The debate "It should be against the law and considered assault to misgender someone" was started by
February 2, 2018, 5:29 pm.
By the way, Slymcfly is disagreeing with this statement.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 16 arguments, Slymcfly posted 22 arguments, historybuff posted 8 arguments, Ematio posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
4 visitors agree.
Slymcfly, Nemiroff, Against_eu, historybuff, seavos, Ematio, FiddleStorm, Post_it_note, chasediedrich1 and 19 visitors disagree.
so by your own admission the market didn't correct it until it became big news. for years it continued and the market did nothing. you are admitting that market controls don't work unless it gets alot of attention. therefore the vast majority of problems which can't catch everyone's attention go completely unaddressed by the market. however laws are absolute and would prevent these issues.
And thank you Ematio. You are the first person in this app to back me up or give me an ounce of credit. Which is extremely sad, because politics are what I do for a living.
Here is one of the MANY articles I found regarding this issue. Which I can only assume means that you didn't actually look, in order to bolster your own argument. And if that's actually true, I am sorry Nemiroff, but it's a little bit pathetic. Unless you genuinely could not find anything about this online... Which I am finding to be hard to believe...
I'm not talking about all his discrimination lawsuits in the past. At the time those happened, it wasn't as much of a hot-button topic. Once it DID become a hot-button topic though, it sure did catch up to him quickly. And really? I don't believe you actually even looked, because his OWN PLAYERS protested against him. As well as MANY other HUGE athletes around the NBA. If you really need help finding this, I'm going to question your ability to Google.... But I'll find it for you...
unfortunately he doesn't provide any evidence, just an argument. And when googling the issue I saw nothing about boycotts or empty seats so I would appreciate some actual evidence.
and if you do find evidence of boycotts during the nba ban controversy, where were the boycotts the other 6 times he was sued and settled starting with a decade before the nba thing.
SlymcFly provides good evidence. Money does speak, especially when you're selling something people find morally wrong
Did you miss the part where season ticket holders, including courtside seats, were left empty? And the fact that nobody, NOBODY was buying Clippers jerseys or any other merch? This not only effects The Clippers bottom line, but it effects the entire NBA, considering the fact that they all profit from one another, because it is a union.
Are you serious? Apparently you missed what FORCED all of that to happen? Where LA Clipper's OWN FANS were PROTESTING against their own team, with their sales going STRAIGHT DOWN. Do you know what matters more than anything else? Money. Money speaks. The only reason he was forced out, was because the Clippers were HEMORRHAGING money, and it is a 30 team league, and makes them all look bad, and actually effects ALL their wallets.
nothing having to do with market forces. numerous lawsuits about discrimination, 2 for sexual harassment, and the big famous one was a ban from the nba. all government and one organization. market nothing.
He was FORCED to sell his team. The one thing that his life REVOLVED around. When you're an NBA owner, or you own ANY team in ANY of the 3-4 major sports, THAT IS YOUR LIFE. This guy (rightfully)had the most important thing in his life taken from him, because it came out that he was a racist. He may have millions of dollars now, but nobody to spend it with or that wants to be around him. Now he's just a miserable, lonely rich dude, who also lost his own son recently(a son he abused). Donald Sterling is a PERFECT example of the market getting involved by forcing him to sell his team.
Okay Demiroff, I'll use your SAME EXAMPLE that you used against me... Donald Sterling... Once it came out that he was a racist, what happened to him???
Should it be considered assault if I call you the wrong name?
the fact that they will lose some profit is obvious, but the fact that the market will punish them is the question. I have given an example where people succeeded despite bigotry, can you give me an example of market forces actually punishing someone or making them change behavior?
here's an example outside of race that should have led to a market backlash, the tazing and dragging of someone on an overbooked flight. where were the market forces when the company announced more profits and no fallout? market forces are unreliable at best.
and as far as businesses go, yes you can. individuals can be banned for bad behavior, but not whole groups of people.
It is a fact that it is more profitable to accept all customers that are willing to pay, not an opinion.
