It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Person HAS the Right to Discriminate...the Government Does Not

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Which would be a legitimate problem, preventing the cake from being made. Assuming, of course, that the situation is as you describe, and that the excuse is not merely a pretext for dismissal of the entire idea.




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: schuyler

I don't think the OP is so much about whether or not we can now, but how it should be. The law should not discriminate, and quite frankly, anti-discrimination laws do discriminate because they clearly do not list every single category of person that should be protected from discrimination which is to say everyone should be or none should be as all should be treated the same under the law.

So if the law singles out some, it discriminates and is (or should be) invalid.


Name one person NOT protected by race (whites are included), sex (males are included), religion (Christians are included), sexual orientation (heterosexuals are included), and gender identity (male, female and Trans are included).

So where EXACTLY is someone not included?


If it comes down to two people, and one is a majority group while the other is a protected minority, which one wins? Which one is thus discriminated against and why?


Where do you get your info? Fox news?

I am white. I was beaten up by a bunch of blacks calling me names. The city I live in called it a hate crime and the hate crime defense fund paid my hospital bills.

Care to rethink your stance?
edit on 31-3-2016 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
They SHOULD NOT be REQUIRED to interact with anyone against their will.

There are situations where they MUST be REQUIRED to interact with anyone against their will.

Someone who owns a small business on Main Street might seem like they can be determine their clientele, but no, they cannot. Why? Because their business benefits from taxes, and must comply with anti-discrimination laws.

If you want to start a business in the middle of your private properly, and build the road and infrastructure that services that business -- sure, you might be able to be an ass. But then, you need to connect to public roads at some point.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The solutions for people who become too offended by societal norms do have a right, to as much as they can, separate from the society


America offers this freedom...to some degree.


If America becomes too secular for the devout and old time religionists then they have the right to separate from the mainstream as much as possible.


Of course, the mainstream will never let them do certain things that it deems an affront to the rights of others, like their kids.


You can’t go off to the hills and torture your kids in the name of some wild religious doctrine.


So there is a real conundrum in this matter: modernity versus old time religion. The rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective.

edit on 31-3-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
I'm waiting for the day when people with poor credit ratings form a coalition and start suing everybody for denying them services, credit, loans etc.


That's already happened. That's a part of the last "housing crisis." Big Bad banks were accused of discriminatory lending practices because they would not loan to people who did not qualify, who often were in some sort of protected class, therefore they were racist. Well, the banks lent to them, allowed "stipulated" loans where you did not have to prove income and ability to repay, and guess what happened? They defaulted. But who's at fault? The banks, of course, because they knowingly lent money to people they knew couldn't repay, so now they're called "predatory lenders."

There's no way the banks could be on the right side of this using that kind of logic. They quite literally damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

One of the problems here is that everyone wants to be in a position where they can say they are discriminated against. So they conflate things that they cannot help, such as race, gender, and "ethnicity," and substitute thing they have chosen, including their resulting credit scores because they can't seem to understand that they must pay back what they borrowed. Besides, it's "not their fault."

But the fact is, the anti-discrimination statutes ARE the law, and though you can certainly argue against that, which I fully understand, you cannot get around them, so Game Over. The culture as a whole has DECIDED that's how it's going to be--whether you like it or not. You're going to have to go somewhere else if you don't want to live with that.

I hear Saudi Arabia has pretty cheap gas, and you won't have to worry about serving gay people because they execute them.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

There are those who seek to be seen as victims, as having been discriminated against. Many of that statistically irrelevant number, seek to do so for financial gain, and the attention of course.

However, it is not accurate to suggest that everyone wants a slice of that pie. It just is not true.

It is no more true than suggesting that the banks were less than one hundred percent responsible for the financial crash. They had the power and the pennies, and they were stupid with them. Simple.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



All I know is that in my business, we serve everyone and anyone, and treat all our customers exactly the same, despite BS to the contrary from certain sectors


I have always conducted business the same way.

I will never believe that FORCING someone to comply because they said something mean or insensitive is okay. Forcing other people to take action contrary to their beliefs is anathema to everything I believe. If there is no crime against person or property then there is no crime.

I don't care how someone 'feels' about what was said to them.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
If you don't want to do business with a certain group of people, you might not have that great of an eye for business. Just sayin'.

Work is work, it's not who I am. The product I provide in exchange for my time isn't me, it's just a product. Who the people are isn't my concern as long as they have one thing:

MONEY.

A savvy business owner should only refuse to do business with one group of people...those who can't pay up.

A sale is a sale. Period.
edit on 31-3-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
A person has a right to infringe upon people freely entering a church to worship or for a gay wedding?

A person has a right to infringe upon people wanting to assemble freely to listen to their political candidate?

No.

A person cannot infringe upon the rights of others.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Lack of belief in God is a relatively new thing, dude. All of the cultures you listed were recipients of their own Creator's bestowed rights.

Man screws thing up... Prohibition, Taxes, slavery are all examples of just how badly man screws up.


Wait -- so God grants different "rights" to different cultures through time? Is there more than one God then? I'm confused. Different cultures at different times had different rights by different Gods or something? If not, did God just kind of change his mind on who got what rights through history? I thought God was perfect and infallible, so why would he be making revisions as time went by?

