|
On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago:
communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
|
There are a lot of laissez-faire ideas in here, but I think we are kind of skimming things a bit. To go deeper, people in the south denied blacks the right to use bathrooms, and other more important parts of public life, simply because they are black. Equal protection under law (part of the 14th ammendment) stopped this. A lot of what we are saying in here goes against the civil rights acts and the post-civil war ammendments. They denied people something as a private business, but through Judicial review, the Warren court proved that the government does have a right to meddle in private business, especially after Baron v. Baltimore proved the federal government could meddle in states rights. The thing we need to think about here isn't who can be descriminated against, since there are very specific laws that allow private business to descriminate for very specific reasons, but not for others. The government serves the people, but even they can descriminate based on some criterion. Instead of arguing about whether or not business can do this (since they can, and are within their rights to) we should argue what constitutes something good enough to refuse business for.
|
^ good post, that's why the only reasonable answer in this poll is 'it depends' and the discussion should be about what it depends on.
|
Wished they made it more consistent in the laws. A big MNC cannot discriminate who they offer their services to but they can or sometimes even forced to discriminate based on race who they hire (yes I hate affirmative action).
|
I disagree with my friend's statement, but he said that the freedom to associated is also the freedom to dissociate.
|
On January 19 2013 14:19 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago: communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
You're taking an MLK quote, disgustingly altering it, then applying it to 1950's politics?
First off: Why?
Second off: How high were you when you wrote that?
|
On January 19 2013 14:19 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago: communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
What's your point, here? Are you agreeing with him or disagreeing with him?
|
Huh, apparently sexual orientation does not seem to be a protected class (yet) in the United states.
That said, I think that discriminating service based on certain traits (such as those mentioned as a protected class) seems to be wrong and should not be allowed. It's an interesting clash of freedom, but overall there's no significant reason to deny service aside from the person doing, being, or believing something different, which is not relevant or fair. I feel weary saying this though; perhaps someone could give an example where such prejudice is relevant. I guess the whole pregnancy thing can be relevant as an employer, and having lots of young kids is relevant for someone coming to a restaurant/other-facility (paintball, go-kart) for service.
Something I thought was interesting that the OP didn't mention, was a case a while ago (that presumably still occurs), where the owner of a shop (I think car repair/service?) will give you a discount if you read a verse from the bible (John 3:16 I think). This seems acceptable to me, because it's just an action someone has to do, not a trait someone has to have, or a believe someone has to have. Even if the verse was different, such as the sentence "I am a homosexual" or "I hate homosexuals", while it does get into gray area, I still think that they are just words, one could maybe start calling it hate speech if the right phrase(s) is present, but still even then, it's a generally private thing said on the premises of a private property; the owner in question is not asking people to make a sign and display a message in a park or on the internet, just to read it on their property, which seems reasonable.
|
The default case is that businesses should not be allowed discriminate, and any specific type of discrimination they want to invoke must be justifiable, and they must be willing and able to justify it to a court if their decision is challenged.
Denying alcohol to some one who is heavily intoxicated is a form of discrimination that has a very reasonable chance of being justified. The subjectivity of the decision if called into question becomes a matter for the judicial system to decide.
|
On January 19 2013 15:03 No_Roo wrote:
The default case is that businesses should not be allowed discriminate, and any specific type of discrimination they want to invoke must be justifiable, and they must be willing and able to justify it to a court if their decision is challenged.
Denying alcohol to some one who is heavily intoxicated is a form of discrimination that has a very reasonable chance of being justified. The subjectivity of the decision if called into question becomes a matter for the judicial system to decide.
I know it's not the point you're making, but I'm not sure how denying someone alcohol that's extremely intoxicated could be construed as discriminatory, specifically because it's illegal to continue to serve an overly intoxicated person and if you choose to do so anyways you become partially legally liable for their subsequent actions.
|
For me the divide on this issue comes down to whether you feel that moving away from your home and family is a reasonable expectation when subject to such discrimination. So called "voting with your feet" is a popular conservative mantra.
In big cities with a lot of competition discrimination is never a good business practice in the long run. The problem is in small like-minded communities. In these communities, being known as a shop owner who upholds Christian values (for instance) actually brings in more business and enhances customer loyalty. Racism may be less overt these days but other forms of discrimination have taken its place.
This could also be an issue in rural communities which lack a competitive environment. Is it okay for the one grocery store within 60 miles of you to deny you business?
|
If a business publicly makes a stance on something, they deserve the full force of whatever PR movement it invokes. Sure, they're free to act however they want in their business, but they better be prepared to deal with the consequences of speaking up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