This is not even the basis for the debate you still dont have the right to force people to serve you.
history buff's example is not only realistic, it's a repeated historic fact. there are plenty of racist, discriminatory, businessmen who made millions despite your market forces.
rather then you just repeating your opinion and calling everyone else an idiot, how about you give some examples of these market forces working in real life, and I will show you examples of them failing in real life. starting with Donald Sterling who made millions despite discriminatory renting practices.
sure, the market may exert some negative pressures, but they aren't always effective or even felt. it could be the same amount of loss as an employee checking Facebook during work which is everywhere and rarely single handedly kills a business.
if anything, id love to see you demonstrate the effectiveness of these market forces.
what are you talking about? I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said your ideology is a paper ideology. I never even mentioned the constitution.
May be you can't provide proper quotes because you can't read properly. twisting words to match your biased world view.
And what you described is something that happens all the time. I even know of people who PAY out of their own pockets to keep their businesses open. If that racist person doesn't get any business, then they're the idiots for sinking money into the economy and NEVER getting anything out of it. If they are so racist that they think it's worth it to alienate their customers, then I couldn't possibly care less. They can do what they want. We don't take rights AWAY in this country.
HistoryBuff your example was ridiculous and unrealistic. Please show me any area where the target demo is "racists", because that market doesn't exist. If you are actually naive enough to believe that a person would GAIN business for being racist, then good lord man. That is on hell of a stretch.
your incredibly biased arguments are wearing thin. you say the market always corrects that behavior. I provide a situation in which it would do the opposite and you just attack me personally and ignore my point.
Also considering a constitution is NOT a constitution when it is not followed. "just a peice of paper" arguments dont hold very well.
Nemiroff if you really consider the Constitution to be just a paper, that has no weight to it when it comes to our laws and the foundation of them, and you think that's a poor argument, you need to argue something other than politics. If you're going to sit here and try to discredit the Constitution, what is the point of even having a discussion with you? You have literally no baseline with anyone else when talking politics, if that's what you actually believe. You have to see now that that was an idiotic argument to make. I'm sorry. I try to be as nice and patient as I can with you guys. But you seem to be often talking about things that you're clueless about.
Historybuff if a business bans people because they are poor, and therefore don't have the money to buy the products, they wouldn't voluntarily shop there in the first place. so that's a non existent situation. You're saying a shop would ban people that cant shop there.
That's a fake hypothetical not a real market force. If you have to make up a one in a million situation and use it as an excuse to expend the freedom of everyone else, you dont understand liberty.
Also for your faks hypothetical to be true there would have to be more racists that shop because of the ban to make a net gain, and therefore an incentive, right? So there would have to be more racists that would actually ship there for than ridiculous reason than there are black people. and there's not, so that's fake.
Again, the idea if inventing some hypothetical situation that will never happen to justify more power to the state is a little disturbing.
how about this example. I ban black people from my store because the black people in my town have been marginalized and have less money. the other racist people in town appreciate my racism and decide to shop at my store more. in this case the market forces encourage discrimination because it appeals to a market with more money while descriminating against a market with less money.
also, you assume that the racists will yield to market forces. if I make less money by descriminating, but it isn't enough to bankrupt me, I may choose to descriminate despite it not being in my financial best interest. racists don't tend to be the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Discrimination actually comes with a fine in the free market every single time.
If a black man is willing to give me $5 for some chips, and I value the $5 more than the chips and vice versa, when I deny him service I will have been fined $5.
So when you think discrimination has anything to do with market forces, you're like... dead wrong.
There were no market forces with Jim Crow because Jim Crow was a government regulation lololol. There is absolutely no market force to incentivize discrimination.
people were forced to serve black people and could not deny them equal service.... the same thing we've been arguing about this entire time.
no paper doesn't have anything to do with which laws to follow. paper means it works well on paper but breaks down in the real world.
keep making up definitions buddy.
No Demiroff, a paper ideology is one that ignores the Constitution of the United States. The document this country has run on for 250 years now.
Can you tell me what Constitutional rights were taken away to end the Jim Crow laws??? The only examples you can come up with are things we evolved and changed into. Not things that we evolved by taking things away from people. Because an example of that doesn't exist. Because that isn't what America stands for, and you should know this.
