CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed?
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
The government has no authority to regulate business even if the government classifies these establishments as "public accommodations."
Sure, in a free society, businesses are open to the public sphere, but most businesses are privately owned, and they should operate their business as they see fit.
However, the government does have the authority to eliminate discrimination in the public sphere.
Private businesses should have the ability to discriminate to anyone whom they are unwilling to accommodate in business matters.
For the record, discrimination is wrong, but it should be left to private business owners to decide whether if they want to discriminate or not.
If they choose to do so, the free market will decide what success will set forward.
Private clubs such as golf clubs have enjoyed the luxury of discrimination for years, why can't private businesses?
There is no difference between a private club and private business?
Both are individuals pursuing goals as private entities.
The government has no authority to regulate business even if the government classifies these establishments as "public accommodations."
The government owns the land, defends it, and provides policing. The government has authority.
Sure, in a free society, businesses are open to the public sphere, but most businesses are privately owned, and they should operate their business as they see fit.
We tried this. This lead to radioactive products being sold as consumables, violent worker suppression, and the phrase "let the buyer beware."
Private businesses should have the ability to discriminate to anyone whom they are unwilling to accommodate in business matters.
For the record, discrimination is wrong, but it should be left to private business owners to decide whether if they want to discriminate or not.
Do yourself a favour and try visiting an area where you are a minority in a small town where your kind is rare. You'll learn a lot.
Just like with unregulated pharmaceuticals and foods, left to their own devices businesses will cheat which in this case means forming natural barriers which treat a minority as second class.
If they choose to do so, the free market will decide what success will set forward.
We already know the outcome: the majority discriminates against minorities, the minorities cannot affect change because they are (big surprise) too little to stand against the majority, and this creates a social divide, and eventual violence.
Congratulations on being a dumb ass who insists upon letting a mantra do his thinking.
Private clubs such as golf clubs have enjoyed the luxury of discrimination for years, why can't private businesses?
Golf clubs have legendarily been exclusive, barring minorities except as tokens for many decades. You want this to affect the whole of private business?
People like you are why there needs to be a way to physically electrocute people through the internet. Not even basic language or stern ridicule gets through your thick skulls on very clear issues.
There is no difference between a private club and private business?
Both are individuals pursuing goals as private entities.
So your argument is essentially, "Private clubs have been allowed to discriminate for centuries, why can't all businesses discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons??"
The government owns the land, defends it, and provides policing. The government has authority.
Not even relevant to my argument.
Government is incapable of owning anything because it possess no assets. The land that it does own was paid for by private citizens.
We tried this. This lead to radioactive products being sold as consumables, violent worker suppression, and the phrase "let the buyer beware."
And it worked well. Regardless of government regulations, all products have risk. Even with all the government regulations, people still die from car accidents, food poisoning, misuse of many products, so if only proves that it is futile.
It is the responsibility of the buyer to known the risks of purchasing a product.
Do yourself a favour and try visiting an area where you are a minority in a small town where your kind is rare. You'll learn a lot.
Actually, I have. I been in Washington DC, Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Orlando, and I live in a big city now.
Do yourself a favor and try butting out of my business and stop making assumptions as continue to accuse me of youself?
Just like with unregulated pharmaceuticals and foods, left to their own devices businesses will cheat which in this case means forming natural barriers which treat a minority as second class.
This is only under the assumption that business is more corrupt than government, which isn't true. Government has a history of corruption.
the majority discriminates against minorities, the minorities cannot affect change because they are (big surprise) too little to stand against the majority, and this creates a social divide, and eventual violence.
What a surprise? The result of a democracy.
Congratulations on being a dumb ass who insists upon letting a mantra do his thinking.
Whatever???
Golf clubs have legendarily been exclusive, barring minorities except as tokens for many decades. You want this to affect the whole of private business?
Well, I can't comment on barring minorities from private clubs because frankly, the memberships are private, and it not my business, but the key word is private.
People like you are why there needs to be a way to physically electrocute people through the internet. Not even basic language or stern ridicule gets through your thick skulls on very clear issues.
Is there an argument in this senseless rant?
So your argument is essentially, "Private clubs have been allowed to discriminate for centuries, why can't all businesses discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons??"
Actually, that is correct because it is private. What does private mean? Private is personal or restricted, as opposed to public.
Government is incapable of owning anything because it possess no assets. The land that it does own was paid for by private citizens.
What about the land that has nothing on it, like in the middle of New Mexico and many other western states? That land has no upkeep charge, and since the government already owned it, it came at no cost to citizens.
If the government finds gold somewhere. Is it not true that the government owns the gold, unless it belongs to someone else?
Poison-tainted consumables does not equate to "worked well."
It is the responsibility of the buyer to known the risks of purchasing a product.
Please. If you're selling poison as a food, then you are culpable.
Actually, I have. I been in Washington DC, Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Orlando, and I live in a big city now.
Those are cities. I said small towns.
This is only under the assumption that business is more corrupt than government, which isn't true. Government has a history of corruption.
I'm just going to repeat my statement since you didn't address it, but introduced a red herring.
Just like with unregulated pharmaceuticals and foods, left to their own devices businesses will cheat which in this case means forming natural barriers which treat a minority as second class.
What a surprise? The result of a democracy.
Hence why we cannot rely on business to regulate itself.
Well, I can't comment on barring minorities from private clubs because frankly, the memberships are private, and it not my business, but the key word is private.
If you cannot comment and cannot be bothered to know then it is not your business to endorse it.
Actually, that is correct because it is private. What does private mean? Private is personal or restricted, as opposed to public.
Hence why we cannot rely on business to regulate itself.
Of course not, I am not arguing business regulates itself. Look at all the public monopolies. Have you ever gone to the DMV (Department of Motor Vechiles)?
They don't need you, you need them.
*Business is regulated by other business through competition.
If you cannot comment and cannot be bothered to know then it is not your business to endorse it.
Actually, I can because I endorse the idea of private ownership, but can't comment on details and technicalities.
Private does not mean lawless.
This is irrelevant. Is lawless in the definition? No, private doesn't invoke lawlessness.
You never lived for any length of time in a small town where you were the minority. It is clear from your attitude towards discrimination that you are of a race that is perceived to enjoy majority entitlements.
Of course not, I am not arguing business regulates itself.
...
Business is regulated by other business through competition.
Contradiction. Pick one position and defend it.
Actually, I can because I endorse the idea of private ownership, but can't comment on details and technicalities.
I'll rephrase for you:
It is bad form to defend a topic or position of which you have admitted ignorance. Either make an effort to learn about it, or refrain from defending it.
This is irrelevant. Is lawless in the definition? No, private doesn't invoke lawlessness.
Your entire argument is that laws should be repealed because something is private. Private does not mean lawlessness, it describes the quality of ownership.
I am curious as to the premise your argument lies on (and most people who support this argument): what reasons support your claim that the government has no authority to regulate business, particularly private business?
I am thoroughly against prejudice of any kind, and will be the first to recognize my freedom of speech and protest against any discrimination that I see.
However, even more so than prejudice, I stand against censorship of action or opinion.
If a coffee shop near my town decides that it does not want to allow blacks, gays, Jews, I would stand outside of their windows, billboard in hand, supporting my black citizens, gay citizens, and Jewish citizens- because I have every right to act on what I believe.
But I would never set vote in any legislature that restricted how a person or entity must act just because it did not fit with my own beliefs
I would want to change the policy through coercion, in hopes that the private business will change its discriminating policies- NOT through federal force.
I may think that I have wonderful views and opinions, and so I offer them freely. I do not censor everybody else, who are entitled to what they may think are wonderful views and opinions.
If a black man is a member of the Nation of Islam and owns a coffee shop, the government shouldn't force him to serve coffee to the white devils. If he refused me service, I wouldn't cry or scream that he is a bigot, I would simply get a cup of coffee down the street.
Discrimination isn't nice but neither is having a government tell you how to run your business. The government needs to butt out. Government intrusion takes away the incentive to even own a business in the first place. I would like to own a business but I have decided against it because I don't want to go through all of the red tape and jump through all of the government hoops and go through the hassle of starting a business if I am not even going to be allowed to run it the way I want. That is not freedom.
What if the next coffee shop wouldn't serve you either? Or the next, or the next? And they didn't just refuse to serve you, but sprayed you with a fire hose as soon as you stepped inside?
This is what was actually happening to victims of discrimination in the 1960s. Granted, if this bill were to be repealed, we would not see such widespread and violent behavior towards minorities. But, as a white person, you are part of the group in power; your experience with discrimination is not really comparable to a black person's. To you, negative discrimination based on race might be an occasional affront or anomalous, inconveniencing annoyance. We have the luxury of being able to ignore it because of how seldom and how minimally it effects us. To races who are actually oppressed by it, it is ubiquitous, and it is already a struggle to rise above its effects professionally, socially, and academically.
Repealing this bill would have an immediate and significant negative effect on minorities. I do not generally advocate extensive government involvement, but I do hold that one of the jobs of the government is to protect its citizens from being harmed by one another, and I believe this falls under that umbrella.
If a black man is a member of the Nation of Islam and owns a coffee shop, the government shouldn't force him to serve coffee to the white devils. If he refused me service, I wouldn't cry or scream that he is a bigot, I would simply get a cup of coffee down the street.
