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.

 

Discrimination vs Rights: liberty really is simple

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I have three very simple questions the answers to which are very telling as to where you fall on the Liberty scale.

First, ask yourself if you believe you are truly one who loves the animating contest of freedom over some nebulous false notion of 'safety'.

Then answer these questions:

Irrespective of your personal beliefs/feelings:

Should a business owner, open to the public, be able to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?

Should a business owner be able to hire, refuse to hire and/or fire whoever they like, whenever they like, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?

Should a business owner be able to determine what behavior is allowed or not allowed (e.g., smoking, carrying of firearms, etc) inside their place of business, based solely on their personal likes/dislikes/beliefs?

If you answered yes to all three questions, then you truly do prefer the animating contest of freedom over some nebulous false notion of 'safety'.

A simple corollary is:
I may hate what a natzi/racist/scumbag is saying, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it.

If you answered no to all three, then I'm sorry to inform you, you are at best woefully mis-informed and/or haven't quite thought things through, and at worst, a petty-tyrant-wanna-be, regardless of how you answered the first question.

If you answered differently for any of the three, then I'm very curious which and why?




posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I had a problem with the second question.

Having been sexually harassed at work, I don't think someone should be able to fire me, because I wouldn't let them grab my: (insert body part here), or wouldn't have sex with them.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your questions are rather flawed.

Some businesses operate like a public utility or monopoly, or receive public funding, and in those cases I think my answers change somewhat.

Generally speaking, I support broad refusal of service rights, employment at will, and impactful conduct restrictions.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Business owner holds 100% of the risk of their decisions, therefore of course they should also hold the right to run their business however they choose, including choosing who they will and won't hire, serve, or otherwise conduct business with. If the "times they are a changin" as people believe, then businesses which unfairly discriminate against people will see their businesses harmed by those choices.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Should a business owner, open to the public, be able to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?


No. The reason has fall into legal reasoning. For example, you shouldn't be able to refuse service because of someone's race/ethnicity, religion or gender. If they haven't bathed and are stinking up your shop, then sure.



Should a business owner be able to hire, refuse to hire and/or fire whoever they like, whenever they like, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?


No. Sexual harassment, like Chiefsmom says isn't a valid reason. Neither is race/ethnicity, religion or gender, as long as the person is doing their job.

I once got fired, as a waitress, for my hair. I put it up in a nice bun, got it cut and even wore a wig for a awhile. They still hated my hair, no matter what, and fired me.



Should a business owner be able to determine what behavior is allowed or not allowed (e.g., smoking, carrying of firearms, etc) inside their place of business, based solely on their personal likes/dislikes/beliefs?


Sure. Within reason. I don't think employers should force religious observations on employees, for example.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

...
I may hate what a natzi/racist/scumbag is saying, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it. ...


Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to set-up a soapbox on your front-lawn, and verbally spew for hours on end, every day ?

Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to speak at a general assembly in your children's school ?

Would you take-away their rights ?
Where do these supposed 'rights' come from anyways ?
If 'rights' are privileges: could they not be taken-away by those that have granted them ?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Maybe if these questions are such a big deal then maybe the business owner doesn't have what it takes to be open to the public. If the business owner does not want to serve the public according to the laws and rules created by government, then the business owner always has the liberty to only do private business. Stop being a victim and a whiner. Just close your doors to the public. Someone else will gladly fill the market need according to the established public laws and rules.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Sure to all 3. But not without consequences.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I had a problem with the second question.

Having been sexually harassed at work, I don't think someone should be able to fire me, because I wouldn't let them grab my: (insert body part here), or wouldn't have sex with them.

So... you would prefer to continue working for someone who did that to you?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Your questions are rather flawed.

Some businesses operate like a public utility or monopoly, or receive public funding, and in those cases I think my answers change somewhat.

So, not flawed, just not comprehensive.

I should have made it clear I am talking about small business owners.

My bad, thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"Should a business owner, open to the public, be able to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?"

No. The reason has fall into legal reasoning. For example, you shouldn't be able to refuse service because of someone's race/ethnicity, religion or gender. If they haven't bathed and are stinking up your shop, then sure.

I didn't say 'based on current law'. It was clear from the framing of my question I was asking for your own, personal view.


"Should a business owner be able to hire, refuse to hire and/or fire whoever they like, whenever they like, for any reason or no reason whatsoever?"

