'Right To Discriminate' Bills

[PhantomWolf]

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

RL Case in point:

I applied for a job at a firm and one of the questions that they asked was how old I was as I don't have my DoB in my CV and nor do I have years on my schooling, just schools attended.

In NZ you can't discriminate based on age.

I asked why and when what I learned indicated that they were after people of a certain age range (which I was in) I told them I was no longer interested. I will now not have anything to do with that company and I advise people who ask my opinion of who to use in town not to do business with that company. If others did the same then it would create pressure on them to change their practices or go out of business, but because it's illegal, most people won't do anything about it because they expect the Government to deal with it.

 

[332nd]

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?

Ah... So when I drive from Wisconsin to California, I would have to research gas stations, resturants, & hotels across 6 states along my route to make sure they don't discriminate againt mixed race couples.(whereas now I can just go.) Oh wait... I would have to do so for multiple routes in case the original is shut down for some reason. Hmmmm... if the truck breaks down, I guess we just have to hope that the local repair shop doesn't discriminate. I guess my wife & son will have to schedule their bathroom stops to the friendly gas stations & rest stops. (In an emergency I could just hide.)

Then there's the drive from California to Missouri where I'd have to do the same. Oh! I'd have to do this every year huh? Can't rely on the places staying under the same management.

Heeeeyyyy... free market right? I wonder if places that cater to those who are targets of discrimination get to charge more? Supply & demand after all.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ah... So when I drive from Wisconsin to California, I would have to research gas stations, resturants, & hotels across 6 states along my route to make sure they don't discriminate againt mixed race couples.(whereas now I can just go.) Oh wait... I would have to do so for multiple routes in case the original is shut down for some reason. Hmmmm... if the truck breaks down, I guess we just have to hope that the local repair shop doesn't discriminate. I guess my wife & son will have to schedule their bathroom stops to the friendly gas stations & rest stops. (In an emergency I could just hide.)

Then there's the drive from California to Missouri where I'd have to do the same. Oh! I'd have to do this every year huh? Can't rely on the places staying under the same management.

Heeeeyyyy... free market right? I wonder if places that cater to those who are targets of discrimination get to charge more? Supply & demand after all.

Your scenario seems to be based on the belief that Americans hate each other and will discriminate if they can. I don't share your belief.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Your scenario seems to be based on the belief that Americans hate each other and will discriminate if they can. I don't share your belief.

So all the Americans experiencing discrimination for various things right now simply don't share the purity of your power of imagination?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your scenario seems to be based on the belief that Americans hate each other and will discriminate if they can. I don't share your belief.

Some of us do. There's a large number of total 's in this country. They're a minority, sure, but there are still millions of them.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

It's generally not as simple as that - especially with your examples above. In Canada drinking and driving didn't start to actually get lower until there was a combination of social pressure AND legal enforcement to give teeth to the social pressure. Laws can be a sign of how strongly society feels about certain anti-social behaviours.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It's generally not as simple as that - especially with your examples above. In Canada drinking and driving didn't start to actually get lower until there was a combination of social pressure AND legal enforcement to give teeth to the social pressure. Laws can be a sign of how strongly society feels about certain anti-social behaviours.

Agreed. Relying on social pressure alone will never work. You need both.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

So you're down with discrimination.

 

[Distracted1]

I feel fairly confident that I could make a ton of cash opening up a "whites only" truck stop in Southern Indiana. Drivers would divert from their routes just to use my services and buy merchandise with my logo on it ( ala Duck Dynasty ). I have no studies handy to back this up, but I feel pretty in touch with my American culture and its' layers of complexity.

 

[AmandaM]

Your scenario seems to be based on the belief that Americans hate each other and will discriminate if they can. I don't share your belief.

Bigot and racists don't usually acknowledge that THEY have the flawed mentality. They feel persecuted, and speak out against that perceived persecution. So they probably wouldn't consider their opinions coming from a place of hate.