Big surprise. From the man who thinks that black people were getting along swimmingly during the era of the Klan, we have this little gem that a minority should just keep looking for service in a culture that is mostly against assisting him.
I would like to own a business but I have decided against it because I don't want to go through all of the red tape and jump through all of the government hoops and go through the hassle of starting a business if I am not even going to be allowed to run it the way I want. That is not freedom.
I hear you. Pretty soon we won't be able to lynch niggers any longer! Oh wait we can't?! Damn government taking away our freedom!
It is interesting that the fascist nation of Germany similarly allowed "man" (but more importantly business because that's what the debate is about) to discriminate against anyone that he wanted to, which resulted in the European Jewry being banned from stores and schools. So I think your argument would be better restated as:
are we a fascist nation?
no. but we should try to be one by repealing the civil rights law in question and allowing man to discriminate against anyone he wants.
Anti-Semitism wasn't caused by allowing people to run businesses any which way they wanted.
The German government rounded up Jews and put them in camps. In fact, in many cases, businesses were FORCED to discriminate against Jews by the government.
The German government rounded up Jews and put them in camps. In fact, in many cases, businesses were FORCED to discriminate against Jews by the government.
This was the same in America with respect to African Americans, which the law stated discrimination under the separate but equal doctrine.
I myself have been the target of discrimination. not for my race but for my sexuality. i know first hand how it hurts and tears at your self confidence and such. BUT i do believe that people should have the power to decide their own fate. if i am discriminate against in a store, sure i'm upset an hurt but i just don't go back to that store. i simply find a new place to go. it is their loss. they lose my business and business from anyone i decide to tell of their injustice. it is not the governments place to tell someone how to make money and how not to.
if i am discriminate against in a store, sure i'm upset an hurt but i just don't go back to that store. i simply find a new place to go. it is their loss. they lose my business and business from anyone i decide to tell of their injustice.
So you're a self-hating libertarian then?
The point of barring discrimination from businesses is that is doesn't work to simply let market consequences solve things. That is what being in a minority means. It means that you have a negligible impact on business decisions.
This is why discrimination created such rampant problems in the early half of the 20th century. When left to their own devices businesses will keep a minority second class, and they will even irrationally spend money to break any change that could help that minority. What do you think is perpetuating the struggle for homosexual rights? Private businesses and similar institutions are diverting resources towards lobbying against legislation that would help these people, in addition to fear-promoting propaganda.
I am not defending what buissnesses do with their money or what they would do if they did have the right to discriminate. i am saying that the government has no roght to tell a privately owned buissness whether he can or cannot discriminate. And that whole self-hating buissness. The fact that i accept who i am and i accept the fact that other people may have a problem with it does not make me a self hating libertarian. It makes me rational. everyone is gonna have their opinions and everyone has a right to express those opinions. every buissness has the right to refuse service to any person at anytime. the reasons that they do so are up to them and them alone and that is the way it should be.
I am not defending what buissnesses do with their money or what they would do if they did have the right to discriminate. i am saying that the government has no roght to tell a privately owned buissness whether he can or cannot discriminate.
These are one and the same thing.
It is plainly obvious that if you defend a party's autonomy on this issue that you are defending their right to discriminate. This is because the only parties affected by these laws are those who discriminate and are caught. Those who do not discriminate have no repercussions to fear.
And that whole self-hating buissness. The fact that i accept who i am and i accept the fact that other people may have a problem with it does not make me a self hating libertarian.
It makes you self-hating because you actively support a position that leads to the obvious consequence of making your type victimised.
Some gay men I know enjoy being humiliated and abused, it is what gets them off. Maybe that is what you've learned to associate your sexuality with. I on the other hand will not allow my friends to be persecuted because of men who claim to be sympathetic but have personal issues to work on.
It makes me rational.
If you hate yourself, sure. Maybe you ought to send money to support Dr. Martin Ssempa while you're at it, just to be perfectly consistent in supporting the rights of others to be bigots.
everyone is gonna have their opinions and everyone has a right to express those opinions. every buissness has the right to refuse service to any person at anytime. the reasons that they do so are up to them and them alone and that is the way it should be.
The mark of a compassionate man is self-sacrifice for the ability of the victimised to prosper.
The mark of a juvenile man is to ignore the plight of the victimised for ideological purity.
Are you a gay man? if not i dont think you have any right to tall me what i associate my sexualtiy with. you have no clue what it is like to be discriminated for for something you have no control over. I can't change the world. people will ALWAYS discriminate. Just because i realize that i cant change other peoples opinions nor do i have the right to tell them they can not express it does not mean that i am self-hating. i do not support bigots i just accept the fact that they are out there and they always will be so why bother? why can't i just be the bigger person and ignore their skewed opinions. like yours. and every business man will tell you that running a business is not about compassion depending on the business. compassion is a false hood in the industry used to for nothing more than its face value. you do what you must to make money and that sometimes includes not being compassionate. now if i am a private business owner, and i also belong to the KKK i should have every right to refuse service to a black man. if peligomists can legally marry more than one woman because of their beliefs then why should a KKK member not be able to refuse service because of his beliefs. Its not fair to pick and choose who can legally express their beliefs.
Are you a gay man? if not i dont think you have any right to tall me what i associate my sexualtiy with.
For the purposes of this debate I am detached. It doesn't matter what I am, because that has no bearing on my sympathies for the abused.
you have no clue what it is like to be discriminated for for something you have no control over.
Off the top of my head:
-I am intelligent and educated enough that I unintentionally intimidate most people who meet me.
-I am multiracial amongst mostly white people, who have freely voiced their disdain for wetbacks and the like.
-I am seen as physically unattractive by most people because of my slow metabolism.
-I am profoundly eccentric and very few people are patient enough to bear with it.
-I don't fit conventional labels of sexuality, which makes it difficult to have a comfortable relationship.
However I am not callous to the needs of the defenseless. This is why I don't just yell "freedom" and throw my friends to the wolves.
I can't change the world. people will ALWAYS discriminate. Just because i realize that i cant change other peoples opinions nor do i have the right to tell them they can not express it does not mean that i am self-hating. i do not support bigots i just accept the fact that they are out there and they always will be so why bother?
If people will always discriminate, then this means that those laws which punish discrimination are necessary. Invalidating them simply means that those who are discriminated against will have no tools to fight back.
why can't i just be the bigger person and ignore their skewed opinions. like yours.
It isn't a case of being the bigger person when your actions cause others to suffer for you. Actually, since your opinions support the majority, and enable them to harm the numerically weak, you would be called thuggish, not a bigger person.
and every business man will tell you that running a business is not about compassion depending on the business. compassion is a false hood in the industry used to for nothing more than its face value. you do what you must to make money and that sometimes includes not being compassionate.
I don't care about this excuse. If a company refuses to treat its workers or customers equally, then these laws allow the otherwise powerless to punish that company.
now if i am a private business owner, and i also belong to the KKK i should have every right to refuse service to a black man.
No, because a business owner is one person and his rights would have disproportionate power over the rights of others.
if peligomists can legally marry more than one woman because of their beliefs then why should a KKK member not be able to refuse service because of his beliefs.
Irrelevant because polygamy is illegal; it is also a dissimilar topic to compare, and polygamy has been used as an excuse in religious circles to form a party of women arranged to marry a single man, often against their personal desires but instead out of cultural obedience.
Its not fair to pick and choose who can legally express their beliefs.
This is why I called you self-hating. You would throw your friends, indeed your natural allies, to the wolves because out of ideological purity you defend the rights of the powerful, the advantaged.
So by this argument, if someone chooses to start a corporation whose sole purpose is to murder black people, than this is a legal enterprise as it is not the role of the government to "tell someone how to make money" -- forget the laws about murder, or about racism, lynching etc... in this case they would also be unjust, wouldn't they? because they are telling a company how they can and can't make money -- if murder is indeed wrong, than the people can boycott the business....
No. Never did i say the government didn't have a right to say what KIND of business are allowed to be run but said they shouldn't be able to regulate HOW the businesses are run. Your twisting my words.
Obviously. It is not the role of the government to interfere, let alone in personal matters. Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, just like people should be allowed to hold slaves on private property. It is not the role of the government to interfere with people's personal decisions that occur in privacy... i may personally think that slavery is wrong, but that doesnt mean that it is wrong for other people to hold slaves.
I do not support discrimination. I think it is wrong. But I also think the federal government overstepping its boundaries is wrong. Private businesses should be able to decide who they want to serve. If they want to loose profits because they decide to refuse to serve a minority, then it would be there loss and they would suffer.
Even though you assumed that I never heard of the power of Congress, Lets Look at the enumerated powers of Congress relevant to the Civil Rights Act.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
NO
WHY?