Also, if you reeally believe that parts of the Bible belt are THAT intolerant, I'll assume that you get most of your information about this area from CNN or MSNBC. Because I lived there from 2005-2011, and I saw VERY LITTLE, if any, gay bashing. I am REALLY sensitive to that, as I have a gay, autistic little brother of my own and wouldn't stand for it. The Bible belt is MUCH more accepting of gays than you insinuate.
except for discrimination of gays might be supported in parts of the bible belt. Muslims (or their look alike like sheiks) may face discrimination that is supported by many people.
the market may fix it, or it may not. it may even encourage it. your not seeing all the options, just the one you want.
where was the market for the decades of jim crow? where was the market for the airlines than dragged a paying customer off the plane kicking and screaming because they screwed up and over booked? the market most often doesn't care and doesn't fix anything. just cause something sounds logical doesn't mean it actually happens in reality. that's what is called a paper ideology.
In this country, we don't outlaw things to keep people from being offending. Not being offended is not a RIGHT. Sure, we frown upon those who make protected class of people's lives more difficult. And that's how it should be. However, I REFUSE to cede any of my rights to the federal government. This is the only time in history when people have been asking for LESS rights. It's absolutely insane.
No Nemiroff, you're ignoring the fact that the MARKET takes care of discrimination itself. You don't need to set laws that violate people's Constitutional rights in order to show people it's wrong. We all know it's wrong. If I heard, for instance, that some ****** bartender decided not to serve someone because they were gay or transgendered, I would ABSOLUTELY NEVER go to that bar again. And that goes for any other place of business. I would 100% protest their business if they were to discriminate. See, THAT is how you take care of these things in a constitutional manner. You can't just bypass the Constitution, the way Democrats so often want to do. That creates an extremely slippery slope.
it is a paper ideology. it's perfectly reasonable argument on paper. but once you add in the multiple factors and other people that exist in reality, it leads to some horrifying results.
I'm sorry, I cannot agree. shall we agree to disagree? because I don't see either of us budging and I think we've heard everything both of us have to say on the topic.
If you keep labeling something "paper ideology" just because you disagree, natural rights don't become any less real than before. sorry.
It isn't hypothetical, it is a fact of force vs non force and property rights.
So to reach your views completely should we ignore the constitution or repeal the 13th amendment?
I guess that's where we disagree.
you believe in a no compromise idealism that will make massive number of lives far more difficult while gaining nothing but evil satisfaction for bigots. you ignore reality for the sake of an idealistic fantasy based off at best a slippery slope fallacy.
in reality, some rules need to be set. this isn't paper ideology, this is life and lives.
I really don't care to keep going if all your going to repeat is your original statement. we will just have to agree to disagree. just saying tho, the result of your "freedom" is suffering and that's disgusting.
Sorry Nemiroff wasn't trying to nitpick, was just trying to clarify, and I wasn't sure if that was the point that Lachlin was making.
And if the individual decides not to sell it to a specific person they have the right to then not sell it.
obviously not, they are just part of the store. they are not displayed nor advertised. they are the display. let's not split hairs here.
Nemiroff what about the shelves the items are sitting on? The store signs? The refrigerators? Are these things also for sale at grocery stores?
you open a store with items labeled for sale, they are all for sale. it is a location made for providing a service in exchange for compensation
those are the very definitions of a store, how are they beating around any Bush?
Thank you Lachlin. The biggest issue here is how it will be enforced. That is a very slippery slope that you can't stop.
You can keep beating the bush terms like "location of service" and "all items for sale" as if there is some universal government controlled zone of property or service when someone voluntarily sells something. This would still infringe on property rights.
These are the truths you can't escape with anti-discrimination laws:
-they require involuntary servitude. To provide business is servitude and when its involuntary its involuntary servitude. The 13th amendment isn't just kidding.
-They require thought crimes and policing of intent. (And since the intent is subjective, who decides what the real intent is?)
Also, I down-voted any comment that I thought was rude or out of line. So if you see a downvote, then that is likely the reason. We are all smart, civil people here. We can have these discussions without the name calling and the self-righteousness.
