You're forgetting that we're talking about the U.S.A here, so your remark is out of context, non-applicable and moot. It's just not your call to make, you cannot appropriate other people's wealth, that's some Marxist level bullshit. If you don't like racists, let them go bankrupt - I would rather do business with someone openly fair than with a closet racist because as a customer I have a choice and I should be informed. I'd rather know who I'm giving my money to.
This goes against people's rights to be treated equally though. If I have to go somewhere else it's possible I'll be paying more than everyone else, not taking into account the inconveniences involved with finding an alternative (if it even exists, I earlier mentioned one example of a case where I would have no alternatives).
If the cheapest flower shop in the county refuses to do service with Adam because he's gay, Adam hasn't chosen to do business elsewhere; he was forced to. That's the definition of burdensome.
Are you saying that because alternative businesses might be easier to find in some cases on the internet and in other places, it does not create an undue burden on someone discriminated against? Can you speak for all goods and services in all places? In small towns, like during the era of Civil Rights, will Adam not have to drive 50-100 miles for a comparable business or service? What if it's something Adam needs right away that his straight counterparts could get but he couldn't?
Discrimination shouldn't exist for obvious reasons, including the ones I've listed.
Actually, many of the practical effects of institutionalized racism were killed by policy, which eventually led to social change. Large-scale social change didn't occur until after businesses were forced to accommodate all groups equally, schools were forced to accommodate all groups equally, etc.
I lived here, once. It's literally middle-of-nowhere, ranchville USA. To get most ranching supplies, you actually literally have to cross the border and drive... I believe 20? 30 minutes? Into Nebraska to get to Sidney, or a little bit more south to get to Sterling. That may not sound like much, but when there's work to be done you definitely don't want to have to put up with discriminatory bullshit in one city and then have to quadruple the time to drive to the other and get back to the ranch.
People have a right to equal treatment by the *state*, not by individuals. We are equal in the eyes of the law, but that's it. As a private school owner, I should have the right not to hire a previously convicted sex offender because based on prior history of that individual I find them to be a potential risk or liability - that's discrimination too. They can have all the credentials in the world or superior experience, they could be better-trained or more effective teachers, but I refuse to do business with them on the grounds of them diddling kids - that's all I need to make a decision, don't even bring a CV in. If I have a pub and an individual consistently stirrs trouble at the bar, I should have a right to ban them because having them there hurts my bottom line - it's my bar and I can exclude any patron I want. Businesses should have a right to choose how to operate and if someone goes against the owner's views, the owner should not be forced to do business with them with a rod.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I do feel that freedom is a two-way street. Maybe it's idealistic, but I'm fine with that.
Hey, did you ever consider the fact that this is a market niche? You can open a competing store that's closer, has better prices and, say, doesn't discriminate? Capitalize on the situation.
Except when, for instance, the people of the area typically support the original shop owners views and will refuse to go to another one that is more supportive because of "morals." Business owners won't choose to capitalize on a situation where there is less capital to be made in the first place
There is a difference between not hiring someone because of a criminal record directly incompatible with the job and arbitrarily not doing business with a specific class of citizen. Please don't indirectly compare the LGBT community to sex offenders like so many people do, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't believe that was your intention.
I've already discussed how people's freedoms are almost always being hindered by policy. It's up to the society to decide which freedoms are more important. To quote myself again:
A person shouldn't be required to drop everything and take the risk of starting a business in order to hinder discrimination, particularly when it might not work. I know that's not what you were arguing.
That's asinine and counter-intuitive for a business owner. If the local supply sucks dick and a new, better store at a more favourable location opens, people will switch - that's a guarantee. If you offer better goods or services and don't require people to drive across state lines to do business with you, they will do business with you over the alternative. Build it and they will come - good businesses should push bad businesses off the market, that's just how the market rolls.
No, there isn't. In both instances it's a business owner making a choice based on their sensibilities, it's just that one example is more close to your own than the other. What you're saying hinges on the fact that you find sex offenders repugnant - that's you and your opinion. You're discriminating against them. Others find different groups or lifestyles unacceptable, why should they have less rights than you? Because you disagree? Sex offenders have a right to work too - are they supposed to starve because they did something in the past? What if they regret it? What if the "sex offense" was just peeing behind a bush in a drunken stupor, because that's a sexual offense in some states? It's the right of a business owner to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves who they want to work with, not yours.
So, going by your logic, if a society chooses to discriminate against blacks and the government intervenes, that is unjust? Because you're breaking your own argument here. Either the society decides or the government does, pick one or the other.
They have the option to start a competing business if they believe that the local one does not supply goods or services in a way that's suitable, and they can make a lot of money by doing that if they know that the locals will support such a business.
The reason the choice vs. not choice debate was/is so important during the fight for LGBT equality is because the answer to that question determines whether or not LGBT status can be considered a protected class in anti-discrimination law. To be a protected class, the characteristic must be considered an immutable characteristic, which essentially means it's innate and not a choice. One's criminal history is not and will not be a protected class because it is not an immutable characteristic. We are free in this country to make choices and accept the consequences, but no one choses to be gay, and one should not face the undue burden of discrimination because of it. Your analogy is a completely false one. Whether or not someone is hired for a position should be based entirely on his or her experiences.
Last time I checked, our government was by the people. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive groups. If there is unjust discrimination occurring within the society where a group's fundamental rights are being violated, it is the duty of the government to snuff out that discrimination. I'm not sure how you got from what I typed to saying government intervention against discrimination is unjust. That's more than a bit of a non sequitur. When I say "a society," I mean "the people and their government."