The original intention of Welfare was to protect from usual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity,
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
NO
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
NO
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
NO
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
NO
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
NO
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
NO
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
NO
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
NO
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
NO
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
NO
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
NO
To provide and maintain a Navy;
NO
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
NO
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
NO
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
NO
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
NO
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
WHY
"Important to note too is that the Necessary and Proper Clause, a clause much exploited by progressives over the years, was in no way intended by the Framers to permit the federal government to assume any authority outside its clearly defined enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. Simply put, our wise Framers were careful not to permit an ends justifies the means scenario. To wit, in John Marshall’s discussion of McCulloch v Maryland, he clearly drew a distinction between the proper definition of “necessary” as meaning “indispensably requisite” versus the improper definition being that of “convenient”. In other words, the federal government could not arrogate unto itself any extraordinary implementing power other than that which was clearly “indispensably requisite” in order to execute its clearly defined enumerated powers, in this case to regulate interstate commerce. In truth, a cursory examination of case law since ratification of the Constitution demonstrates how the proper definition has often been ignored, misconstrued or grossly misinterpreted by an overweaning Congress and an enabling gaggle of misguided or politically activist jurists over the years."
The Supreme Court has supported the use of the Commerce Clause for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, whatever you have to say, bring it up with the Higher Judges.
The scope of the commerce power depends on the interpretation of “commerce”. If construed sufficiently broadly, the commerce power can give Congress the power to legislate in many areas that otherwise would fall within the scope of the states’ police power. The Constitution does not define the term and the Supreme Court therefore has great flexibility in deciding cases involving the Commerce Clause and enormous power to influence the balance of state versus federal power.
So, whatever you have to say, bring it up with the Higher Judges.
I feel like even though your argument was concrete, Maholinder decided to ignore it all. And instead of actually creating a real rebuttal, he just says "the government makes it this way, so bitch at them about it".
Wow. You managed to comprehensively and effectively argue against decades of commerce clause jurisprudence with some great cut-and-paste action, there! You went to law school, didn't you? Am I right? If that was just your natural abilities, I would advise you to find out what Justice Marshall wrote later concerning the Commerce Clause and Congressional Powers before using him in this way.
The government has no right to tell someone what they can an can't do on their own property because that is abusing their individual rights.
If a racist wants to enforce segregation on his own private property, then that is his decision and if people don't agree with it, they have to respect his private property rights, but can bring about change through economic boycott, etc.
Morality cannot be legislated? That what CAN be legislated, and what is the point of legislation in the first place? If not for "morality" what claim do you have to be protected from being murdered on the street? What makes it wrong to steal $200 from another man? If morality should not be legislated, than this should not be a matter that the law should concern itself with -- the market will figure it out.
Morality cannot be legislated? That what CAN be legislated, and what is the point of legislation in the first place? If not for "morality" what claim do you have to be protected from being murdered on the street?
I see you've confused morality with human rights.
What makes it wrong to steal $200 from another man?
Theft is an abuse of human rights.
If morality should not be legislated
Gays can marry, but not murder.
Racism is horrible, but it shouldn't be illegal as it is someone expressing his or her beliefs. If a racist calls a black man a nigger, that's immoral but they're protected by the first amendment. If a racist shot a black man, that's not immoral, it's criminal. See the difference?
Rights conflict. This is part of being part of a society. If we as a nation decide that we will all, without regard to anyone else, do whatever we please in the name of 'individual right', then let's see how long before there is another Dark Age. A person's right to be an asshole should not come before another's freedom to eat or purchase goods. And saying "just go somewhere else" doesn't quite work (see e.g. 1776 - circa 1970s) And why o why do some people STILL think everything will be saved through free markets???
People act as if because one owns something they have total rights over it. It has never been this way, it was never meant to be this way, and discrimination is one of the things we as a people have judged to be beyond the scope of what is allowed on private property.
There are many things one cannot do on private property, so why is discrimination now again a hot button 40 years later?
Here, let me help the "libertarians" (basically republicans who realize calling yourself a republican isn't cool) think of it from another angle.
I cannot
murder, make bomb threats, sell drugs, hold dog fights, hold cock fights, sell slaves, perform unlicensed medical surgery, torture, dig without a licence, make mustard gas, etc
from private property.
So than, why the huge surprise that the majority of Americans would have come together to decide that discriminating against a group of people should not be allowed from private property which serves the public?
This recent revisit of the law is code for "Hey, I'm a racist too, wink wink, I just won't say outloud. So let's hide behind an obvious misinterpretation of rights provided within the confines of "private property."
Pathetic. Ron Paul and his ilk aren't fooling anyone.
For some reason (and this is a pattern with you) people who seem to always sympathize with the less politically correct view on race politics is a secret racist to you. On shitty examinations, as well. Let us not forget your slander of all who don't view the Confederate Flag as a slave promoting symbol.
But why point this out? Me protecting these people just makes me a racist.
And also, let's just call Libertarians Republicans, because even though a shit load of their views are liberal, the fact that they love guns and free market, that automatically makes them Republican no matter how concrete and logical their points are. I don't care if they support gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling; support for isolationist policies; against theocracy and etc... nope, free market and pro-gun lumps them in with Republicans.
And your general point just sucks. You're basically saying that the private sector MUST BE EXACTLY LIKE the public sector.
Here's how to make things easy when it comes to the basic Libertarian view on Private vs. Public sector. In a public sector, the government is in charge and MUST treat all people equally and MUST abide by all constitutional rights. In the private sector, human beings have the right to do whatever they want to themselves and let anyone they want in or out and charge/treat them anyway they want as long as they don't physically put them at a disadvantage (injury, murder, rape). This does not include keeping them from doing business, for that puts BOTH at a disadvantage. Or just one. And even if it puts the other at an advantage, isn't that the whole point of business?
No. If you don't want blacks in your store, it's your right. If a cab driver has been robbed by a black dude TWICE and doesn't feel like risking it anymore, it's his right. Or we can do the politically correct thing and let these people feel like shit for the rest of their lives cause they're living in constant fear. Life isn't puppy dogs and rainbows; people sometimes have legitimate reasons for fearing a certain group of people and sometimes they don't. Government isn't the one to choose their fate on this shit. We are in a free country (supposedly).
Nudity and swearing are part of decency standards. Not Political Correctness.
They're both a field of Morality, but one has to do with Conservative Morals and the other is Liberal Morals.
If you believe that people should be FORCED to not be racist (as in, make business decisions that are carefully constructed so that no one could possibly accuse them of racism) than you are politically correct. If you believe that people should be FORCED to never say questionable things just because certain words are used (as in, bad words on TV) than you are for decency standards.
I am against both. Morals should not be law. Ethics should. And ethics would allow Americans to have privacy.
Well, I'm pretty sure, ethically, kicking one out of a cafe because of the color of their skin is worse than inconveniencing a racist.
Either way someone is being forced to do something, either the brown person being forced out of the cafe, or the racist cafe owner forced to serve anyone who should walk in from the publicly owned street that brought the customer to the door.
The force is coming from two different directions. That's the most important distinction.
One is the disallow of one individual to share the property of another individual, and the other is the forcing of an individual to share the property with another individual by the government.
The government plays an authority and thus changes the situation completely.
Only if one falls into the false dichotomy that government is not people.
Given that our government is people, and what the majority vote to be law within our government, it is not some other direction, it is just people.
It is the entity which people created, government, that allows a business owner to own a business, and so they should also have the right to ensure that the business is run in an acceptable manner. It's not some magical outside force, it's people. It's one direction and there's nothing ominous about government involvement here at all.
Can I open a business that sells infant skin rugs? Of course not. Government says skinning infants is illegal - as they should. Government also says discrimination in a business is illegal - as they should.
I blame poor civics courses in young childhood, but there is a disturbing idea out there that our representative republic is somehow sinister and evil and out to get everyone. That is not the case at all.
At any rate, your argument that it is a "different direction" is incorrect.
I could say by that logic that I should be allowed to shoot someone without police interference because the force police exert is "a different direction".
The logic doesn't hold under any circumstance.
It's endlessly amazing this "pro-business" stance whereby just because one is a business they are basically Kim Jong Ill of their establisment - yet the same demand that our tax paying citizenry protect these miniature Kim Jong Ill establishments from thieves, that government provide them flood insurance, that government pay for the roads that make business in the area possible, etc, etc, etc.
It's like a little kid who pouts and stomps for their allowance, but refuses to take out the garbage, wash dishes, then puts locks on their door and doesn't let their parents in for inspection.
Your arguments are dull and overused. Libertarians do not believe in government assistance for business. None whatsoever (unlike Democrat Obama and Republican Bush, who both supported giving billions of OUR dollars to business).
Let me ask you something. Are you allowed to kick someone out of your house based on w/e? You can't shoot someone (unless they break in) and that's reasonable. You are also allowed to be racist and kick blacks out of your house and that is also reasonable.
What if you sold knitted sweaters out of your house? Do you believe your right to dictate who comes into your house should be eliminated just because you now do business within that structure?
I don't serve coffee or tea from my home, so I can kick out whomever I like, yes. If I turned my home into a cafe, then I could not kick out whomever I like.
If one wishes not to serve someone based on the color of their skin, then they are perfectly free not to open a business. No one is forcing them to.
I could give you the exact same example and turn it around if you like.
In my home I'm allowed to wear nothing but a fireman's hat and chaps and take a piss in the corner if I like.
Does that mean I should be allowed to walk around my cafe naked and take a piss in the corner if I like?
You cannot equate a home and a business. They are two different things. The matter than comes to, as I pointed out in the first post on this side, to what degree are a people able to determine what a business can and cannot do.
I say that if the majority of people feel that discrimination is one of the things you cannot do, that is a good thing - and not the first. Again, there are many things one cannot do in a place of business, and this is only one of many. I and most have no problem with it, and repealing Title II would be a step backwards in human evolution so to speak.
