'Right To Discriminate' Bills

[Upchurch]

Sorry!

No reason to be sorry. Go crazy

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

You seem to believe that "large stretches of states" are so bigoted that without a law to tell them not to, they would act that way.

I'm not sure which is sadder, your belief that a huge number of Americans are highly bigoted, or if your belief is actually true.

I would say at one time that was true. I think the result of Civil Rights laws in regards to public business has helped to shrink those large swathes to much smaller sections. If we remove these legal protections I could see the mentalities regrowing in strength, though unlikely to the same level.

The big risk is that a relatively small portion of a population can make the situation untenable to oppose. Apathy and limited resources makes it difficult to combat every form of discrimination a person opposes in practice when approaching the situation in a purely market based system.

Market forces are imperfect, and I find the advantage these laws create outweigh their disadvantages. Ideally, yes I would rather not have the law. However life isn't ideal. We have to deal with actual practices.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

And it may not actually be a problem: the US Constitution does not list discrimination for sexual orientation as illegal. The Civil Rights Act only lists: "race, color, religion or national origin" - so the bill appears to be clarifying that this is already legal, to prevent unnecessary civil suits in future.

FWIW, there was a huge, landmark decision by the 9th Circuit port of appeals last week.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/24/11-17357.pdf

basically it holds sexual orientation to the same hightened scrutiny as other criteria in jury selection.

this will soon apply to other forms of decision making as well.

 

[332nd]

And as the one impacted, would you rather live in an area among people that secretly hate you, but are nice to your face, pretending to be your friend, having you spending your money with them and keeping them in business, or would you rather know what a bunch of scum sucking bigots they really are and have the choice of taking your money and even yourself elsewhere?

Why do you assume I would live there? My job causes me to travel a lot, sometimes by plane sometimes by car. Gas stations, resturants, hotels, etc... how do I find out the ones that would refuse my patronage based on... whatever?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Free markets can do wonderful things under certain conditions. When sellers can easily enter and leave the market, when information about price and availability flows freely, when market factors can be immediately changed to meet new conditions, and when buyers and sellers exist in abundance free markets are astonishingly efficient.

On the other hand, if an interracial lesbian couple makes a few wrong turns and they find themselves in Bumfeck, West Virginia when their car breaks down, then the Invisible Hand of the Market is not going to help much as the town's only car repair shop refuses them service, and the town's only motel refuses them service, and the town's only restaurant refuses them service.

And yet if the town was really that bad, the same thing is just as likely to occur even now and their only option is to sue, which doesn't solve anything.

If society bore the brunt of enforcing their desires onto these businesses, then the townsfolk would be move likely to prevent it, of if they accepted it, face sanctions from the rest of the country when the businesses they deal with get targeted for supplying bigoted businesses themselves.

As long as it is allowed to continue and boil under the surface and in the darkness, US bigotry isn't going to get better, Expose it to the light and make those that practice it pay for it, and you'll clean it up faster.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I disagree with the assessment. In my personal experience I feel issues of bigotry have gotten better and one of the contributing factors to that are the legal protections.

The issue much more complex than "it is illegal to act on it in certain circumstances related to operating a business in public so I won't speak my prejudice out loud" or "it is legal to act on it in all circumstances so I will proudly display my prejudice out loud."

In a market based approach of combating prejudice those who hold to those prejudices can go underground and even still have the incentive to do so. A legal method of combating prejudice does not solve all prejudice born problems, far from it, but it does help change the risk factor and diminish its effect on the wider populace in a different way. Both approaches are useful and have their associated risks and rewards.

The legal approach is especially helpful for the apathetic and fence sitters. There are plenty of people who might not care strongly one way or the other but will go with what is easiest. Making it illegal is another tool to make nondiscrimination the easier choice, especially when paired with social market forces you advocate for.

Another advantage of the law is it helps shift the burden further off the targets of prejudice to those who hold the prejudice. With no legal protection it takes more effort to avoid being affected negatively or even dangerously. By and large, with the law in place most of those espousing a prejudice will still follow the letter of the law. Such laws might not stop someone who is willing to go to jail or suffer financially to directly harm their target, but the law helps stack that burden.

