The debate "Identity should be part of non discrimination laws as part of America being pro LGBT+" was started by
January 28, 2018, 2:31 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Slymcfly posted 2 arguments, lachlan posted 12 arguments to the disagreers part.
bernie2020, Akm, Lennon13 and 10 visitors agree.
Slymcfly, lachlan, seavos and 7 visitors disagree.
Why do my responses always get deleted?
You're just going to lead me to another argument. Underground sales don't cause inflation, the Federal Reserve does.
if you can't make a distinction between legal drugs and human sales then your mind can't comprehend the non-aggression principle.
there are other mob markets that don't require products. extortion, trafficking, gambling or rigged gambling. there can also be companies laundering money for external players like terrorists, rogue states, or corrupt dictators. not only do we want to prevent them from profiting from their activities, but such an influx of underground money can also destabilize our economy with inflation.
the pro regulation stance is much more complicated and nuanced than the simplified anti regulation stance. can you point to a bad federal regulation? I've seen the miscellaneous ridiculous sounding local city regulations and I can give a hypothetical justification for those but we are both short on context regarding them, and federal rules are of much broader significance anyway.
This is a separate argument but the only reason mobs exist in the drug market is because they are in the black market. The markets need them for security from police.
Theres a reason you don't buy and sell vodka with mobs.
I don't really believe that, but I do believe in an extremely strict set of rules (a constitution). I just don't think we follow that very well. Also, I think private security in certain areas works fine along side.
so let's assume a free market with no force monopoly. you want private companies to have private police forces that answer directly to the boss with no oversight or protections for you?
so anyone can sell with zero enforcement and how exactly will we control laundering of ill gotten gains from drug sales and other mob activities?
they do have a monopoly on force, but they also have strict guidelines on how and when to use the force as well as a divided government (thank you founders) to enforce it's own restrictions.
Everything done by the government is by point of gun. They hold the monopoly on force. furthermore we shouldnt even need liscenses to sell. I regard selling to the same standard as buying.
And there is no gun, no jail time. just a penalty or worst case scenario they lose their business license. if they don't want to sell to people they can go get a regular job.
god forbid someone is born gay in the bible belt. you think discrimination will be rare? the black issue is rare... now. just a few decades ago it was standard procedure.
I agree that they shouldn't but nobody can force then with a gun to their head, including politicians.
This whole argument exists regardless of the fact that this is highly unlikely because it is not profitable to discriminate. Any business in a major city that doesn't serve black people will go out of business.
business in a major city that didn't serve
and if its a small town with only 2 shops of a type (like supermarket).
it's possible both will individually discriminate, and now the person can't acquire food.
Honestly if you make up fake hypothetical situations you can justify forcing anyone to do anything. If absolutely no person decided to produce or sell food we would all starve, therefore, no grocery store should be allowed to close and we must force a minimum amount of farmers to stay in business.
because they opened a shop that said open for business. they can set prices and terms as they wish, they control every aspect of the transaction, but a paying customer that isn't unruly should not be rejected.
Now you're making fake hypothetical stories of competing businesses "getting together" and doing a pointless thing that will make less profit. That dosen't happen and will never happen. They are competing to make a profit.
Why do you have a right to force someone to trade with you against their consent?
no, you don't have the right to open a business and descriminate against people. that isn't state control of your business.
individuals do not have the right to descriminate, and it does infringe on the rights of others.
for example. every grocery store in a town gets together and decides they won't sell to anyone but white people. if you aren't white you now have to either move or starve to death. if you let businesses pick and choose which groups they want to do business with it violates the rights of the people they are descriminating against. that is illegal and it should be.
So what you're saying is we don't have the right to open businesses unless we are state controlled? No, anyone has the right to offer a service for currency and can decide who they want to trade with. The state can't force an individual not to use their property to open a business.
Again individuals have these rights because they do not infringe on the rights of others. Consumers don't have the "right" to force someone to trade with someone against their consent.
of course it isn't, you have a choice. you can either serve everyone or no one. you have the choice to not serve anyone. you just don't have the right to descriminate against specific groups. that isn't servitude, it's called an equal society.
A trade for a good or service is servitude lol. To force anyone to do something against their consent at point of gun is servitide. If I force you to sell be an orange it's involuntary servitude.
There is no servitude. they certainly have the right to not serve anyone. but a for profit business does not have the right to descriminate against people based on their race, gender, or sexual preference. and they shouldn't be allowed be allowed to.
Right I agree that bigotry exists with a pattern as such. Where we disagree is with the concept of rights. the state still does not have the right to exert force on the owner because they didn't infringe on the rights of the rejected customer. Consuners don't have a pre existing right to buy anything, even if the seller does not consent.
Regardless, anti- freedom of association people can't escape the fact that involuntary servitude is prohibited under the 13th anendment. The law does not state any provisions to the bigotry in one's head. If the business owner is a flaming racist, to force him to serve the customer is servitude and involuntary.
you can certainly deny services to individuals based on subjective, unknowable, but often legitimate reasons (like being disruptive or peeing in a corner)
but after a consistent pattern of refusing services to a certain group, one doesn't have to police minds to see objective bigotry based on arbitrary characteristics limiting a large group of people's ability to live and pursue happiness. that is absolutely enforceable and should be.
you have the right to life liberty and property. That includes freedom of association and freedom to not associate. If a sale is not voluntary it is done by force of the state. So again, if I own a product I have to consent before selling to someone, the reasons are in my mind and the state cannot police what is in my mind. furthermore to oppose freedom of association is involuntary servitude and therefore unconstitutional.
it may come as a shock but natural rights are not subjective and you don't have the "right" to force someone to sell you a product to which they don't consent.
of course you can. if you tell someone you won't serve you because they're black then you are a racist. that cannot be tolerated. freedom doesn't just mean freedom to descriminate against whoever you want. the person you're descriminating against has rights too. their rights trump your bigotry.
There shouldn't even be non discrimination laws. you can't force me to sell someone a thing.
non discrimination laws have to do with employment, not speech.... what are you talking about?
this guy is against speech tho, he quit because apparently my comments were annoying him -.-
This is such a scary statement that you're making. If you think that free speech should be banned because it offends some people, then you shouldn't even be on this app.
I have a feeling that if me and you were to argue about this, you certainly wouldn't feel bad about risking offending me, right? Why am I different?