renditions, torture, and indefinate detentions, are covered under the bill of rights and the constitution. Just because you choose to live in a few centuries in the past, does not give you the right to consign current and future generations into an ancient, but antiquianted and obsolete, time and place. North Georgia welcomes you back. The rest of the world thinks you are obsolete. Get over it.
 g0nef1sh1n
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 103
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 6:47:57 PM
regardless gay or not the retard christian had no business smarts else he would have quit his ****in and rented the room out regardless. He would have gone out of business anyways due to his lack of ability to manage a business. Damn bible thumpers.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 8:01:24 PM

So sorry for your disdain of the intent and purpose of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Those of us who have read and studied those things know that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and not some separate document. If I ever want you to presume to educate me about the intent or purpose of documents you obviously don't give two hoots in he!! about, I will let you know.


You repeatedly show your prejucice and hood and sheets . . . The same crap ya'll used to justify apartheid, discrimination . . . North Georgia welcomes you back.


I take it you meant to include me in "y'all." But except in your wild imagination--which I am sure regularly conjures up all sorts of strange visions--I've never defended South Africa's former policy of apartheid, never attended a Klan meeting, and never been to the fair state of Georgia. From what I have seen, people with racial biases are often the ones accusing other people of harboring them.

You don't know enough to make coherent arguments, so you quickly get in over your head in a debate. And when you realize you don't have anything intelligent to say, you get sulky and start making personal insults. I'm always glad to see you and other leftists follow this pattern--it shows your true colors.
 lotustemple
Joined: 10/23/2011
Msg: 105
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 8:22:26 PM
Whats sad is watching the number of people weaseling around trying to excuse this B&B for just being complete hypocritical douchebags.
-bladesmith

Gay neighbors of mine with a B & B, only rent to male gay nudists. I find it a little off putting when they want to casually discuss their "issues" with me at parties and home owner meetings, however to each their own.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 4:04:05 AM
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/gay-couple-wins-fight-against-christian-bandb

Within that link is an update to this story - spoiler alert: The owners of the B&B were ordered to pay the couple $4000.00 in damages and lost wages. The couple was suing for $5000.00.

As stated in the article, this was a business and the owners were discriminatory in refusing to rent to the couple.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 107
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 8:57:17 AM
Just curious,,, but what about a restaurant or club that has a dress code?
If you don't wear certain clothing, you aren't allowed to enter.
How is that different?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 10:49:31 AM
^^^^^^Good point. I don't think there is any constitutional authority for federal laws prohibiting private individuals and businesses from discriminating--against any person, at any time, for any reason, no matter how arbitrary. A private landlord should be free to rent or not rent to whomever he chooses. And private businesses should be just as free to discriminate in hiring and serving people.

With state laws, the question is not if they're legitimate but rather if they're desirable. With a few exceptions, I am not in favor of state laws that prohibit private discrimination, either, as a matter of policy. But I recognize that unlike the federal government, any state government has authority to make private discrimination illegal if its people want to.

For centuries the common law has prohibited private innkeepers, common carriers, and water suppliers from discriminating without good reason. We don't want travelers to freeze to death because no one will rent them a room, or people to be kept from traveling because the cab or bus or train won't take them, or a household to live on bottled water because the private water company won't run a line to the property.

We should keep exceptions like those where lack of competition allows people to be misused. But otherwise, it's no one else's concern if a black business owner wants to hire and serve only blacks, or a white landlord wants to rent his apartments only to whites, or a private club owner wants to turn away people he thinks are homosexuals. If a person wants to limit his share of the market that way, let him. Someone else will be glad to take the people he turns away.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 11:03:00 AM
discrimination is everywhere and practiced by all. although when it comes to prosecutions christians seem to get targeted a lot as there is usually a nice little earner for the complainants and their 'human rights' lawyer.

its all about the cash. hope the greedy scum never got a chance to spend any of the cash they robbed from the couple. they already got compensation then demanded more. it would be heartbreaking if the greedy scum were to pop their clogs soon. wouldnt it? lol well maybe not

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Gay-couple-demand-compensation-hotel-owners/story-11236901-detail/story.html

and from the bbc
Flat adverts that may be breaking the law

The same principle applies to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion, and sexual orientation.
So "gay flatmate wanted" may be equally illegal.
Not everything is off limits though. "Those characteristics do not include vegetarianism," the spokeswoman explains.