So what if in 500 years "God" tells another culture that no one has the right to the pursuit of happiness, but they have the right to the pursuit to obey the state?

Look, rights can be taken away by other men. If they're "god given" then how can man take them away? You can be born into slavery in some places on this globe and never know any "rights" -- where's those "God given rights" then?

You can become a convincted felon and have your right to vote and own weapons taken away, arguably infringing upon your right to life and purusit of happiness. Where's God in any of that? Did God somehow tell those policemen and court officials to strip you of those rights? NO! Man created laws to enforce social order.

Rights are only rights when they are known, acknowledged, protected and enforced by society.

Spend some time in the wild and observe nature, animals don't have "rights" -- it's survival of the fittest. Eat or be eaten. God must not love his other creations, otherwise he'd give them rights too...

We're animals, highly advanced animals and at some point decided it was in our best interest to work together instead of against one another, so we created ground rules for us all to follow and get along.

"Rights" are an abstract concept created by man, and told to others to be "God given" in order gain legitimacy among the masses.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Man's restrictions on rights has varied with time, not the actual rights. A slave in the 1700s had the same rights as you or I have... assuming there had been no government of man around to hose him or her out of those rights.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Here is something people fail to realize and are not taking into account. There are no Federal laws that prohibit discrimination against people for their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

North Carolina just passed a state law outlawing anti-LGBT discrimination laws, even those passed at a city level. 29 states do not have anti-LGBT discrimination laws that protect rights in employment, housing, access to credit, education, etc.

Want to put this sign in your window? Go ahead, there are no laws against it in over half the country



Marriage equality may be the law but that doesn't mean you can get married on Sunday then go to work on Monday and not get fired for being gay.

The 29 States Where You Can Still Be Fired For Being Gay

Does this seem right?




edit on 3/31/2016 by Freija because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Yes a person has the right to be a complete and utter A hole, how that affects their life and relationships with other people is entirely their problem...so in short if you choose to discriminate against someone for any reason expect that discrimination to come back and bite you on the ass...



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Metallicus

Yes a person has the right to be a complete and utter A hole, how that affects their life and relationships with other people is entirely their problem...so in short if you choose to discriminate against someone for any reason expect that discrimination to come back and bite you on the ass...


You completely missed the point of everything and didn't read the OP.

I never said I want to discriminate or that I think it is right.

I am against the violation of personal liberty when someone is FORCED to do something against their will by an Authoritarian Government. You have every right to NOT frequent a business just like a business owner should have the right not to serve you.

If you don't like someone's policy then don't frequent their business.

Stop enslaving individuals and forcing YOUR morality on them.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I dunno man.. I think it does indicate at least some personal involvement on your part. I'd assume you wouldn't knowingly help a "customer" break into some poor blokes house, for example!

I think the issue really comes down to whether we want to actually solve them as a society long term (generations), or apply short term solutions that are effective, but cause the behavior to embed more deeply.

A clever balance of the two would probably be most effective and least divisive, but "clever" is a tall order in a realm where we are so inexperienced.

These things tend to balance themselves out in social groups, for better or worse. So, the solution might be for all groups to grow into a new position and form of interaction entirely.

Unlikely as that probably is, technology has opened the doors for us to interact in new ways, and even create completely original social structures. Structures that could be more reflective of reality and beneficial, but they certainly don't need to be to take hold.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




If you don't like someone's policy then don't frequent their business. Stop enslaving individuals and forcing YOUR morality on them.


I exercise my right not to go into businesses every day and i am not forcing my morality on anyone i simply pointed out a life rule that relates to every person on this planet...what goes around comes around,karma..whatever you want to call it...



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I also believe in karma which is why I would never personally discriminate against someone else. It seems pointless and it hurts the person who discriminates more than those that are discriminated against.

I also believe it is bad karma when we FORCE someone else to do something against their will. People should be able to make their own choices and I am opposed to any Government making it for them.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I also believe in karma which is why I would never personally discriminate against someone else.


...unless they are 'Muslim', that is, given that you authored a thread entitled " All Muslims Must Be Assumed To Be Dangerous."



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Currently, all of our societal issues like this that the government has gotten involved in, with a feverishly gleeful media, have done it gleefully knowing this will take away more liberty and transfer it to government, and both parties have helped it happen, especially beginning with Bush Sr, and increasing with Bush Jr, and then absolutely skyrocketing under Obama.

No surprise there. The sad part is that government doesn't actually care one bit about these issues and only uses them to increase individual scrutiny and reduce freedoms, and at the same time make people more passive and docile and tame, so when the SH really hits the fan, no one will have the will or the nads to tackle it, as they will already have been subdued and socially hogtied.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I also believe in karma which is why I would never personally discriminate against someone else.


...unless they are 'Muslim', that is, given that you authored a thread entitled " All Muslims Must Be Assumed To Be Dangerous."


Maybe you should re-read the thread.

I never suggested anyone should be discriminated against in fact I specifically said I wouldn't discriminate against Muslims, but I guess it is more fun for you to read what you want instead of what I actually said.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join