No. Sexual harassment, like Chiefsmom says isn't a valid reason. Neither is race/ethnicity, religion or gender, as long as the person is doing their job.

I once got fired, as a waitress, for my hair. I put it up in a nice bun, got it cut and even wore a wig for a awhile. They still hated my hair, no matter what, and fired me.

"Should a business owner be able to determine what behavior is allowed or not allowed (e.g., smoking, carrying of firearms, etc) inside their place of business, based solely on their personal likes/dislikes/beliefs?"

Sure. Within reason. I don't think employers should force religious observations on employees, for example.

Ok, so, you prefer the cold comfort of chains to the animating contest of freedom. Unsurprising based on your prior posts. Got it...

Thanks for playing!



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I had a problem with the second question.

Having been sexually harassed at work, I don't think someone should be able to fire me, because I wouldn't let them grab my: (insert body part here), or wouldn't have sex with them.

So... you would prefer to continue working for someone who did that to you?


Women continue to work in environments in which they have been sexually harassed every day. They shouldn't risk their job for a sexual harassment complaint, as they often have been.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to set-up a soapbox on your front-lawn, and verbally spew for hours on end, every day ?

Of course not. That would be a violation of my private property rights - and doing so in public but loud enough to be heard inside my home would be called a public nuisance, and abatable, by force if necessary.

What makes you think I 'support' such speech in the first place?


Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to speak at a general assembly in your children's school ?

Of course not. No one has a Right to speak at a 'general assembly at my childrens school.


Would you take-away their rights ?

No.


Where do these supposed 'rights' come from anyways ?

God. Nature/the act of being born human. The flying spaghetti monster. Take your pick.


If 'rights' are privileges: could they not be taken-away by those that have granted them ?

Yes. That is why it is important to understand the distinction between 'rights' (aka privileges) and 'Rights', granted to all people by virtue of their being human.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Maybe if these questions are such a big deal then maybe the business owner doesn't have what it takes to be open to the public. If the business owner does not want to serve the public according to the laws and rules created by government, then the business owner always has the liberty to only do private business. Stop being a victim and a whiner. Just close your doors to the public. Someone else will gladly fill the market need according to the established public laws and rules.

Ok, so you're not capable of answering a question where you actually have to think, and respond in accordance with your own personal set of laws to live by, but prefer the cold comfort of chains to the animating contest of freedom. Unsurprising based on your prior posts. Got it...

Thanks for playing!


edit on 7-11-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Women continue to work in environments in which they have been sexually harassed every day. They shouldn't risk their job for a sexual harassment complaint, as they often have been.

Or they could punch the jerk in the face, and if the jerk was the boss who made the hiring/firing decisions, quit and find a job working for someone who wasn't a jerk. If they weren't the decision maker, go to the boss, and make your complaint, then make your decision on whether to quit or not based on what the boss does (or does not do).



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




I didn't say 'based on current law'.


I support the law. It works. It's not broken and doesn't need to be changed or fixed. You asked for my opinion. That's my opinion.


Ok, so, you prefer the cold comfort of chains to the animating contest of freedom.


Did you make this thread to attack opinions that differ from your own?

I think an employer that would force me to participate in their religious observation, for example, in order to keep my job, would be the equivalent of being in "cold chains". That's not freedom.


edit on 7-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
Sure to all 3. But not without consequences.

What do you mean by consequences?

If you mean, for example, the potential loss of business because the business implements racist practices, then I agree 100%...



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
My own opinion

1/ No
2/ No
3/ Yes

What do I win, besides mockery from people who disagree



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Or they could punch the jerk in the face


Okay. Now I know that you can't be taken seriously here.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I support the law. It works. It's not broken and doesn't need to be changed or fixed. You asked for my opinion. That's my opinion.

No, I asked for your responses to the questions from your purely personal view of things, not based on what the law currently does or doesn't say.


Did you make this thread to attack opinions that differ from your own?

Not at all... but I would expect at least an attempt to answer the questions as asked/framed.


I think an employer that would force me to participate in their religious observation, for example, in order to keep my job, would be the equivalent of being in "cold chains". That's not freedom.

If you weren't free to quit and find another job, I would agree... but you are (even today). I would have no problem with a small business owner that only hired people from their own religion, and required them to participate in religious observations - as long as they are free to quit.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join