- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do you believe what you believe, Part 2: property rights vs discrimination
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:06 am
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:06 am
This is the second of many threads regarding why we believe in certain aspects of our political philosophy.
I ask you, what is your opinion on private property rights vs discrimination. I am sure that we all agree that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, being a bigot is wrong. It is often stated that your rights end where another begins, but where is and where should the line be between the rights of individuals to do what they wish on their private property and with their private businesses and the rights of people not to be discriminated against? Should private clubs have the right to exclude membership? Should churches? Should non-profits? Where do the rights of the business owner end and where do the rights of the costumer begin? Are our businesses really ours to do with as we wish? What about rental property? Do we/should we have the right to do business with whom we want? Do we/should we have the right to refuse service to, or hire/fire anyone for any reason? Where is the line?
Please state your opinion and support it with whatever you like (personal anecdotes, bible verses, court decisions, laws, statistics, news articles, op EDS, ect), just make sure you link it.
The idea is to have a real discussion on gun control while trying to educate one another with substantial arguments and facts.
Have fun and happy trolling
I ask you, what is your opinion on private property rights vs discrimination. I am sure that we all agree that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, being a bigot is wrong. It is often stated that your rights end where another begins, but where is and where should the line be between the rights of individuals to do what they wish on their private property and with their private businesses and the rights of people not to be discriminated against? Should private clubs have the right to exclude membership? Should churches? Should non-profits? Where do the rights of the business owner end and where do the rights of the costumer begin? Are our businesses really ours to do with as we wish? What about rental property? Do we/should we have the right to do business with whom we want? Do we/should we have the right to refuse service to, or hire/fire anyone for any reason? Where is the line?
Please state your opinion and support it with whatever you like (personal anecdotes, bible verses, court decisions, laws, statistics, news articles, op EDS, ect), just make sure you link it.
The idea is to have a real discussion on gun control while trying to educate one another with substantial arguments and facts.
Have fun and happy trolling
6
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:15 am to kingbob
Property rights trumps discrimination. If I want to rent only to Asian midgets I should be able to.
Why do I believe this? Because I'm a Libertarian.
Why do I believe this? Because I'm a Libertarian.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:16 am to kingbob
Once the government confiscates your money against your will, and hires police you don't want to enforce laws you don't need, your business becomes public accommodation and you no longer have property rights.
We are fortunate our betters were able to invent such an elegant legal definition so that they can gracefully circumvent individual rights that had become meaningless obstacles to progress.
We are fortunate our betters were able to invent such an elegant legal definition so that they can gracefully circumvent individual rights that had become meaningless obstacles to progress.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:24 am to Turbeauxdog
I think it is usually much more efficient for the market to handle these issues. If you want to impair your business by limiting your client base or talent pool, that is your business.
HOWEVER, there are times when discrimination becomes so widespread or ingrained that market forces alone cannot fix it. Which is why I am believe in government intervention to fix discrimination in some cases. But this should be done with great care and thought and reserved for problems that cannot truly be addressed otherwise and NOT just tossed around to make certain groups feel good or because we have to "do something."
HOWEVER, there are times when discrimination becomes so widespread or ingrained that market forces alone cannot fix it. Which is why I am believe in government intervention to fix discrimination in some cases. But this should be done with great care and thought and reserved for problems that cannot truly be addressed otherwise and NOT just tossed around to make certain groups feel good or because we have to "do something."
Posted on 8/14/14 at 10:44 am to BigJim
quote:
If you want to impair your business by limiting your client base or talent pool, that is your business.
A good example of this is Palmetto CC in Benton. It's a private club that charges very high membership fees. They have very few members and are thus constantly in financial trouble. There are 2 common fixes to this problem:
a. Lower your membership rates to get within reach of middle class golfers.
b. Allow non-members to play for a high green fee. Like 50 bucks with a cart.
They reject both even though it would increase their revenue. Why the rejection? Because they don't want people like me on their course. I have no problem with that at all.
I take my business to other private clubs that are much nicer and charge me 40 bucks a round with a cart as a non member.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 11:46 am to Zach
quote:
Why the rejection? Because they don't want people like me on their course.
Which makes me think of the old Groucho Marx line: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
Posted on 8/14/14 at 12:00 pm to Bard
quote:
Which makes me think of the old Groucho Marx line: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
I loved that line. But my favorite was when he was courting two old ladies.
"Let's get married. You girls are everything I want in a wife. You're tall and short, blond and brunette"
Them: "But that's bigamy."
Groucho: "Yes, let's all be big for a change. One man and one wife was good enough for your grandmother. But who wanted to marry your grandmother? Not even your grandfather."
Posted on 8/14/14 at 12:08 pm to kingbob
If possible you should make this two different topics, property rights are a different animal from membership affiliations with public and/or private institutions.
Property rights general stay with the land, regardless of ownership.