The idea that the law should dictate how landlords advertise a property is a step too far for some people. "We've become too politically correct about these things," says Anil Bhanot, managing trustee of the Hindu Council UK. "If people have choices let them."
To demand "Indian only" is a mistake, he says, but there is nothing negative about expressing a preference.
"It could be people are looking for someone with whom they have more common interests. It's not that they can't live with an English person."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612

this is an absolute beezer. honest folks it shows how far 'human rights' and discrimination laws have went.

Advert for 'reliable' worker 'rejected' by Jobcentre

A Hertfordshire recruitment agency boss says she was told she could not request "reliable and hard-working" applicants.
Devonwood Recruitment boss Nicole Mamo said the Jobcentre Plus in Thetford, Norfolk, told her such an advert could be "offensive" to unreliable people.
Ms Mamo said: "I started to laugh. I said: 'That's crazy'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8483171.stm
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 110
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:17:29 PM
I'm really surprised this thread is still going, but not at all surprised that it has turned (once again) into a debate about the constitutionality of U.S. Federal anti-discrimination laws, which (strictly speaking) the original topic has little or nothing to do with.

1. Matchstick, you and I have crossed swords plenty of times on legal issues. Once again, you are well aware that you are adopting a position that is completely outside the mainstream of the vast majority of legal opinion in the U.S. on this issue.

You opine: "I don't think there is any constitutional authority for federal laws prohibiting private individuals and businesses from discriminating--against any person, at any time, for any reason, no matter how arbitrary."

I leave the response to the SCOTUS: Since Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination in public accommodation has been clearly understood by the vast majority of legal opinion as fully constitutional. You do not like the decision-- but it's there.

2. Your claim about the common law is fairly dubious, on all kinds of grounds, only a few of which I will bother to list.

"For centuries" is a category mistake to start with, because the "common law" never was a fixed body of rules, whether you are talking about English common law as it predated the formation of the United States and was received into individual colonies and Commonwealths (e.g. Virginia, not the post-British Empire international Commonwealth), state or Federal common law in the U.S. as it existed after that time or the common law in Commonwealth countries (U.K., Canada, Australia, N.Z., some others).

Second, your reference to "without good reason" basically makes your statement meaningless. It's "not even wrong" because it's so vague as to be completely inaccurate. It's like claiming "micro-organisms cause disease"-- except it is way further away from being right than that statement.

Third, it's just obvious that "common law", at least as interpreted in the pre-1964 U.S. southern states, was not effective in doing anything like what you are claiming. That was the whole reason for the Civil Rights Acts in the first place.

3. Your discussion of exceptions-- or more precisely, your mingled invocation of dubious economic policy arguments and intentional evasion of what you are well aware is the legal distinction between public provision of services and purely private association, is no more coherent. Comparing racial discrimination in hiring and employment for jobs offered to the public, racial discrimination in housing offered to the public, and sexual-orientation discrimination in entry to a purely private club, is comparing an apple, an orange, and a brick.

As for your economic argument, you are deliberately ignoring the extreme pervasiveness of racism and it's stubborn resistance to economic rationality.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 4:40:42 PM

You do not like the decision-- but it's there.


No, I don't agree with either that or Katzenbach v. McClung, the Ollie's Barbeque decision. They are examples of the era during which the Court again and again abused the Commerce Clause by expanding it far beyond any reasonable interpretation. At least the majority showed in the Obamacare decision that the Court may be ready to reverse that trend.

Whether having used the Commerce Clause to prevent private discrimination for 48 years makes that widely recognized as proper doesn't interest me. I notice that in Boumediene v. Bush, where the crying-towel majority was determined to extend constitutional habeas protection to alien war criminals for the first time in U.S. history, it managed to find a way to overrule a decision that was also widely recognized as proper--and it was then fifty-some years old.


"For centuries" is a category mistake to start with


Phrase it however you like--it doesn't change the point. And that is that laws in most states--whether common law or statutes--have for a very long time prohibited certain types of businesses such as the ones I mentioned from serving some people but not others. When I said "without good reason," all I meant was that despite the general legal obligation to take all comers, an innkeeper could always have refused to put someone up who was threatening to burn the place down in the middle of the night, a bus driver could always have refused to pick up someone who was blind drunk and waving a gun around, and so on.


Third, it's just obvious that "common law", at least as interpreted in the pre-1964 U.S. southern states, was not effective in doing anything like what you are claiming.