So if a man owns a restaurant, you believe that the government should bar him from being in the nude and taking a piss in the corner? Some people can be into that. Just because it becomes an opportunity to make profit doesn't mean all of a sudden he has to apply your standards.
"people sometimes have legitimate reasons for fearing a certain group of people and sometimes they don't."
So you are for individual rights but think some people do not have the right to be treated as individuals? How does that work?
Anywho, the government is responsible for the relationship between itself and citizens, but also has responsibilities in some of the relationships between individuals that are deleterious to society as a whole. That's why rape is a criminal offense in which the government gets involved and a breach of a contract between two individuals generally is not. Certain discrimination are harmful to society as a whole. So the problem I think I have with all these cries of enhanced individual rights, no matter the consequences, is that people are suggesting that society can go to hell and your neighbor can too as long as you get what you want. And I don't think I need to explain why that attitude is so dangerous.
yes, this means no authority figure putting legislation or force against a private individual.
some people do not have the right to be treated as individuals?
They do not have the right to be respected by other individuals. Individual rights includes being an individual. This means that if someone doesn't like you, they don't have to share with you. duh.
the government is responsible for the relationship between itself and citizens,
To a certain extent. The Constitution applies Hobbs type principles that government must protect citizens from those who wish to INFRINGE on the rights of others. Stepping into someone's store is stepping into private property. It is their right to not let you in.
That's why rape is a criminal offense in which the government gets involved
Reasonable, because one is forcing themselves unto another. This goes against the principles of right to life and property without infringement.
breach of a contract between two individuals generally is not.
The Judicial system's primary purpose is to deal with just that. Criminal law is only the other half of the Judicial system.
Certain discrimination are harmful to society as a whole
Regardless of your personal beliefs on racism, that doesn't change that racists have a right to privacy as much as you do. The constitution wasn't written only to protect the virtuous, pious types, it was written to protect all Americans who do not INFRINGE on the rights of other Americans. If you don't want to sell your private property to someone for any reason, it is your right as an individual. The government's role isn't to determine who should share what property.
is that people are suggesting that society can go to hell and your neighbor can too as long as you get what you want.
No, as long as people aren't harming you or stealing from you (which is what government does when it forces you to sell to others or let others in). You have no proof that your opinion is valid. you're just looking at it as "racists get to have rights just like the rest of us... well, I don't like that and that means this country is going to Hell". Invalid and terrible argument.
And I don't think I need to explain why that attitude is so dangerous.
I suggest you have never been the target of discrimination and have no idea how lost and alone it can make you feel. If the business owner has no valid reason for discriminating then he should not be allowed to.
Actually, everyone is guilty of discrimination and been victim of discrimination.
For example, for those who choose whom they marry, that is a form of discrimination or if you have asked a guy or girl onto a date, and were rejected, that is a form of discrimination. There are all sorts of different discrimination.
Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Wikipedia
So, if someone rejects someone on a date, that are prejudicial to that person on based on their membership whether s/he is ugly, handsome, rich or poor.
Personal preferences in relationships are no different than personal private preferences of businesses.
There is a dispute. But it's not an argument. I'm accusing you of equivocating.
Yet you have no actual argument at all that differentiates personal preferences and personal private preferences of business.
That you don't see the difference between what fruits you prefer and de jure discrimination, which prohibits or abridges the privileges and rights of citizens, and (hopefully) legal residents of the country suggests that you're neither intellectually prepared to have this conversation, nor are you the person who should be having this conversation.
I want to see how far this discrimination thing goes, though.
What if someone doesn't want to date someone specifically because they're black, thus robbing them of being able to have sex, get married and live life in comfort and peace. Assuming that was their only chance for a real relationship... poor guy now has to die alone and miserable.
Should that person get fucked over by the government for being a racist bitch who didn't date someone... or is the free market still too scary of a concept to you and my scenario (instead of being rebutted) is just a logical fallacy?
What if someone doesn't want to date someone specifically because they're black, thus robbing them of being able to have sex, get married and live life in comfort and peace. Assuming that was their only chance for a real relationship... poor guy now has to die alone and miserable.
Personal prejudice isn't legislated against. Business prejudice is. There is a line, and you ignored it.
Should that person get fucked over by the government for being a racist bitch who didn't date someone... or is the free market still too scary of a concept to you and my scenario (instead of being rebutted) is just a logical fallacy?
I'll give you a general rule of problem solving. Selection only works to improve fitness under the constraints of the environment it operates in.
Evolution works to evolve biological solutions to the problem of optimal reproduction.
Free Market Economics only works to find solutions to the problem of optimal profitability.
Neither have morality and ethics as their chief variable deciding fitness, and therefore you cannot rely on either to find optimal solutions to morality and ethics with the only exception being when morality and ethics are conducive to solving the problem in either system.
In other words, profit doesn't care about good and evil, and it is a fool who thinks that it should drive the solution to this important problem.
Just answer the question. Based on your beliefs on how people running businesses can't discriminate; women looking for a mate... should they also not be allowed to discriminate?
both represent private citizens. It's just that one represents the market (which many see as the big bad guy) and the other represents regular individuals (which many see as themselves).
Just answer the question. Based on your beliefs on how people running businesses can't discriminate; women looking for a mate... should they also not be allowed to discriminate?
I answered you already: individuals may believe what they please. Businesses may not act however their beliefs direct them, there are rules. This is the line that exists.
both represent private citizens. It's just that one represents the market (which many see as the big bad guy) and the other represents regular individuals (which many see as themselves).
One represents the ability to damage a society, the other represents the ability to damage a household. Privateness isn't important here as much as damage control.
So what you're saying is that because a man is successful (at least, in holding a business together), he can't be allowed to hold the same rights as someone who isn't as successful (in holding a business) on the basis that YOU believe these successful men hold a power and must be FORCED to be responsible with it?
I guess you have no problem with Corporatism, since that very ideology has the same basis. Or even better, the economics of Fascism.
I'm sure you don't mean for it to be that large of a scale, but it's the same principle. Men who run businesses don't deserve the same right because YOU believe them to hold too much power to be irresponsible. You see the market as an entity init of itself and even though the market is run by people, the people can not hold the same rights as individuals who do not run businesses in the market.
I disagree with this stance because I believe that all free individuals hold some power in the market and therefore can not deserve more rights than others. But I can at least see where the basis of your beliefs come from.
So what you're saying is that because a man is successful (at least, in holding a business together), he can't be allowed to hold the same rights as someone who isn't as successful (in holding a business) on the basis that YOU believe these successful men hold a power and must be FORCED to be responsible with it?
No. You keep framing what I said incorrectly. I said that if you own a business you have the power that comes from an employed staff, franchises, etc. I also said that only a business is bound by these discrimination laws. It has nothing to do with success or failure, but whether you own a business and therefore are able to hire people under you, or serve products.
I guess you have no problem with Corporatism, since that very ideology has the same basis. Or even better, the economics of Fascism.
It's easy to make a fake version of my position and attack it instead of my argument.
I disagree with this stance because I believe that all free individuals hold some power in the market and therefore can not deserve more rights than others. But I can at least see where the basis of your beliefs come from.
If you studied history you would realise that leaving entities unchecked to their own devices leads to racial segregation and severely discriminates against minorities. You preach discrimination under the guise of equality.
It's bizarre that you think that businesses should have more rights than individuals.
Don't spin it. I believe that individuals who run businesses have the same right to discriminate as do individuals who don't run businesses.
Should normal citizens have the same right as our state to possess nuclear arms, bio-weapons, or sarin gas? Rights are not universal things precisely because power changes the responsibility that a person has. A person who has power over a large group of people must give up certain liberties to ensure that everyone else's liberties may continue to exist.
Otherwise you are arguing that business' rights are more important than individual liberties. In which case you support reducing civil liberties under the facade of advocating for them.
So, again, there is no argument except of accusing me of equivocating.
BIG FUCKING DEAL!!
That you don't see the difference between what fruits you prefer and de jure discrimination, which prohibits or abridges the privileges and rights of citizens, and (hopefully) legal residents of the country suggests that you're neither intellectually prepared to have this conversation, nor are you the person who should be having this conversation.
Typical, insult...declaring my not intellectually prepared to have this conversation.
WATCH OUT, the liberals are in the debate.
Actually, there is a difference, because the key word is private citizen. Are you not a private citizen who leads your own life as you see fit? Well, private businesses should have the luxury as well even if it is discrimination. Well both are regulated.
Private citizens can't take illegal substances, must obey drinking laws, and so on and so forth while business must do this and that to protect this and that.
If someone refuses to service an consumer, then it is the business's lost, so the consumer will find someone who is willing to accompany to his needs. The other business will gladly accept the new business. That is the purpose of a business, to make profit. It is called the free market. People operating their business as they see fit.
If de jure discrimination is apparent, why do private clubs have the right to exclude? Well, because it is a private club, just are private businesses, just are private citizens. What is the common element? Private...
Do you really think law eliminates discrimination? No, de jure discrimination has the illusion of extinction, but de facto says that discrimination still exists despite the law.
According to thefreedictionary.com, dispute: To argue about; debate.