Property rights general stay with the land, regardless of ownership.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 12:28 pm to freddy
Without reading the above, the point must be made you do not have the right to discriminate in your business dealings. TYour restaurant must serve all people, not just whites or blacks. If you have an apt to rent you cannot say no Asians, black, Jews etc. If you are in a business, your property rights are trumped by equal opportunity and no discrimination. That's the Civil Rights Act. Everybody can eat the lunch counter now.
The 50s are over George Wallace.
The 50s are over George Wallace.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 12:51 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
You are making a should/would fallacy. We know what the law is. The OP is talking about what 'SHOULD' be.
I believe that people should be allowed to discriminate with their own property and dealing however they wish. It's called FREEDOM.
I believe that people should be allowed to discriminate with their own property and dealing however they wish. It's called FREEDOM.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 12:53 pm to Zach
It's called racism and its un American. if that's freedom you're clueless. Let's see I walk into a store and they tell me to get out because i'm whatever. No this is America equal access
Segregation is over David Duke
Segregation is over David Duke
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:00 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Why does the government need to ensure people don't segregate? Clearly, the urge to segregate in the south was so weak that the government had to mandate it with Jim Crow laws. Why should the same government that mandated segregation be allowed to mandate de-segregation?
De-jure segregation may be over, but de-facto segregation will always be a part of life because people naturally desire to associate with people who share their interests and socio-economic standing.
This thread is about rights vs what is really "yours". Should the role of government be preventing segregation? If so, then why is segregation not ok, but completely kosher in a church, club, or non-profit? Why is one ok and one not?
De-jure segregation may be over, but de-facto segregation will always be a part of life because people naturally desire to associate with people who share their interests and socio-economic standing.
This thread is about rights vs what is really "yours". Should the role of government be preventing segregation? If so, then why is segregation not ok, but completely kosher in a church, club, or non-profit? Why is one ok and one not?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:15 pm to kingbob
You should have the right to be a jerk.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:18 pm to kingbob
If I own a restaurant and only want to serve pork that Ok. if I want to serve kosher that's OK. But all people have access to buy from me. I may not want to eat pig balls but I want the ability to but them. Hobby Lobby has the right not to sell Chanukah stuff.
If I go out to the corner to the Halal truck and want felafel (with hot suce!) they cannot say we don't see to Jews. If you want to go tot eh Kosher pizza place, they have to sell it to you. But its their right not to have pepperoni.
Cracker Barrel was sued because of alleged discrimination against blacks.
Segregation was weak? watch ghosts of Ole Miss. Took Sam Bam Cunningham kickin g Bama's butt to integrate the SEC
If I go out to the corner to the Halal truck and want felafel (with hot suce!) they cannot say we don't see to Jews. If you want to go tot eh Kosher pizza place, they have to sell it to you. But its their right not to have pepperoni.
Cracker Barrel was sued because of alleged discrimination against blacks.
Segregation was weak? watch ghosts of Ole Miss. Took Sam Bam Cunningham kickin g Bama's butt to integrate the SEC
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:20 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Segregation was weak? watch ghosts of Ole Miss. Took Sam Bam Cunningham kickin g Bama's butt to integrate the SEC
Federally funded institutions should have no right at all to discriminate. Private institutions should
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:22 pm to bamafan1001
absolutely not. If I go in Shoney's should they say no blacks?
segregation is over. Sorry we don't let Jews rent hotel rooms is 1950s. Gregory Peck movie.
segregation is over. Sorry we don't let Jews rent hotel rooms is 1950s. Gregory Peck movie.
This post was edited on 8/14/14 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:25 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
absolutely not. If I go in Shoney's should they say no blacks?
No, they shouldn't as that would be bad for business.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:29 pm to kingbob
quote:
Why should the same government that mandated segregation be allowed to mandate de-segregation?
I doubt you get any answers to this. Great point.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:29 pm to bamafan1001
and illegal. You can't discriminate. Dr, King fought for this and Rosa parks said no back of the bus. Do you wan to go back to those prejudice times?
LSU was lily white as was the whole SEC
LSU was lily white as was the whole SEC
Posted on 8/14/14 at 1:39 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Segregation was weak? watch ghosts of Ole Miss. Took Sam Bam Cunningham kickin g Bama's butt to integrate the SEC
Segregation had to be enforced by law. If people really wanted to segregate their businesses so strongly, they wouldn't have needed a law to force them to do so, just like we don't need laws to force us not to do so. The free market always wins in the end. A free market where businesses are free to discriminate or not discriminate will find that bigotry will always lead to decreased market share and a reduced talent pool. The public won't tolerate it, therefore the market won't tolerate it. Non-discrimination is common-sense in business. However, forcing tolerance only subsidizes bigots because otherwise, there own bigotry would be allowed to bankrupt them. Now, people basically have to buy from bigots.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News