It's not obvious to me, without having researched a lot of cases to see how Southern courts interpreted the obligations of innkeepers, common carriers, and private water companies to serve all comers. But recall that Plessy v. Ferguson upheld Louisiana's right to segregate rail coaches--not to prevent blacks from riding trains at all. So at least one southern state's railways were serving them in the 1890's. And I doubt very much if it was ever general practice in the South to allow private water companies to serve only the white customers living within their service areas. The rule is that once you "hold out" service to an area, you can't deny it to anyone living there who wants it.


Comparing racial discrimination in hiring and employment for jobs offered to the public, racial discrimination in housing offered to the public, and sexual-orientation discrimination in entry to a purely private club, is comparing an apple, an orange, and a brick.


That's easy to say. But you don't explain exactly what you object to. I was just giving a few examples of discrimination I don't think state laws should prohibit, although they now do. I don't really care why a private person or business chooses to discriminate, or against what category of people.


As for your economic argument, you are deliberately ignoring the extreme pervasiveness of racism and it's stubborn resistance to economic rationality.


Of course I deliberately ignore those things, just as I deliberately ignore stories about the chupacabra or cold fusion. I don't believe they are true. But even if there were a lot of racially biased Americans, it wouldn't be the business of the federal government to correct their thinking. Under what authority?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 112
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 9:08:49 AM
1. You must acknowledge, at least, that what you refer to as "abuse" of the Commerce Clause, others consider reasonable interpretation. If the question of whether using the Commerce Clause for 48 years to prevent private discrimination makes that practice proper "doesn't interest you", IMHO you go from being an autodidact student of Constitutional Law to being a *crank*.

I'm not a fan of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not going to pretend that the "well regulated militia" language in that clause means that private firearms ownership is constitutionally limited to people serving in the National Guard, because that would be a *crank* interpretation of the clause. (And this, regardless of fun facts like (a) the British are not coming back, (b) even a militia armed with assault rifles and anti-tank weaponry has no reasonable prospect of overthrowing a tyrannical U.S. government, (c) crack dealer posses were probably not what the Framers had in mind.

2. I personally think that Boumediene v. Bush was probably a bad decision. Possibly not for the same reasons that you do. I do not think that Scalia J.'s interpretation of the decision in his dissent is correct, but it certainly opens the door for a litigant to argue for that interpretation of the decision, which if applied would yield an outcome as crazy as Scalia J. is suggesting. Roberts C.J.'s dissent is much closer to being correct, IMHO. While the whole "War on Terror" analogy was completely misguided to start with, if one is to take it seriously, the main thing distinguishing Johnson v. Eisentrager from Boumediene v. Bush is refusing to take seriously the notion that Guantanamo is legally Cuban territory. If it is de jure Cuban territory, one applies Johnson v. Eisentrager, case closed.

3. In regard to the common law-- it DOES change the point. It's one thing to claim that you *meant* "without good reason" to mean something in particular, or something relevantly similar to a list of examples, but the *reality* was that a whole range of businesses treated African ancestry as "good reason". And as a side point, it's generally a less-than-effective rhetorical strategy to admit that you have not even researched the area of law that you are making broad claims about.

4. You do realize that you are arguing in favor of permitting the re-legalization of de jure racial segregation. Make all the claims you want about how you supposedly think it's properly a matter of State and not Federal legislation, but that is a lost cause. Most of the readers who actually read your arguments and actually understand them are mentally picturing you with a white hood on.

5. You do not care why or if a private person chooses to discriminate, or against what category of people. Judging by anecdotal evidence as well as decades of SCOTUS case law, you are very much in the minority in that view, assuming it is sincerely held. People reading your posts could easily be forgiven for concluding that you just do not like black people or those of non-European ancestry in general, and that these Constitutional law arguments are just a fig-leaf for articulating that view.

6. There are a lot of racially biased Americans, of various backgrounds. Your denial is not evidence. It is not the business of the Federal government to correct their thinking. It is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government under the Commerce Clause to legislate certain limits on their ability to act on that thinking, when those actions impinge upon interstate commerce. You do not like that, but SCOTUS and the Courts in general do not share your views.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 113
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 11:34:36 AM

would it make a difference if they advertised they were a christian B&B?

Or they could keepit really simple and call themselves a B&B for B. Bed and breakfast for bigots.
That would weed out a lot of 'unwelcome' buiness for them.

That would be in keeping with the whole "truth in advertising" idea...