I understand your points but find it to contradict the practical reality. These laws are constantly in the spot light and maybe someday we will reverse them. The evidence from what I have seen presented and what I have seen in my personal experience indicates these laws are more useful than harmful.

 

[jj]

Well, the law is clearly unconstitutional in that it recognizes the objections of some religions to gay marriage, but does not recognize the objections of other religions to ham and eggs, a bacon cheeseburger, or a pop music song.

In for one, in for all, I think.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, the law is clearly unconstitutional in that it recognizes the objections of some religions to gay marriage, but does not recognize the objections of other religions to ham and eggs, a bacon cheeseburger, or a pop music song.

In for one, in for all, I think.

Yep, it's aimed to please the "Christian" majority. The quotes are because Jesus wouldn't claim those people.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not that I approve of the bill, but I do think it's having the opposite effect and is consistent with a smaller government approach: it is effectively neutralizing the federal Civil Rights Act, removing an element of government oversight.

The hypothetical shopowner has more legal freedom in their scenario.

But the constitution does not allow the government to give businesses that freedom.

Trying to use the government to do things it is not authorized to do is by definition too large of government.

 

[Molinaro]

If it's their business why can't they feel free to refuse service to whoever they want?

Because the tax dollars of those people they don't want to serve were spent to make that business possible.

The road in front of the business was not paid for by only the people they agree with. There's a huge amount of physical infrastructure as well as legal infrastructure in place that both protects and makes the functioning of a business possible.

Those things are paid for by all of the potential customers and all of them deserve equal access.

 

[fuelair]

And you apparently don't. Have you that little faith in the morals of your fellow Americans?

No offense, but are you up on the posts in the thread about the school in trouble for discriminating against a 12 year old Buddhist boy in the name of jeebus and doing "science" from the view of creationist tools and idiots (all of them except the few who are simply evil - doing it for the money knowing it is not true).

 

[BobTheCoward]

My take is that the natural right is that when two parties meet, no side can be coerced or compelled to contract with the other, and no side can create a nuisance without compensating the other.

When we say a person who contracts is then required to contract with party X, that is what impacts a person's rights.

 

[Biscuit]

What is the benefit to society of allowing business to discriminate vs the cost?

What is the benefit to society of preventing discrimination vs the cost?

I'll take the latter.

 

[PhantomWolf]

They're probably just unaware. I'm not comfortable building a society assuming omnipresence.

They would only be unaware if they weren't interested, and if they aren't interested, then they really are no better then those committing the wrong. The funny thing is that smaller communities are more likely to know what is going on in them that larger ones. If you know that the onus is now on you to police the issue, then communities are more likely to be looking out for it too. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of a society built on ignorance and apathy either.

If they have the money. But a minority of the wealthy and connected can conspire. That's the main problem.

In Vancouver you can get a RE licence and all the Association memberships for around $5,000. Not exactly a huge hurdle in a town demanding a non-bigoted RE Agency.

In theory people can do anything. In reality, we're just people.

In reality 1 person can move a mountain if they put their mind to it, when you get a group they are capable of anything. Your position is apathetic.

Rome lost their democracy because wealthy and powerful people took it from them

.

No, they lost it because they became apathetic and allowed others to take control away from them.

In any case: what happens now? I mean in the meantime? To the person in the example?

The community help them. In reality it would be unlikely to even get to this point. As soon as businesses started to act this way, the community would target them and they'd have to change their ways. This is what happens now already when businesses try unethical things that aren't illegal.

Seriously? What a fantasy world. Even if these lines of communication appeared (how would the customers learn who his suppliers were?), my perennial question is still important: what about this person in the example in the meantime?

Well one could try looking at the brand name of the product that is sold, and as for the communications, well you know, a number of years ago there was this strange device invented called a... Telephone. It's used for talking to people. Then there is another invention called the... Internet, useful for getting stories out and rallying supporters. Other marvellous devices we have these days includes Newspapers and radio and television, and the people that work for those tend to like juicy stories that get people upset. Amazing ideas, right?