Also, according to thefreedictionary.com, argument: A quarrel; a dispute
So, again, there is no argument except of accusing me of equivocating.
BIG FUCKING DEAL!!
I'm siding with Mahollinder; if you cannot distinguish between basic concepts like this, then you are not intellectually capable of understanding a debate on discrimination.
Typical, insult...declaring my not intellectually prepared to have this conversation.
WATCH OUT, the liberals are in the debate.
If the shoe fits...
Actually, there is a difference, because the key word is private citizen. Are you not a private citizen who leads your own life as you see fit? Well, private businesses should have the luxury as well even if it is discrimination.
Exactly the point. If you can't spot the difference between a business and a citizen then you are mildly retarded at worst, and intellectually immature at best.
If someone refuses to service an consumer, then it is the business's lost, so the consumer will find someone who is willing to accompany to his needs. The other business will gladly accept the new business. That is the purpose of a business, to make profit. It is called the free market. People operating their business as they see fit.
Apparently you don't understand what "minority" means.
If de jure discrimination is apparent, why do private clubs have the right to exclude? Well, because it is a private club, just are private businesses, just are private citizens. What is the common element? Private...
So your strongest argument for public businesses being able to cause social turmoil, is "daddy daddy the pwivate bussness is doing it! why can't I do it too?"
Do you really think law eliminates discrimination? No, de jure discrimination has the illusion of extinction, but de facto says that discrimination still exists despite the law.
It would seem that the law has acted as one of the important tools in reducing discrimination the past five decades.
I'm siding with Mahollinder; if you cannot distinguish between basic concepts like this, then you are not intellectually capable of understanding a debate on discrimination.
No, I think that is on your side.
If the shoe fits...
I always figured that you were a liberal yet deny it.
Exactly the point. If you can't spot the difference between a business and a citizen then you are mildly retarded at worst, and intellectually immature at best
Insulting my intelligence unfortunately doesn't make you any smarter. Plus, if I am so stupid, how would you even respond.
So, if there is a difference between a business and a citizen, are businesses run by robots? Apparently, a recent revelation involves that individual private citizens operate businesses. Yet, under your definition, government runs private businesses but operated and owned by private citizens, yet government tells them how to run by regulating commerce.
Apparently you don't understand what "minority" means.
Actually, I do. Maybe you should review.
So your strongest argument for public businesses being able to cause social turmoil, is "daddy daddy the pwivate bussness is doing it! why can't I do it too?"
There are no such thing as public businesses. There are only private businesses.
It may be difficult to distinguish between basic concepts like public and private, but then again, you are not intellectually capable of understanding the difference private and public.
It would seem that the law has acted as one of the important tools in reducing discrimination the past five decades.
No, discrimination is decreasing not because of discrimination laws, but of social tolerance.
Insulting my intelligence unfortunately doesn't make you any smarter. Plus, if I am so stupid, how would you even respond.
This is what has me stumped actually. How do I respond to a person on a topic he apparently doesn't understand?
So, if there is a difference between a business and a citizen, are businesses run by robots?
Case in point. You really haven't the slightest clue what the difference is.
I'll spell it out for you:
When a person acts bigoted, the harm is localised. Unless there is violence, no strong harm has been done. When people act bigoted, the harm is no longer localised. A mob mentality forms, with each individual affirming the other. This makes it difficult to exist for the party discriminated against. A business is operated by a group of people.
This is why in a free society, minorities get along fine where there is tolerance. The occasional bigot is easy to tolerate. When the city is full of them, you cannot exist because they form a self-reinforcing net of relationships that actively work against your ability to stay there.
Actually, I do. Maybe you should review.
A minority has a natural disadvantage. They lack influence and power, almost by definition (rare cases subvert this).
No, discrimination is decreasing not because of discrimination laws, but of social tolerance.
Which has been made possible through anti-discrimination laws which punish bigotry.
So your strongest argument for public businesses being able to cause social turmoil, is "daddy daddy the pwivate bussness is doing it! why can't I do it too?"
You wrote "Is there a dispute in this argument?" Your question suggested that you weren't using the two terms interchangeably. So, again, there is a dispute, but no argument.
BIG FUCKING DEAL!!
You're the one making it a big deal, with your caps locking and further equivocation.
Actually, there is a difference, because the key word is private citizen.
I don't know what this is in response to.
Well, private businesses should have the luxury as well even if it is discrimination.
Hence the distinction between a bona fide private entity - like a country club - and one that is under the definition of an entity that provides public accommodation - like a restaurant. Discrimination is still legal for private entities, you just can't provide a public service and discriminate.
If someone refuses to service an consumer, then it is the business's lost, so the consumer will find someone who is willing to accompany to his needs.
An unrealistic and detached perspective.
If de jure discrimination is apparent, why do private clubs have the right to exclude? Well, because it is a private club, just are private businesses, just are private citizens. What is the common element? Private...
The reason is because a private club doesn't provide a public service, like a restaurant, grocery story, hotel or a casino does. Attaching the word "private" to each of these doesn't make your case, especially when the discrimination issue is largely based on how the particular business is operated, or what it does - not who owns it.
You're the one making it a big deal, with your caps locking and further equivocation.
Actually, i didn't use caps lock. I just held down the shift key.
I don't know what this is in response to.
Maybe you should just read.
Hence the distinction between a bona fide private entity - like a country club - and one that is under the definition of an entity that provides public accommodation - like a restaurant. Discrimination is still legal for private entities, you just can't provide a public service and discriminate.
Just because the government defines private businesses as public accommodations doesn't mean it must be a public service and can't discriminate. I understand that government is your god, but by government defining private businesses as public accommodations, essentially, government regulates commerce throughout the country because it tells private bussinesses that they must serve anything who walks into thier door.
You love the idea of government control and its abuse of power, and this law uses its power.
An unrealistic and detached perspective.
The only unrealistic and detached perspective is anyone who is incapable of understanding the free market.
The reason is because a private club doesn't provide a public service, like a restaurant, grocery story, hotel or a casino does. Attaching the word "private" to each of these doesn't make your case, especially when the discrimination issue is largely based on how the particular business is operated, or what it does - not who owns it.
Actually, there is a case. Your case is weak assuming private business should be run and operated as public domains regulated by government commerce.
Also, do robots operate private clubs?
The last time I checked private clubs were operate by private citizens. The same goes for private businesses.
Private clubs discriminate operate on discrimination because Augusta National Golf Club publicly display discrimination for women that they will not admit any woman as members, which means no woman can golf at the club; therefore, it is not just about who owns it. It is the way it is operated.
Plus in the Civil Rights Act, the government doesn't define private because if they had, private clubs would had to comply to this law. Therefore, if private clubs should be allowed, then private businesses.
The only unrealistic and detached perspective is anyone who is incapable of understanding the free market.
(sigh) Not everyone has the finances or resources to just up and look for other places to shop. You can understand the concept of the free market until you're buried and rotting in a grave and it will no more grant you the wisdom experiencing the full breadth of human life provides - of which you seem so woefully lacking and inadequate.
Just because the government defines private businesses as public accommodations doesn't mean it must be a public service and can't discriminate.
It's not the business that is defined as a public accommodation per se, but the good or service that the business provides. That's where the distinction exists.
Actually, there is a case.
I agree. But the fact that there is a case doesn't mean you've made your case.
Your case is weak assuming private business should be run and operated as public domains regulated by government commerce.
At some point you're going to have to start arguing against actual points and not the windmills spinning in your head.
The last time I checked private clubs were operate by private citizens. The same goes for private businesses.
But what they do aren't the same.
It is the way it is operated.
I've already noted this. Explicitly. However, a private golf club does not provide a public service or good. A business like a restaurant or grocery store, does provide a public service or good.
Plus in the Civil Rights Act, the government doesn't define private because if they had, private clubs would had to comply to this law.
The definition of a private entity is implied by the definition of a public accommodation.
Therefore, if private clubs should be allowed, then private businesses.
Not everyone has the finances or resources to just up and look for other places to shop. You can understand the concept of the free market until you're buried and rotting in a grave and it will no more grant you the wisdom experiencing the full breadth of human life provides - of which you seem so woefully lacking and inadequate.
Oh, please, there are numerous of alternatives areas to shop even if this delusional discrimination exist. It is a ridiculous notion to think that McDonalds would really discriminate than service willing customers.
Remember, discrimination was brought about by government through Jim Crow Laws, and discrimination was only solidified by the Supreme Court through the separate but equal doctrine. Businesses were not at fault, they were only complying to current law.
I agree. But the fact that there is a case doesn't mean you've made your case.
There is a case, you are so blind to see it.
But what they do aren't the same.
Actually private clubs and businesses are the same. In school, I worked at a private club, at any time and anyone could walk up to the building and ask for a membership application and fill one out. The same goes for a private business. At any time and anyone can walk upt to the building and ask for a service.
Now, this is the private goes into play. The club will make a decision on whether they want to accept this person or family into the club just as the private business can accept to serve the person.
I've already noted this. Explicitly. However, a private golf club does not provide a public service or good. A business like a restaurant or grocery store, does provide a public service or good.
Wrong, a business is not a public service or good. It is privately service. A library is a public service. Parks are public services. Police and fire are public services.
The definition of a private entity is implied by the definition of a public accommodation.