I suspect the reason they don't want to be that truthful is that they would lose too much business from the "people we don't hate" who would be unwilling to support their bigotted practices... Better to "keep it under our hat" until "people we hate" actually show up at the door...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 114
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 2:15:00 PM

You must acknowledge, at least, that what you refer to as "abuse" of the Commerce Clause, others consider reasonable interpretation.


Of course I do. I also acknowledge that although I consider clitoridectomy abuse of females, many others consider it reasonable.


an autodidact student


Please don't use such big words when you try to insult me. If you stick to the barnyard language some of the brain trust here are so fond of using--despite a forum rule which is more honored in the breach than in the observance--then I can understand you.


the main thing distinguishing Johnson v. Eisentrager from Boumediene v. Bush is refusing to take seriously the notion that Guantanamo is legally Cuban territory. If it is de jure Cuban territory, one applies Johnson v. Eisentrager, case closed.


Baloney. Guantanamo IS legally Cuban territory, as is any land one country has leased from another, rather than acquired outright by conquest, etc. You might as well say the grounds of a nation's embassies are not that nation's territory, because in every case it is obviously the host nation that exerts the real control over those grounds.

Everything about Boumediene was contrived to gin up the desired result of granting habeas to alien war criminals for the first time. "That Texan halfwit in the White House is just not being nice to the Muslim jihadists the country's at war with, and we in our great wisdom think that's bad. So if we feel like ignoring our 200-year-long tradition of strongly deferring to the President in the conduct of war, we will. It's up to us as the good guys to ride to their rescue--after all, would Earl Warren--or John Adams--have done any less?"

So the majority ignored Eisentrager, a very well reasoned decision that was right on point, and instead cooked up a fantastic argument based on a couple domestic cases that had nothing to do with the issue.


You do realize that you are arguing in favor of permitting the re-legalization of de jure racial segregation. Make all the claims you want about how you supposedly think it's properly a matter of State and not Federal legislation, but that is a lost cause.


Of course I think private discrimination, on whatever grounds, should be legal. I support the right of any bigot to be just as bigoted as he pleases. I do not think it is the job of even a state government, in most cases, to try to force private citizens to enter into agreements with people they don't like. I would impose only the traditional common law duty on businesses that, by holding themselves out to all comers, lead people to expect they will be served, and which might seriously harm anyone they did not serve. I also do not support any federal law that is not authorized by the Constitution--nor does anyone who believes in the rule of law instead of just paying lip service to it.


Most of the readers who actually read your arguments and actually understand them are mentally picturing you with a white hood on . . . People reading your posts could easily be forgiven for concluding that you just do not like black people or those of non-European ancestry in general, and that these Constitutional law arguments are just a fig-leaf for articulating that view.


Fine by me. I don't plan on losing any sleep over what anyone I don't know pictures me as.


You do not like that, but SCOTUS and the Courts in general do not share your views.


I don't arrive at my views by first researching who shares them. What lower courts think about this doesn't matter anyway--they can only follow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Contrary to what you're claiming, seventy years of almost continuous expansion of Congress' power over local and individual actions under that clause doesn't mean the tide can't turn. Just recently, in the Obamacare decision, a large majority on the Court strongly checked the unlimited expansion of the Commerce Clause a lot of liberal law professors had come to take for granted.
 LoveMyDog55
Joined: 7/18/2012
Msg: 115
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 2:38:14 PM
If you have beliefs that exclude certain people, law abiding people, then perhaps going into a business such as that isn't a good option

Look at the outcome. They can't be feeling good about how things turned out. This was bound to happen
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 116
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 4:13:40 PM
^^^^^So I guess a Jew who has a four-unit rental and lives in one of the units should have to rent to a law-abiding member of a neo-Nazi group who has swaztika tattoos and thinks Hitler's biggest mistake was in letting any Jews survive. If he turned him away, he couldn't feel good about how things turned out, could he? Maybe he just shouldn't be a landlord.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 117
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 5:43:15 PM

So I guess a Jew who has a four-unit rental and lives in one of the units should have to rent to a law-abiding member of a neo-Nazi group who has swaztika tattoos and thinks Hitler's biggest mistake was in letting any Jews survive


So just to clarify, you're now equating gay people who stay in bed and breakfasts to Hitler, the second most evil man in history?


Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, becoming “Führer” in 1934 until his suicide in 1945. By the end of the second world war, Hitler’s policies of territorial conquest and racial subjugation had brought death and destruction to tens of millions of people, including the genocide of some six million Jews in what is now known as the Holocaust


My goodness, gay people must scare the day lights out of you.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 118
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 5:59:58 PM

^^^^^So I guess a Jew who has a four-unit rental and lives in one of the units should have to rent to a law-abiding member of a neo-Nazi group who has swaztika tattoos and thinks Hitler's biggest mistake was in letting any Jews survive. If he turned him away, he couldn't feel good about how things turned out, could he? Maybe he just shouldn't be a landlord.

I get the point you're trying to make, albeit heavy-handedly, but I don't think we're seeing any neo Nazis fighting for their right to patronize Jewish owned properties in line with the scenario you describe. That would be precious to witness.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 119
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 9:28:25 PM
^^^^If you don't like that hypothetical, there are lots of other possible ones. The issue is forcing people to enter into agreements with people they don't like--for whatever reason. A lot of people don't seem to know that almost nothing in the Constitution applies to discrimination by *private persons.*

The guarantees of equal protection and due process, which are most often involved in discrimination cases, are in the 14th Amendment. That post-Civil War amendment was intended to secure the civil rights of all those newly freed blacks from being unfairly infringed by the *states*--not by individuals. The 13th Amendment applies directly to individual citizens, but prohibiting slavery isn't the issue here.

It's exactly because nothing else applies that in the Fifites, creative types began to think Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce might be used to prohibit private race discrimination. If you can't find anything else in the Constitution, just claim it's about interstate commerce, and if the courts buy your sophistry, bingo, it's suddenly subject to federal law. (The government recently tried to justify the Obamacare individual mandate on this same ground, and this time the Court wasn't buying it.)

States are free to outlaw various kinds of discrimination by private persons, within limits. A state law can prevent a person from discriminating against people for various reasons, but not to the point where it violates his freedom of association or his right to privacy. Both are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. You may not be able to discriminate arbitrarily in choosing tenants for your quadriplex, but how about for your duplex? Can you discriminate in renting a room in your house? How about private clubs discriminating in their membership standards? And so far, at least, there are no laws preventing people from discriminating when it comes to who they date or invite to their dinner parties.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/23/2012 10:33:13 PM

If you don't like that hypothetical, there are lots of other possible ones. The issue is forcing people to enter into agreements with people they don't like--for whatever reason. A lot of people don't seem to know that almost nothing in the Constitution applies to discrimination by *private persons.*


That's fantastic but this thread is and always has been about a business dicriminating against gay people in Canada. If you absolutely must win the argument then yes, you're right. The nice christian familiy could for sure ban all gay people from hanging out in their private residence. Not that they would need to. But you're still absolutely right about that.


You may not be able to discriminate arbitrarily in choosing tenants for your quadriplex


Correct.


but how about for your duplex?


Nope. Still can't keep those homosexuals out.


Can you discriminate in renting a room in your house?


YES! Yes you can, Matchlight! (excuse the Obama-ism) You can tell gay people to take a hike because there is no way you're renting a room in your private residence to gays simply because they're gay and only because they're gay. Perfectly legal...at least where I live.


How about private clubs discriminating in their membership standards?


There's usually a list of criteria you can omit from your private club. These usually don't include sexual orientation. Certain businesses are allowed to be open to women or men only for example. But other businesses must allow both. Such restrictions are permissable as long as other fascilities are available to all ages, genders, etc etc.
 LoveMyDog55
Joined: 7/18/2012
Msg: 121
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/24/2012 12:16:44 AM
If he turned him away, he couldn't feel good about how things turned out, could he? Maybe he just shouldn't be a landlord.


If he lost his business because of it, like the people in the topic, then no, probably not (???)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/24/2012 8:57:21 AM
#140

<div class="quote">The nice christian familiy could for sure ban all gay people from hanging out in their private residence.

I think you misunderstood. I meant "private persons" in the usual sense of persons other than the government. Owners of private businesses are private persons. In the U.S. at least, I don't believe there is any authority for federal laws preventing discrimination, for any reason, whether in choosing dinner guests or employees, by any private person.

#138

<div class="quote">It's no different than a hotel .

I'm sure that figured in this case. I mentioned earlier that innkeepers have had a common-law duty to serve all customers for centuries. Common carriers, e.g. bus lines, have the same duty. That doesn't mean other businesses where customers are more free to patronize competitors should have that special duty to serve.