Nemiroff, I almost like your argument, but you're forgetting about the right every business owner has, and you'll often see a sign that states as much. It will read, "We have the right to refuse service to ANYONE". Now, would it make them an ****** to turn down someone just for being gay or transgendered??? Absolutely. But if that got out, and people heard he wouldn't serve gay people, the market would then decide whether or not they want to continue to support the business. This is part of our free market and our democracy. Is it a nice thing to refuse service to someone based off of gender, race, orientation? No, it isn't nice. Should the government be allowed to dictate these terms? No, they shouldn't. We made this decision long ago. Again, the market will ALWAYS dictate whether or not that gay-bashing ****** stays in business. The government should NOT be allowed to make that decision.
Natural rights are real too lol, its a real thing.
All state induced force is at the point of gun. What do your rules plan to do if I don't comply? If I refuse to go to jail for not commiting a real crime?
Negative rights are a real thing because they don't initiaye force on others. Your solution initiates force and mine dosen't.
If an owner sells something it is not in a collective universe of "things that are for sale", the owner still has autonomy. If something is for sale does the government then get to control it?
Historybuff, let's stay away from the buzzwords of both the left and the right. No more accusing other posters of being bigoted unless you've got some concrete evidence of it, in which case I would end up siding with you.
Wow this post turned into a whole other animal. Good job guys!! just try to please keep it positive and civil, and I think that we've got something here.
speaking of flawed analogies.... at what point is this guys life in danger, like getting their brains blown out?
are they even being threatened by jail? lmao
the analogy is about your use of rights. the person is not doing anything wrong by standing there the last 2 hours, it would infringe on his "negative right!"
this is needed for the public good, and is the sensible, realistic thing to do. And once again, all the stuff being sold is already up for sale by the owner. the denial is not the trade but the service in a location of service.
you may not sympathize with racial discrimination explicitly but you are twisting the technicalities of "rights" to make massive number of lives far more difficult while gaining nothing but evil satisfaction for bigots. in reality, some rules need to be set. this isn't paper ideology, this is life and lives.
It's not written anywhere in the constitution which is a mistake in my opinion. However given that we have property rights, we therefore get to decide with whom we trade property with. If the state decides how and to whom we trade property with, what are property rights?
I don't symoathize with racial discrimination either. The confusion between one arguing for legalization and one condoning an action is the inability of a statist to separate government from society.
Your analogy makes no sense. It is not me standing in the way of anyone by not selling them a thing because they don't previously have the right to trade with me against my consent! What don't you get about this? It involves my property so I make the desocion to trade.
You haven't adressed this but it is a logical fact that to police the desocion not to sell is to accuse one of a thought crime. Are you for criminalizing thoughts?
Your analogy doesn't involve the involuntary trade of someone else's property or forcing them to provide a service! What dont you get about this either?? Forcing an individual to move out of the way is the same as forcing someone to trade their property or provide a service at point of gun in your view?
what is this right to not associate? where is it written.
I understand your stance, freedom. but you are totally ignoring the other party. certainly one has the right to stand on the street and not move, but if a paramedic is rushing with a dying person on a stretcher, you should absolutely be compelled to move or face jail. both parties have rights and I'm sorry if I don't feel for the shop owner who wants to discriminate against normal people looking to buy his wares at his standard rated because they belong to a certain group.
sorry at this point your stance is pure idealistic dogma. I may as well be trying to convince you about god. allowing discrimination is not a halmark of a free society.
Nope you don't lose any rights just because you chose to open a shop. Opening a shop is just changing the type of property you own in order to make selling easier, it dosen't sacrifice the right to not associate.
the person already decided to sell when he open shop and put it on the shelf, and unless a prospective buyer committed some offense against the establishment, they cannot deny service to others.
there is no god given rights in regard to commerce. If you have something in your house, you can sell or not sell as you wish, but once you open an official shop, you cannot descriminate against customers.
It dosen't matter what society we are living in, there are already rights that exist because we can exercise them without initiating force against another person, and it is not aggression if I chose not to trade with you!!! Discrimination is just a choice not to associate! and if you want to make laws to police the thoughts of those who chose not to associate you are a fascist!
There is no way to prove why it is aggression to chose not to trade.