Private is not implied in the definition as the reads the excerpt:
"exempted private clubs without defining the term "private." Title II, Clause 2
Oh, please, there are numerous of alternatives areas to shop even if this delusional discrimination exist
Yes. There are. However, the issue I've introduced is not whether they are available, but whether or not groups of people have the capacity: of resource or time to actually go to these other places with any frequency so as to live.
It is a ridiculous notion to think that McDonalds would really discriminate than service willing customers.
It is. So stop being ridiculous.
Remember, discrimination was brought about by government through Jim Crow Laws, and discrimination was only solidified by the Supreme Court through the separate but equal doctrine. Businesses were not at fault, they were only complying to current law.
Revisionist bullshit. The "Separate but equal" clause never forced anyone to discriminate; the law(s) only made it legal to do so. Businesses and those people operating those businesses had every opportunity to not discriminate without any legal punishment, and often did not make that choice. For every business that did discriminate, it was the operator who was at fault since they could have chosen to not discriminate at any opportunity.
Actually private clubs and businesses are the same.
I would wager that you're description is somewhat disingenuous. Private clubs require membership prior to services being rendered. And those services are generally reserved for those specific members - hence its privacy and non-public accmmodation. A business, of the kind that is described as a public accommodation, does not require membership and is open to the general public. The modus operandi of a business vs a private club are fundamentally different as a general rule.
Wrong, a business is not a public service or good
I never claimed that a business was a public service or good. I said that businesses provide those services or goods, are open to the public, and are therefore public accommodations.
"exempted private clubs without defining the term "private." Title II, Clause 2
First, this is not entirely true. The "not in fact open to the public" prescribes a description of privacy. Second, there is a difference between something that is explicit (above) and what would be "implied" by defining its corresponding other.
Liberal: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets, not bound by authoritarianism.
Maybe you meant progressives?
Do you really think law eliminates discrimination? No, de jure discrimination has the illusion of extinction, but de facto says that discrimination still exists despite the law.
Force NEVER works in attempting to eradicate beliefs. The best option would be economic boycott in a free market as it would mean that if the segregationist's business wanted to keep up with the competition, he knows he would have to change his rules/whatever you want to call them if he wants to make money. If not, then the business would simply collapse.
A business that can afford to refuse service to a paying customer can't exist in a free market.
Force NEVER works in attempting to eradicate beliefs. The best option would be economic boycott in a free market as it would mean that if the segregationist's business wanted to keep up with the competition, he knows he would have to change his rules/whatever you want to call them if he wants to make money. If not, then the business would simply collapse.
That doesn't work. A minority is what is being discriminated against, which means that it will have a negligible affect on the market. Removing the discrimination laws also make these businesses immune in their assaults on human dignity.
A business that can afford to refuse service to a paying customer can't exist in a free market.
Of course it can. That is why there are businesses which target different demographics. They are all profitable. The reason that a racist business may thrive is that it is targeting the largest demographic.
That doesn't work. A minority is what is being discriminated against, which means that it will have a negligible affect on the market.
That doesn't mean that there aren't businesses who aren't discriminating against minorities. If I went to a cafe and was refused service, I wouldn't demand anything, I'd just leave and go to a cafe that serves all demographics.
Removing the discrimination laws also make these businesses immune in their assaults on human dignity And they also remove individual rights.
Of course it can. That is why there are businesses which target different demographics. They are all profitable. The reason that a racist business may thrive is that it is targeting the largest demographic.
Not very well though if you compare it to a business serving all demographics; that business would make it much further.
That doesn't mean that there aren't businesses who aren't discriminating against minorities. If I went to a cafe and was refused service, I wouldn't demand anything, I'd just leave and go to a cafe that serves all demographics.
The issue isn't about ending prejudice in people. The issue is about giving minorities the legal ability to hole discriminating businesses accountable. It is also about working against the effects of natural discrimination which exist in any majority.
In other words you are moving the goalpost.
And they also remove individual rights.
If a person is bigoted, they have the legal ability to believe as they wish. They cannot harm many people. When a business is bigoted, it causes severe social problems. Group bigotry is not a right that is worth defending.
Not very well though if you compare it to a business serving all demographics; that business would make it much further.
You don't understand business. Very few businesses can target all demographics, because very few products are general enough. You also moved the goalpost. It is enough that targeted demographics is profitable, and thus defeats your assertion.
Like sponsoring politicians which can write legislation that targets the minority in question.
What sort of product can only be targeted at one demographic?
Seriously? Barbie is an example of a product marketed to young girls. Video games (most) are marketed to teenage boys. Making a toy that appeals to everyone is very tricky, same with games, and foods, and clothes, etc.
Like sponsoring politicians which can write legislation that targets the minority in question.
Could you be a little more specific?
Seriously? Barbie is an example of a product marketed to young girls. Video games (most) are marketed to teenage boys. Making a toy that appeals to everyone is very tricky, same with games, and foods, and clothes, etc.
Well what does that mean? A business makes product for people of a certain age and gender?
Back when Cannabis was legal, certain textile industries are believed to have played on the population's fears of Mexican immigrants by calling the drug "marijuana" and thus helping with legislation banning the substance.
In the present day, a number of evangelical and conservative-based organisations' use their profits to fund political campaigns, or fund non-profit think-tanks, so that we have politicians being supported by their dollars. Bigotry is being used to drive elections on matters such as science, homosexuality, and abortion.
Well what does that mean? A business makes product for people of a certain age and gender?
It means that each demographic is a niche, and that one can succeed without needing to serve everyone.
So how could a company create a variety of products suited for different races?
There is no reason that a product cannot apply to all races equally, except:
-If the product relies on genetic traits to work, certain races may be physically ineligible.
-If we factor in the cultures often tied to races, there is a probability that certain races will or will not use the product.
However left to itself there is no strong reason to appeal to minority races in a free market, because if you serve the majority of the population, and especially if you serve the vast majority, then an extra five or twenty percent won't convince your bigoted disposition.
Sickle-cell anemia, HIV immunity, blonde/red hair, etc.
When has this ever happened? Which products in particular?
As far back as one cares to remember. Hispanic food items in grocery markets are an example, Anime is another.
Well then what kind of products only appeal to minorities?
Foods, music, television, language, etc.
So now I'm bigoted because I prefer individual liberty rather than force?
You cannot say that you prefer individual liberty when your beliefs would cause a significant population of individuals to lose their liberty due to segregation.
Defending liberty does not mean defending a person's right to deprive liberty from others.
You cannot say that you prefer individual liberty when your beliefs would cause a significant population of individuals to lose their liberty due to segregation.
So how exactly would you define a business? What right does the government have to tell someone to provide a service for another?
Defending liberty does not mean defending a person's right to deprive liberty from others.
So force is necessary rather than boycott and choice?
A business produces goods and sells them at a fee. A worker is that who is contracted or permitted to produce goods or services for the business in exchange for a pay rate.
What right does the government have to tell someone to provide a service for another?
The same right that a government may shut down a business for poisoning its consumers, or selling filthy foods, or refusing to pay proper wages, etc. In other words the right of enforcement of social responsibility.
So force is necessary rather than boycott and choice?
Correct. You don't understand the meaning of minority?
A business produces goods and sells them at a fee. A worker is that who is contracted or permitted to produce goods or services for the business in exchange for a pay rate.
So if one was to sell produce without workers, made profit, etc, would that count as a business?
The same right that a government may shut down a business for poisoning its consumers, or selling filthy foods, or refusing to pay proper wages, etc. In other words the right of enforcement of social responsibility.
I'm not quite sure you can compare murder/manslaughter to simply refusing service.
Correct. You don't understand the meaning of minority?
Of course no I do, but would you purchase goods or services from a business that you knew discriminated against minorities?
So if one was to sell produce without workers, made profit, etc, would that count as a business?
Correct. The moment that you take up a responsibility to produce for society, you become burdened with the task of acting in a way that is healthy for that society.
I'm not quite sure you can compare murder/manslaughter to simply refusing service.
These are examples of where a business is held accountable. Refusing service is a great crime when it is on the basis of discrimination, because this kind of phenomenon is never singular, if businesses are allowed to discriminate then it means you are made to live a segregated life, because it will mean that in a white neighborhood the majority of businesses will only serve whites.
Of course no I do, but would you purchase goods or services from a business that you knew discriminated against minorities?
Then you apparently do not understand. When you are a minority, if businesses are permitted to discriminate, then it means that only a handful of businesses will serve you.
Correct. The moment that you take up a responsibility to produce for society, you become burdened with the task of acting in a way that is healthy for that society.
So a business's overall goal is to serve the state? No supply the demand?
Then you apparently do not understand.
Sure if you want.
When you are a minority, if businesses are permitted to discriminate, then it means that only a handful of businesses will serve you.
...
I know. Hence the word 'Minority.'
Personally, if I knew of lets say a cafe, that discriminated against minorities, I wouldn't go there, and neither would quite a few people I knew. So what is actually stopping minorities from gathering white moderate's support? Wouldn't it be a lot easier now that the general attitude's changed.
Well, that is only IF a company actually started segregating.
So a business's overall goal is to serve the state? No supply the demand?
I said serve society, there is a subtle distinction in that a society's interests are not always in agreement with the state's.