It is not the responsibility of the private citizen to start a competing business in order to minimize discrimination in the world. That's just absurd. Your "well they can do this" attitude is just another example of your cherry-picking idealism.
There's a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests peadophiles are "born that way", too. They have a different brain composition to non-peadophiles, the ratio between grey and white matter is skewed, and they're normally a few IQ points lower than average. In other words, there is biological evidence that the tendency to find children attractive is within the sphere of nature, not nurture. If being a peadophile is not a choice, does that mean that we shouldn't discriminate against them in certain situations?
That's a fair clarification.
But they *can*. They have the *option* to do that, not a responsibility. They don't *need* to be beholden to a bigot. Your argument was that we cannot allow for owners to decide who to do business with because it hinders the society, my argument is that the society is self-regulating and when it encounters an obstacle in its path, it will think of an alternative.
I like how you switched from the generic sex offender, a term that references an act/crime, and your original point to a point about something that might be an immutable characteristic and abandons your original point entirely. That wasn't shameless at all. The mental gymnastics are strong with this one.
The historical evidence, as well as common sense, are very much against you on this one. Please see my other posts.
This is a whole different argument springing from the immutable charactristics you mention. If 10-20 years from now the evidence that peadophiles don't choose to be peadophiles becomes overwhelming and that it is, in fact, a "sexual orientation" of sorts, should we or should we not discriminate against them on the grounds of their sexual preferences? There are plenty of non-offending peadophiles, y'know. Some just hook up with youthful-looking partners or role-play, not every peadophile is a molester. The discrimination against homosexuals was validated by the fact that homosexuality was considered deviant, immoral, it was classified as a mental illness, but evidence suggested that it is in fact a biological trait, so it has been redefined as a sexual orientation. If peadophilia is a sexual orientation too, then your whole premise is faulty. If you discriminate or legislate against a non-offending peadophile and find them repugnant, you are no different than those who find gays repugnant, and for the same reasons, too. In that case, you'd be the bigot.
America exists because puritans were persecuted against on the old continent, the United States exist because people revolted against the crown, the fact that we're having this conversation de facto proves my point.
Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against groups of people based on immutable characteristics. That would include non-offending pedophiles. Do you have a point? My hunch is you don't, and you merely got backed into this line of reasoning because you didn't want to concede your original non-point about sex offenders.
I'm getting a bit sick of your strawman arguments. I've made no points about discrimination against non-offending pedophiles, and yet you're using it as your entire basis for saying my premise is faulty. If you're going to be comically disingenuous, we can drop this conversation.
If you're going to say the discrimination against the puritans and the discrimination by businesses against groups of people in the United States are comparable, then I believe I've succeeded in my goal.
I was interested in your position on this. This isn't a debate, rather an exchange of opinions. I too believe that they shouldn't discriminate, however I also believe that they shouldn't be forced by the state not to - those are two separate beliefs.
See above. I was testing the waters to see who you would and wouldn't discriminate against and why.
There was sufficient evidence to believe that it comes naturally, so it was accepted as such, there's not much more to it.
Discrimination is discrimination. Puritans felt that they were treated unfairly so they moved, then American business owners felt that they were taxed unfairly, so they revolted against the crown. The blacks, gays, lesbians and other marginalized groups did the same thing - they utilized their agency to alter their environment, all in different, more or less effective ways. Power to the people, right?
They're also two contradictory beliefs. The cognitive dissonance explains the mental gymnastics. You need to ask yourself whose rights are more important. I posed the question earlier.
Plenty of mental illnesses come naturally. What primarily got homosexuality removed from the DSM was the fact that it didn't fit the criteria of having a negative effect on one's life. This is just me being nitpicky, however.
If a problem like discrimination is bad enough that a group sees the need for change, the only proactive thing to do is advocate for policy change. A discriminatory business owner who isn't affected by market factors isn't going to say, "Oh, well they're organized and saying 'please' now. Better change my ways."
They are not, there's no dissonance, just very specific wording. "Shouldn't" doesn't equate to "can't". I think it's an unfair and poor way to do business, that is *my opinion*. I don't like when emotions or beliefs enter the sphere of the free market, but the market should be free nonetheless. If an owner wants to hurt their bottom line due to personal beliefs, I can't fault them for that, even if I disagree with those beliefs. Stupidity isn't illegal, nor it should be. As owners they should do whatever they think is right, on principle, even if I find what they do unfair, because the principle holds more value.
Correct, for instance schizofrenia. Peadophilia doesn't have a negative effect on one's life either if we apply those criteria.
Advocate? Yes. Legislate? No. You're saying that vinegar is attracts more bees than honey, you won't garner support or change anyone's mind by using the rod. I'd be happier with incentives rather than penalties, if you're adamant that intervention is necessary.
The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that when a pedophile acts on his or her impulses, statutory rape occurs, which will invariably psychologically harm any child regardless of whether or not physical harm takes place (although physical vs. psychological could even be debated at this point, given that people with PTSD have actually been proven via brain scans to have had their brain structure altered), while when a homosexual acts on his or her impulses (with another consenting adult/teen of the same age), there is no psychological or physical harm being done to either of the two people
>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
I don't think you know what a free market is when you believe groups of people can be excluded from it. A free market doesn't mean people get to do whatever they want. Companies can't poison people or be otherwise negligent.
What about when it doesn't hurt their bottom line, which it usually doesn't? You don't appear to have thought this part through.
A predisposition for child-rape and/or being sexually unfulfilled and celibate for the entirety of one's life are pretty negative.
Can you give me an example of incentives that would work? Because if these incentives don't work nearly 100% of the time, then people are still being excluded from participating in the public goods and services system.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
K3Nv2:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
BigOnYa:
@
BakerMan:
