Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I think people have the right to discriminate - the right to decide with which people they want to cooperate, and with which people they don't want.Yet you do not feel that people have a right to not be discriminated against and you do not feel that people have a right to defend and support the discriminated in society.
Of course, you have a right to support other people of your choice - in particular, to defend people which you think have been attacked, and to support those you think are discriminated. But you do not have the right to attack those who have not attacked first - and the refusal to cooperate is not an attack.
Or their own money, or for money of volitional donors.In their free time?
But you feel that people can be paid or make money out of discrimination.[/QUOTE]In their free time?
How? Ok, by providing a place, where blacks, or women, can meet each other without the risc to meet whites, or man - this is, of course, a possibility to make money based on discrimination. And I have no problem with this. The only problem I see is when taxpayers money are used to support discrimination.
If they do not hate them, why discriminate against them?[/QUOTE]In their free time?
If they defend the right of others to discriminate, it does not follow that they discriminate themself. It is a standard attack against those who defend the right to discriminate to claim that they discriminate.
You aren't exactly making a lot of sense and I have the feeling that you are trying to play devil's advocate or you have dug yourself into a deep dark and dank hole and you aren't quite sure how to extricate yourself with some of your dignity intact.
The defense of freedom is something which makes a lot of sense - but it is also a quite nontrivial thing. One has to understand that defending freedom means defending the right of other people to do things you don't like yourself.
I don't advocate state discrimination. All what the state is doing should be done without any discrimination.Then why are you advocating for state impose discrimination?
And what of the rights of people to not be discriminated against?
But I advocate the right of every individual to discriminate. And there is no right not to be discriminated against. With a single exception: the right not to be discriminated by the state. Everybody else has the right to discriminate against you, without even an obligation to explain you why. A simple "I don't want to have any sex/business/whatever else with you" is sufficient. And you have no right not to be discriminated in such a way. In particular, you have no right to act against a sexual discrimination with rape or a business discrimination with enforcing slave labor.
The best way is to give the state no power to do such things in general, by a strong constitution which fixes as much rights of the people as possible. The right to discriminate is an essential part of the freedom of contract and should be enforced by the constitution.If those in power hate gays personally, then they will impose laws that discriminate against them or which would encourage people to discriminate against them.
Men are, of course, and obviously, not equal. They should, nonetheless, be treated as equal by the law. So any special laws supporting whatever group - families, whites, blacks, man, women, gays, heteros, should be unconstitutional. This restriction for discrimination by the state is important.Which is unconstitutional, because as they say, all men are created equal.
But men are free, and should be free, to organize their life in such a way that they minimize their contacts with people they don't like, and try to have contact only with people they like - the right to discriminate.
And here I disagree, completely and absolutely. There is no such right - except for the right not to be discriminated by the state.People have an absolute right to not be discriminated against. This is what it comes down to.
Yes, but nobody is obliged to behave in such a stupid way. The time I spend with business is time of my life, and a lot of it, and if I organize my life in such a way that I'm happy doing my business, this gives something much more important than a few bucks which I possibly loose.If your sole purpose of a business is to remain successful and have a high turnover of business and profit, you will not be providing services to just the people you like.
And, again, the discussion is about my rights and freedoms. It is not about which business decisions are wise and which are stupid. So, I agree with you that it is, in general, a stupid business decision to reject customers because of their race. That means, because the majority of business providers is not stupid, that such discrimination, if not enforced by Jim Crow laws, will not survive long in the business. But, of course, if there are a lot of stupid racist customers, it can be a reasonable business decision for a local provider to make a business for these stupid racists. This will increase the overall peace in this racist village, because the stupid racists in this case segregate themself in this racist bar and do not cause conflicts in other, non-discriminating bars.
The law is clear, but unjust and stupid. It forces people to do things they hate, and this is a certain mechanism to increase hate in society. It will be used by the most indecent, members of the groups, those with sadistic character traits, because decent people will, independent of antidiscrimination laws, not use services of people which somehow show that they don't want to provide these services.The laws are clear. You are not allowed to discriminate against others for religious, sexuality, age, sex, etc. Providing services to everyone will not result in your existence being in danger. Perhaps you should stop jumping to such extremes.
This is a classical line of argumentation in favour of a totalitarian state. One uses the "benefits", which the private organization cannot even avoid of receiving, simply because providing these "benefits" is a state monopoly enforced violently, to justify even more state power.Every private institution enjoys the benefits of what the Government provides, paid for by taxpayers.