In any case, the mechanics are interesting sophmore chats, but no more than that.
The morality is indisputable, and the laws stand on their moral grounds alone.

Morality changes with the times. Basing Law on Morality isn't a good idea, and nor is trying to create morality with laws.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No offense, but are you up on the posts in the thread about the school in trouble for discriminating against a 12 year old Buddhist boy in the name of jeebus

If this sort of behaviour was the normal then you might have a point, the fact that it isn't, and when it does occur on the odd occasion it is vilified indicates that Society can and will deal with bigotry when it rears its head.

Your second point is totally irrelevant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is the benefit to society of allowing business to discriminate vs the cost?

What is the benefit to society of preventing discrimination vs the cost?

I'll take the latter.

Did you bother actually researching and figuring out the actual answers first, or did you just knee jerk because it was the PC answer?

 

[Biscuit]

Arizona is also considering a similar bill.

AZ state house actually passed one last but year but gov. Brewer refused to sign it. Before you congratulate her on that you should know she only did that to punish the law makers for not doing other things she wanted done.

 

[Biscuit]

Did you bother actually researching and figuring out the actual answers first, or did you just knee jerk because it was the PC answer?

As a business owner I believe I have some insight to the matter. Could you tell me the benefits of allowing discrimination? The costs? Why you prefer those to the benefits and costs of preventing discrimination? Thanks.

Eta: for what reason might a business owner discriminate against you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

As a business owner I believe I have some insight to the matter. Could you tell me the benefits of allowing discrimination? The costs? Why you prefer those to the benefits and costs of preventing discrimination? Thanks.

One of the major benefits I think would occur would be that it would help root out and stop it. When the vast majority of society sees discrimination as wrong, those that do it will get branded with the stigma of their actions. Currently there is no actual cost to the bigotry behind discrimination for most people. By allowing it to come out in the open, society can be deal with. When people have to hide it, then it simmers and results in explosive and violent venting that can result in dead people.

It is also an infringement of rights. It infringes people's rights to choose who to associate with, trade with, and deal with. Whenever a law infringes a right it create hostility and more often than not, it is not the law that is the target of the hostility, but those the law was trying to protect. Things such as reverse discrimination, racial or gender quotas, and so on are all sources that bred resentment in people, highlighting people's differences and creating disharmony between them.

By making it a socially driven thing rather then a legally driven one, it also more likely to gain acceptance. People are more likely to change their minds and accept things if it is their peers who are driving it. If the people around them shame them for their actions, then they are more likely to change their ways than is the Government demands it. The Government telling people what to do breeds resentment in them, and they are likely to dig in deeper, rather then accepting the rebuke and teaching that their neighbour would give them.

Which one has more impact, your friends and family shaming you for drinking and driving, or the Government telling you that you aren't allowed to?

We see this in a lot of things. Drinking and Driving was illegal a long time without the rates doing much. It wasn't until it started to become socially unacceptable to drive and drink that we saw the numbers reduce.

Likewise smoking is not illegal, but as it becomes more and more socially unacceptable to smoke, we see the numbers dropping substantially.

Consider the figures here. Tobacco smoking is legal but becoming increasingly socially unacceptable and the rates have dropped from 40% in the 60's to 15% today. MJ smoking is illegal but becoming more socially acceptable and the smoking rates are estimated to be as high as 45%.

In the same way, by making discrimination socially unacceptable, and defusing the resentment that people feel about being told by the Government what they can do, the discrimination will decrease and people will be more enlightened about things rather then clinging to their hate and bigotry.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Eta: for what reason might a business owner discriminate against you?

The same reasons that they might anyone else. I'm probably lucky in that I'd have less people doing so, but one that isn't protected is my size. A lot of clothing manufacturers don't do clothing in my size (which while larger, isn't absurdly massive.) Having said that I could see places that if allowed (in fact here there are already places I can't go without invite because I'm the wrong race or gender) that would turn me away. That's fine, if they don't want me as a customer, well I don't want them getting my money, and I'll make sure that they don't get my friend's money either.