Sellers and buyers have equal rights. I decide what I wanr to buy and they decide if they want to sell.
It is incredibly selfish to have the idea that someone should be forced to sell to you against their will.
You don't understand the non-aggression principle. If a natural right exists you can't just tell the right to suck your dick and pretend if dosen't exist lol.
It is not hypothetical that the store would be a small minority (and then go out of business). The only time a lot of businesses did this is when governments commanded it. Rural communities are not even racist anymore but you will never know outside of echo chamber California.
So again, If I prove a natural right exists, and you respond by telling the right to suck your dick, you're an primitive authoritarian and officially lose the debate.
because the refusal to minority groups rarely happens from just one business. It's systematic. blacks couldn't go into many businesses at the height of their discrimination, and a gay person in the bible belt may not be able to find jobs or rent due to discrimination in majority portions of numerous states. your "one store owner" is the hypothetical fantasy.
compared to the suffering these people are going through from the discrimination, the right to not sell to someone out of dickery can suck my ****.
here's the thing, we aren't living in a liberitarian society. as an individual you have many rights, but if you want to join the for profit economy you have to follow certain economy wide rules (no special restrictions for any some "victim", everyone) and that includes "if you open your doors for business, you cannot discriminate against clients".
if you don't want to follow the rules of the society, this isn't nKorea or Soviet union. there is no iron curtain. pack your shit and leave.
You also can't explain how it is harm or aggression to choose not to sell someone a thing.
Does the government have the right to force people to do things?
I already addressed that argument in my longer comment. you didnt read.
you believe that it is tyranny for the government to tell someone they can't descriminate against people. that is completely rediculous.
the government isn't forcing you to sell anything. you have the choice to sell to the general public or not. that isn't servitude. I seriously am not sure you know what that word means. you don't have the right to descriminate based or race.
what exactly didn't I read?
lol you didn't read what I wrote.
you descriminating is causing harm to others. therefore it is perfectly reasonable to prevent you from doing so. I believe in equal and just society. that is more important than a bigots right to descriminate against people he doesn't like.
Natural rights exist and we are free to act as long as we don't initiate force on others. Therefore I am free to buy and sell with any individual I want, and can be selective in my choices. The reasons for my selections are in my mind and can't become political matters.
If you come to the conclusion that individuals "lose a right" because they are denied the ourchase of a good or service you would have to previously have the premise that all individuals have the right to buy anything from anyone whether they consent or not. This would be inconsistent and would initiate force.
So if you are denied X you don't lose a right because X is another individual's property and you don't have a right to X.
So our difference is that I believe in consent and voluntary transactions, and you believe in force and involuntary servitude.
Another hole in the argument that can't be ignored is the fact that Amendment 13 and anti-discrimination laws cannot logically coexist. The amendment outlaws involuntary servitude and to force an individual to provide a service or product at a price to which they don't consent is servitude that is involuntary.
To say that it is not involuntary servitude because they can go out of business is to say that speech codes don't infringe on the 1st amendment because the speaker can chose not to say the phrase in the first place. Secondly in overlooks the right of people to own property and to exist for their own sake and act in self interest.
That's not a "right to live". Everyone has the equal right to live but nobody has the right to force another to trade with then against their consent.
You said before this wasn't authoritarian. Are you now dropping that argument?
boo hoo you can't use your prejudices to discriminate against people. forgive me if I don't weep for your lost freedom. their freedom to live their lives trumps the rights of bigots to descriminate.
A government that holds a gun to my head and forces me to sell a product to another individual? yes.
because you can't descriminate against people? that's what you think authoritarianism is? you really don't have a solid understanding of what that word means.
Gotcha. That's still authoritarian bs though :)
that law makes it illegal to discriminate against people based on their gender identity not to misgender people.
so if you fired your employee for based on their gender identity you would be violating that law.
C-16. It might not be as serious or worded to the extend people here think it is. See what you can find on it.
what law? I'm Canadian and I don't know what you are talking about.
It is a law in Canada, and it's a fascist attack on free speech.
What do you call "misgender"
could you please provide a source for that?
Why is it stupid? It's already a law in Canada.
this is stupid