#139

<div class="quote">All you have to know is that the law doesn't allow any business to discriminate against anybody based on sexual orientation

The mere fact a law is on the books doesn't mean it's legitimate, or that it shouldn't be changed.


<div class="quote">If you allow every business to discriminate based on rather arbitrary criteria , how long do you think it'll be before you can't buy gas when you're almost out and are about to find yourself stranded in the middle of nowhere ? Or perhaps you can't get emergency medical treatment as the nearest hospital because you're the wrong religion and time is of the utmost importance ?

There are always special cases like you're citing where laws against discrimination make sense. But in most cases, people are free to patronize another restaurant or dry cleaner, rent another apartment, work for another employer. I would let those private businesses discriminate arbitrarily in choosing the people they deal with.


<div class="quote"> while a customer may choose where to spend his or her money , a business can't refuse service based on arbitrary criteria

That's describing the way things are, but without explaining why they should be that way. Business agreements should be freely entered into. I don't see any basis for giving sellers less freedom than buyers, except where there are so few sellers that a buyer has little or no choice. The owner of a motel or gas station in a remote area who refused a customer on a cold night would even be exposing him to harm. But state laws always covered those exceptional situations.

I don't know if the distinction between state and federal authority to outlaw discrimination exists in Canada, but it is very important here. States have inherent authority the federal government does not have. So state laws can reach matters the federal government has no authority to regulate. And laws made without authority are not really laws.
 Terrancexoxo
Joined: 12/28/2011
Msg: 123
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/24/2012 9:23:39 AM
This. /Thread
.........
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/24/2012 1:44:55 PM

But in most cases, people are free to patronize another restaurant or dry cleaner, rent another apartment, work for another employer


Yes. That's fantastic. We could ensure that all businesses catering to homosexuals were in the same part of town and as such we could create a ghetto effect which would make rounding them all up much easier. Good thinking. Kind of begs the question though...why should anyone have to seek alternative services just because they're gay?


I would let those private businesses discriminate arbitrarily in choosing the people they deal with.


Well there it is. At last. Thanks for finally being honest.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/25/2012 9:20:00 AM
#148

It's different because they are not discriminating against anyone's race, religion, gender or sexual orientation....


Well, they're still discriminating against slobs and nudists, aren't they? Some discrimination is all right, but other discrimination is not, is that about it? I think you are discriminating in the people you would let businesses discriminate against.

#147

What difference does it make for you whether a law is 'right' or 'wrong' when the cop is arresting you for breaking it ?


All the difference in the world. If a law is invalid, it's not binding. No one gets to break laws just because he doesn't like them, but if you're breaking a law to test its constitutionality, you can't legally be punished for it.



You can challenge the law if you like but you could also have done that without breaking it .


It's much harder, at least in the U.S., to challenge the constitutionality of a law unless you've first broken it and been fined, arrested, etc.


<
So , arguing about the ethical or constitutional basis for any law is beside the point . . . It's really quite abstract from a practical perspective .


It is? Then why have people here or there countless times worked to have a law amended or repealed? And were all those thousands of cases where someone has challenged the constitutionality of a law and gotten a court to invalidate it just a waste of time? I guess you think those people were impractical--just fooling around with abstract stuff that doesn't matter.



Why shouldn't you be allowed to buy a cellphone because of your skin colour ? Why shouldn't you be served at a restaurant because you don't have a card to prove you're a member of the Democratic party ? Why wouldn't you be allowed to rent or watch a movie in a cinema because you're male ?


I don't claim to know about Canada. But I think it's clear that in the U.S. there's no federal power to prohibit private persons from discriminating in either those or other ways. If most people in a state think there are adequate reasons for laws against those kinds of discrimination, they can make them. With some exceptions, I don't think there are adequate reasons.



I don't think you've really given this the proper amount of thought because you don't seem to understand how it would affect you


In my own poor way, I've given it quite a lot of thought. I've even read a little about history (I like the books with lots of pictures.) And I don't think it's at all obvious that people couldn't get what they needed. It's exactly because turning away potential customers arbitrarily is, as you say, a "monumentally stupid business model" that I expect private persons who did that usually could not compete for long.

If it were proven that competition was not enough--that discrimination of some kind was still interfering a lot with private business transactions--I would favor expanding legal protections. But I would rely first on financial self-interest to overcome personal animosities, rather than use government to outlaw discrimination.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?