Personally, if I knew of lets say a cafe, that discriminated against minorities, I wouldn't go there, and neither would quite a few people I knew. So what is actually stopping minorities from gathering white moderate's support? Wouldn't it be a lot easier now that the general attitude's changed.
There is always a cycle, a new era of discrimination. You are only looking at race, because that is the most apparent due to hindsight. After over a century it is not possible for blacks and Asians to find strong support by white moderates. Fifty years ago this was hardly the case. Now the cycle repeats itself with homosexuals and Muslims. Homosexuals have just barely started to achieve a half-way split of support amongst the average Americans. Muslims have very little support, and a lot of hostility. Where is their "white moderate" majority that will represent and defend them from bigotry? This is the crutch of your reasoning. Bigotry will always exist in a cycle, with a new group every generation, but due to minority status there will rarely be an army of majority sponsors ready to defend and protest against it.
Having a law allows for minorities to punish offenders in a way that is less dependent upon the fickle nature of majority.
There is always a cycle, a new era of discrimination. You are only looking at race, because that is the most apparent due to hindsight. After over a century it is not possible for blacks and Asians to find strong support by white moderates. Fifty years ago this was hardly the case. Now the cycle repeats itself with homosexuals and Muslims. Homosexuals have just barely started to achieve a half-way split of support amongst the average Americans. Muslims have very little support, and a lot of hostility.
I disagree with Homosexuals being a minority, but the hostility towards Muslims makes sense.
Where is their "white moderate" majority that will represent and defend them from bigotry? This is the crutch of your reasoning.
Sigh... Ok, let me rephrase that.
What's stopping them from getting straight, non-Muslim majority support?
Fear of what? If Title II was repealed what makes you so sure that businesses will immediately discriminate against minorities? If the minorities now are Homosexuals and Muslims, it would be much easier to rally support and boycott effectively!
Muslims are afraid of whites because of violence perpetrated against them. Whites are afraid of Muslims because of suicide bombings happening every week, Sharia and encroaching Islamic values, and the constantly foiled terrorist attacks on American soil.
If Title II was repealed what makes you so sure that businesses will immediately discriminate against minorities? If the minorities now are Homosexuals and Muslims, it would be much easier to rally support and boycott effectively!
Businesses already discriminate. The law doesn't end discrimination, it just gives minorities the tools to fight back.
If the law was repealed there would be no punishment for discriminating in the workplace, which means that businesses predisposed to discrimination would do this with impunity. Now get back to what I said earlier: it took a century but blacks and Asians have support by most Americans which means that boycotting would work, they need only present their case to the public. Homosexuals and Muslims by contrast have propaganda, political campaigns, in addition to general hostility working against them. The law is all these minorities have.
Correct. You don't understand the meaning of minority?
Gee, how did black folks ever make it through that 100 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You would have thought they'd starved to death without government interference...BUT SOMEHOW THEY MULTIPLIED LIKE RABBITS INSTEAD.
Walter Williams, who is an black man and a well respected economist, agrees with me that there is a connection with what fruits you prefer and private business discrimination; not only does it prove I am intellectually prepared for this conservation, it proves that you are inadequately accept the fact that despite this useless law, discrimination still exists.
He describes all sorts of discrimination in not only in private life, but private business such as the NFL discriminates in not allowing women as quarterbacks or fact of the matter, any position. Wouldn't that be an violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act.
I think your point of view is overly simplistic. If I choose to not date someone after the first date it is not because they are ugly or poor is is based on a complex dynamic of our personalities and other factors. Even in selecting a date and if we only use appearance there is no true category of ugly or handsome, it is how they appeal to us. It is not a specific group.
As explained with businesses it is very different. You may be the only business of that type around and if you wish to ban someone because they are causing a problem that is one thing, but to simply exclude a group is unfair and can be used to drive them away.
I, literally just read the entire act. It says nothing about denying a person entrance into a facility that isn't owned by the government. It only talks about discriminating against someone based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin while applying for a job; denying anyone the right to vote; and segregation of public schools based on race, color, religion, or national origin. X( Where did you get this stuff from???
because it the every persons right to shop where they want, provided they do not create disruptions or theft. if someone does not create any problems, they should not be forced to leave.
If the owning class of a society was diversified not only in their prejudiced but in their ethnicity, sub-culture, etc. Then anti-discrimination laws may be unnecessary to promote the public good and may even get in the way of it, but the owning class still tends to be older, conservative, white males. If there is a force that may cause this group to become discriminatory, then the majority of the owning class becomes discriminatory. This means that there wouldn't be enough businesses not discriminating to counter balance and make irrelevant the discrimination other businesses would implement. Such a process would result in much of the common wealth of society being cut off from a sizable portion of the population, while simultaneously making that portion less productive, less healthy, etc. This harms society as a whole and is counter to the common welfare. Government is constitutionally granted the right to regulate commerce(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) with or without but especially for the purpose of promoting the common welfare.
The fact that this is even up for consideration scares me. The only businesses against this would be business that would put it into practice, which is wrong. Is this now how Germany turned a blind eye to Jews in the first place? Refuse their services, refuse them service. The rights of a business should never be held higher than the rights of a man.
You can't base an argument off what people assume. you base it off fact. your saying that whites derive their power from the fact that adam and eve are white when they are not. their for your argument has no effect on this debate whats so ever.
I do base it off fact. I used to go to a southern White baptist church. They assumed adam and eve, and Jesus were white. Even though we all know they weren't.....
So if they repeal the Cilvil rights act, no one in America is truly "white". America is a melting pot of cultures and races. Our families are all immigrants at one point in history. For instance, my grand parents are from spain. So should i sleep in a different hotel because of their decision to come to america for a better life?
Acctually mine are not. I am 100 percent native american and i am not a christian. but i have read the bible. If anyone knows anything about discrimation it is me. im a full blooded homosexual native american. that being said. it is not right that discrimination exsists but it always will.
so we should take away private business rights to protect a minority? how is that fair? its bullcrap and its the major flaw in government. too much control. it is not their place to tell a person how to run their business.
so we should take away private business rights to protect a minority? how is that fair? its bullcrap and its the major flaw in government. too much control. it is not their place to tell a person how to run their business.
The fact that you as a business owner would not have the right to shout "Hey nigger! Get out of my store!" is the major flaw in government? That's what you believe?
yes! its their personal right! no the fact that they would do that is not right but they do have the basic born human right to do that. they might as well strip the 1st amendment right out of there if they are gonna take that right away. Now let me be clear to you so you don't get confused. I DO NOT SUPPORT RACISM OR ANY OTHER FORM OF BIGOTRY IN ANY FORM. I ONLY SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT A PERSON CAN'T BE A BIGOT!
Well I suggest you go into politics then. Run for office and make that your platform. "If you elect me, I'll make sure every American business owner has the right to yell, Hey nigger...get out of my store!" See how far that gets you
Or better yet, say "If you elect me, I'll repeal your first amendment right making it illegal to yell "Hey nigger...get out of my store!"
A better use would be to say "Observe the success of a business owner who has his staff yell "Hey nigger... get out of my store!" Compared to the other business across the road which accepts all races because they care about actually making money and keeping up in a competitive market.
yes! its their personal right! no the fact that they would do that is not right but they do have the basic born human right to do that. they might as well strip the 1st amendment right out of there if they are gonna take that right away.
Individuals have the right to think and say what they want.
Businesses do not, and should not.
I DO NOT SUPPORT RACISM OR ANY OTHER FORM OF BIGOTRY IN ANY FORM. I ONLY SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT A PERSON CAN'T BE A BIGOT!
When a person is a bigot, he only hurts those immediately around him. When a business is bigoted it hurts the people in the town that it exists in. When a corporation is bigoted it may hurt the state or nation that it resides in. When a nation is bigoted, it hurts everyone within it and may hurt other nations.
We like to keep the harm of racism and bigotry as localised as possible.
A private business does because an individual owns it. if i own a house i can paint a swastika on that house. i own it i can do what i want with it. and its not gonna be localized ever. you might as well get over it and accept the fact that individuals AND businesses have the right to the freedom of speech.
A private business does because an individual owns it.
When you take up responsibility to serve society in some capacity, especially one of influence, you are no longer entitled certain privileges that a lone man possesses. This is a trade-off for ensuring that your responsibility to society is practiced.
if i own a house i can paint a swastika on that house. i own it i can do what i want with it. and its not gonna be localized ever.
A single person has that right.
you might as well get over it and accept the fact that individuals AND businesses have the right to the freedom of speech.
Except that they do not. Freedom of speech no longer exists, for you may not speak openly of classified secrets, you may not libel another person, you may not speak or recreate ideas that are owned by another company. Need I continue?
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it is an issue of societal health, and you are acting like a wide-eyed fool for ignoring this to defend simple ideological dogma.
So because the freedom is limited that makes it ok to take it away completly? That is the issue. It is freedom of speech issue. A business should have that right. You dont start a business to serve society. you start it to make money. and each individual should have the right to do so however they want. as long as the business is legal they should be able to run it how they please.
So because the freedom is limited that makes it ok to take it away completly?
It isn't, and it wouldn't if it were.
That is the issue. It is freedom of speech issue.
No, it isn't. People are allowed to say what they wish. They are not allowed to act in ways that are harmful to society, such as using your business's stature to impoverish immigrants.