Look at the rhetoric from the conservative groups who oppose homosexual marriage. Most of them talk about an "assault on the traditional family." They feel (or pretend to feel) threatened by equality laws. Similar language was used in the 60s to describe the "threat" of inter-racial marriage.

Americans aren't naturally sociopathic. We don't sit around looking for reasons ways to hate each other. Not too long ago, I was asking the same question you did -- I too wondered why we didn't just allow businesses who practiced obviously prejudicial service practices to just fail. The problem is there are enough people who are NOT outraged by those practices and who will continue to support those businesses: Chik-fil-a and Hobby Lobby are classic examples. Despite draconian employment practices, Wal-Mart still manages to make a buck or two.

Granted, those are large companies, and operate on a different strata than Mom n Pops, but imagine the situation of a little Bed and Breakfast that typically caters to newlywed Christian couples. So the owner of the B&B is considering renting to a gay couple, but is concerned she will lose her current clientele. She feels her business is threatened. Maybe she doesn't self-identify as a bigot, but she is afraid for her business. That fear doesn't come from a place of hate -- at least in the business owner's mind.

Businesses get tax breaks for being businesses, and as already mentioned earlier, they enjoy taxpayer-paid benefits like water hookup, streets, fire and police services, etc. If you operate from a desert island in international waters, then you may have a case for not having government intervention in how you conduct your business. But I don't see too many instances of that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I feel fairly confident that I could make a ton of cash opening up a "whites only" truck stop in Southern Indiana. Drivers would divert from their routes just to use my services and buy merchandise with my logo on it ( ala Duck Dynasty ). I have no studies handy to back this up, but I feel pretty in touch with my American culture and its' layers of complexity.

I agree, but the issue of how to keep the non-whites out arises. I can imagine motorcades from Indy...

 

[Biscuit]

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.

The CRA roots out and stops it when it rears it's head. There is a huge cost to bigotry under current laws, how can you saw there isn't?

By allowing it to come out in the open, society can be deal with.

If you make discrimination legal only the truly idiotic bigots will declare it. Those people will find a way to sabotage their business with or without the CRA.

When people have to hide it, then it simmers and results in explosive and violent venting that can result in dead people.

Yea because when jim crow laws were around no one was killed for the color of their skin. How familiar are you with US history?

Make discrimination legal and everyone will live in peace? Can you point to a society where this has happened?

It is also an infringement of rights. snip

The right a bigot has is to think and say that he/she hates a certain group or groups. Bigots have no right to take detrimental action against those people. Under the law of the land all are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law. Many rights have limits. You are free to be racist and bigoted if you want, you are also free to accept the consequences of it.

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.

By making it law the social drive was removed? There is still a socially driven desire to get rid of racism and bigotry. Making it only socially driven removes the weight of the laws that were put in place by a socially driven movement. The laws are an extension of the very impetus you are arguing for.

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?

They both have an impact for different reasons but I am far more afraid of jail and thousands in fines than my mothers wrath. She will forgive me, justice is far more brutal.

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.

Source?

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.

Smoking and racism are not analogous as smokers are not a protected class of people. Smokers choose to smoke. Protected classes are not a choice.

 

[Biscuit]

RL Case in point:

I applied for a job at a firm and one of the questions that they asked was how old I was as I don't have my DoB in my CV and nor do I have years on my schooling, just schools attended.

In NZ you can't discriminate based on age.

I asked why and when what I learned indicated that they were after people of a certain age range (which I was in) I told them I was no longer interested. I will now not have anything to do with that company and I advise people who ask my opinion of who to use in town not to do business with that company. If others did the same then it would create pressure on them to change their practices or go out of business, but because it's illegal, most people won't do anything about it because they expect the Government to deal with it.

Right, you have never been discriminated against in the way that the CRA is meant to protect people from here in the USA.

That company wanted a certain age employee for a reason not because they hate old people and don't think old people should be allowed to live openly in their community, not because old people offend their religious beliefs, and not because they don't want old people in their place of business and refuse them service. What you experienced wasn't even discrimination of any sort because you fit their needs!