You dont start a business to serve society. you start it to make money. and each individual should have the right to do so however they want.
Listen, just because you're a selfish masochist, do not assume that the rest of us are. Businesses behave selfishly and this is why there are laws for the welfare of society which keep their selfishness in check. If you weren't so absorbed into ideology you would realise that before these laws existed, people lived segregated lives with white males possessing all the best that the country offered with coloureds like yourself owning second-class institutions, and before even those days it was permitted that individuals like yourself could be lynched for acting equal or even superiour to a white man.
Know your place in society, and act according to it. You are always going to be treated as a second-class citizen, because you are visibly different, and at the same time you are too small of a minority to band together and effect change on your own. This is why laws exist to help people like you. Quit being a puppet for wealthy white men.
as long as the business is legal they should be able to run it how they please.
How am i selfish or a masochist. You are running out of arguments so you are just attacking me personally. The fact that i have the rights of all private business owners in mind makes me very unselfish. Your too worried about not looking like a racist to realize that the sheer utter fact of the matter is that private business should have the right to decide who they want to serve and who they don't want to. You keep saying "o this is illegal and this is illegal". the point of the debate is whether or not it SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be legal. We aren't debating whether it is or not. So when you can formulate an educated argument that doesn't involve attacking me personally then come back and debate. until then, get out of your mothers basement and open your eyes to the real world. the real world isn't this perfect place where racism and discrimination don't exist. The ugly truth of the matter is that people have a RIGHT to be racist if they choose. Just cause our over powered government feels they have a right to take away our basic rights doesn't mean tat it should be illegal. Get a fucking grip.
You are selfish for wishing to have the unrestrained ability to profit at the expense of others. You are a masochist for advocating the removal of laws which give you the right to hold accountable a business which discriminates against you and your kinsman.
You are running out of arguments so you are just attacking me personally.
I could write a book on the subject but that breadth of argument would not be appreciated here.
The fact that i have the rights of all private business owners in mind makes me very unselfish.
No it doesn't. It makes you anything from a fool, to a masochist, to selfish depending on whether you are or hope to become a business owner yourself, and how feverish your arguments in favour become.
Your too worried about not looking like a racist to realize that the sheer utter fact of the matter is that private business should have the right to decide who they want to serve and who they don't want to.
I don't care whether or not you think I am a racist. What I do care about are the idiots and simpletons out there who buy into this ideology which is against the interests of everyone but a handful of those at the top of society.
Bigotry is not worth anything that it should be defended as a right. It has no merit, it has not use, except to alienate innocent people and cause social strife. Yet here you are defending it like a gullible sap.
You keep saying "o this is illegal and this is illegal". the point of the debate is whether or not it SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be legal. We aren't debating whether it is or not.
The basis of my argument is not that it is illegal. Try reading what I said and focusing on the context.
So when you can formulate an educated argument that doesn't involve attacking me personally then come back and debate.
For example:
When a person is a bigot, he only hurts those immediately around him. When a business is bigoted it hurts the people in the town that it exists in. When a corporation is bigoted it may hurt the state or nation that it resides in. When a nation is bigoted, it hurts everyone within it and may hurt other nations.
We like to keep the harm of racism and bigotry as localised as possible.
And
When you take up responsibility to serve society in some capacity, especially one of influence, you are no longer entitled certain privileges that a lone man possesses. This is a trade-off for ensuring that your responsibility to society is practiced.
Try reading what I write with appreciation to context.
until then, get out of your mothers basement and open your eyes to the real world. the real world isn't this perfect place where racism and discrimination don't exist.
So? I am not arguing that they do not exist.
The ugly truth of the matter is that people have a RIGHT to be racist if they choose. Just cause our over powered government feels they have a right to take away our basic rights doesn't mean tat it should be illegal. Get a fucking grip.
People have rights because those abilities are judged to be in some capacity more beneficial to permit than to banish. Rights do not exist merely because they are deeds which exist in nature.
So tell me, why ought bigotry be a right? You're the one defending it as something which needs to exist. The burden falls on you to explain why bigotry is a good thing.
Put another way, murder, rape and torture exist all around us just as bigotry does. Indeed human trafficking is still a profitable venture. So tell me, if these things cannot be banished by law just as bigotry cannot, and are indeed a product of human nature like bigotry, then it falls to you for consistency's sake to argue why it is our right to kill people, rape people, torture people and sell them as commodities. Those are individual liberties, are they not?
That is quite a leap. Those acts are so beyond bigotry that you can't compare them. That's like saying cause i think i should have a right to punch someone cause they attack me i also think that i should have a right to commit genocide. You cannot compare those.
"You are selfish for wishing to have the unrestrained ability to profit at the expense of others. You are a masochist for advocating the removal of laws which give you the right to hold accountable a business which discriminates against you and your kinsman."
When did i ever say that people would profit from running a racist business? i actually argued that they would lose business. If someone runs a business that discriminates against black people then ya know what? black people won't go there. Therefore their feelings won't be hurt in anyway.
Now i have actually written a a paper on this subject for my English class. For the paper i interviewed several minorities to get their aspect on the argument. 95% of them agreed with my arguments and all of them have agreed to talk to you if you would like.
That is quite a leap. Those acts are so beyond bigotry that you can't compare them. That's like saying cause i think i should have a right to punch someone cause they attack me i also think that i should have a right to commit genocide. You cannot compare those.
I am holding you accountable to your deduction. If evil (bigotry and segregation) are alright, then it follows that greater evil is alright as long as it fits the criteria of not being able to be thoroughly wiped off the face of the Earth by laws. Indeed if you try to argue that the evil of discrimination isn't really that evil and murder, torture and rape are very evil then it is merely a case of you setting an arbitrary cut-off line for what is too evil to ought to be allowed by law. Why shouldn't the cut-off line exist at rape, if discrimination is alright? Why shouldn't the line be drawn at murder? I have a sincere question:
If rape, torture and murder are too evil for you, yet they remain despite our best laws and efforts just like business discrimination does, why not set the evil cutoff line at discrimination? So discrimination isn't evil enough for you and you want to bring segregation back? This is what you are arguing for.
When did i ever say that people would profit from running a racist business? i actually argued that they would lose business. If someone runs a business that discriminates against black people then ya know what? black people won't go there. Therefore their feelings won't be hurt in anyway.
I inferred from reading a post you made a week or so ago that you are under eighteen years of age. This means you never lived during segregated America. Do yourself a favour and find older gentlemen and women who lived in the south and are at least seventy years old and preferably black. Ask them what segregation was like, and tell them about your idea that noninterference by government will solve racism in business. Please humble yourself to them since they lived through a period of history that you can only imagine.
Now i have actually written a a paper on this subject for my English class. For the paper i interviewed several minorities to get their aspect on the argument. 95% of them agreed with my arguments and all of them have agreed to talk to you if you would like.
I doubt you interviewed people who actually lived in segregation. Personal testimony is important, but it is ultimately an emotional appeal since you are so naive that the facts mean little to you for want of context, and therefore having some faces to assign to those facts might give you some context.
However I have made two main arguments against your position:
-Your position fails from a moral standpoint because your deduction applies to even worse offenses but you set an arbitrary cutoff point, which for whatever reason cannot include segregated or discriminating business environments. Lord knows why that is.
-Your position fails from a historical standpoint. Segregation started because businesses were allowed to discriminate, and the prejudices of the time, coupled with bigots in power lead to the eventual laws which enforced it. There is no difference between that time and now, in terms of it being able to happen again, except that racism bigotry has been mostly extinguished. It can always spark up, however, as we see with Muslims and Arabs in America, and there are non-racist bigots out there in near-majority concerning Homosexuals.
I wish to add a third reason:
Libertarians generally propose abolishment and/or revision of the Civil Rights Act because they believe that you cannot force people to be tolerant and that pressuring people to work together or serve others who they despise is unhealthy for both parties.
What is the proposed solution? They propose in defense that businesses which are racist will be pressured by market pressures to serve everyone. Although the market behaves otherwise, what the statement reveals is that they believe that minorities should be served by and possible work under racists by force (in this case market force instead of government force).
In other words the Libertarian platform is not to solve the problem they propose (unhealthy coercion of hostile entities working together or serving each other), but instead it is about removing from minorities the ability to hold accountable businesses which mistreat them.
Regardless of whether or not freedom of speech exists...the right to freedom of speech will always exist. That means while communist killjoys like you may persecute and punish those who exercise that right, they still have the right...you are simply violating it. You can't take away rights, you can only violate them. That's the problem with you liberals, you are always going on and on about rights but you don't even grasp the concept of what a right is. You seem to think a right is simply a privilege granted by the government. Rights are granted by God, not Man. Don't start with me on religion, you'll be missing my point that rights do not come from Man, because Man could then take them away. Whether you believe in God or not is immaterial in grasping this concept.
No man can take away the right of another man. One can only violate that right. One can only infringe on that right. One may never take it away, because no one has that ability or authority. Rights are intrinsic to being human. You are born with them. They can never be taken away. Think about it. When there is an offense to human rights, we say that those rights were violated, not taken away. If they were taken away, they couldn't possibly be violated, because they would be non-existant. You can't violate something that is non-existant. Damn, I'm drunk right now, trying my best to explain.