Get back to me when someone actually excludes you out of hate or fear or disgust. It seems you have nothing to fear from discrimination being legal.

 

[Ziggurat]

For example, if the local real estate firm refuses to sell property to homosexuals for 'religious' reasons, this means they control the population demographics. If the pharmacist refuses to provide psychoactive meds (because he's a Scientologist), it pretty much means mentally ill people can't live there. Everybody else is nice, just a few people leveraging their limited powers and making misery.

Unless government intervenes to prevent alternative remedies, then your local real estate agent can't actually stop anyone from buying or selling a home to or from whomever they wish to, and it wouldn't be hard to convince an outside agent to come in if you really want the help on a sale. Pharmacies are a little trickier because of licensing requirements, but again, government restrictions on the free market are still enabling discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of factors which should have nothing to do with the product or service in question will always hurt the person doing the discriminating, because they will lose out on opportunities. That's why hard-core racists always try to get government intervention: by making discrimination not just permissible but required, that forces everyone to pay for the cost of discriminating, so that the people who want to discriminate are not longer at a competitive disadvantage because of it. And some forms of government intervention which don't require discrimination (such as minimum wage laws or rent control) still enable it by reducing or eliminating the cost of discrimination. So government isn't the most reliable partner when it comes to ending discrimination.

A totally free market does not prevent discrimination, but it does relentlessly punish it. And outlawing discrimination doesn't necessarily make it go away either, nor do such efforts come for free.

 

[332nd]

Your scenario seems to be based on the belief that Americans hate each other and will discriminate if they can. I don't share your belief.

No, my scenario is based on the knowledge that there are some Americans that are bigoted enough that they will discriminate against the groups of their choice if they can.

Were you honestly unaware of this?

 

[Aepervius]

Surely in a free market though, if Society demands that everyone be treated equally, and a Business doesn't, then Society would respond by ceasing trading with said business, and it would go out of business. Seems to be that allowing people to display their bigotry with flying colours and allowing Society to shut them down by refusing them custom is far better than forcing them to hide. After all, would you really want to do business with someone that hated you so much that if allowed they'd refuse to serve you? Is that the sort of person you want to spend your money with? Wouldn't you rather know about it and be able to choose to go elsewhere instead rather than being kept ignorant because of the law?

Does not work when the majority does not care if a minority get discriminated.

 

[Upchurch]

Discrimination on the basis of factors which should have nothing to do with the product or service in question will always hurt the person doing the discriminating, because they will lose out on opportunities.

{snip}

A totally free market does not prevent discrimination, but it does relentlessly punish it.

Which, of course, is why the south was resolutely on the path of freeing the slaves prior to the Civil War or why businesses were voluntarily desegregating prior to the advent of the Civiil Rights Movement.

 

[DavidJames]

A totally free market does not prevent discrimination, but it does relentlessly punish it.

Blind faith in the "Free Market" yields similar results to most any religion.

 

[AlBell]

Society has determined the negative effects of discrimination based on certain traits (race, religion, ect) outweighs the freedom in those instances. Basically it is a cost-benefit analysis weighing absolute freedoms against practical freedoms.

Ya thinK? Have a cite?

I think it's the usual progressives' desire to have more govt control of citizens.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which, of course, is why the south was resolutely on the path of freeing the slaves prior to the Civil War

What on earth are you talking about? Legalized slavery is the epitome of government-enforced discrimination. That doesn't contradict my claim, that's a front-and-center exemplar of exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot get discrimination that severe without the government's active complicity.

or why businesses were voluntarily desegregating prior to the advent of the Civiil Rights Movement.

Again, racial discrimination was legally required during much of this period. Why do you think they passed those discriminatory laws, if businesses were voluntarily discriminating to the satisfaction of the racists?

And there were in fact businesses which did voluntarily desegregate. One of the more famous examples, of course, was baseball, which desegregated before the height of the civil rights era. And why did it desegregate? Well, once one team did, then any team which didn't was put at a competitive disadvantage.