Should Businesses Be Allowed to Discriminate?

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think?

I don't see how you can solve the problem of them conforming to bad social norms as a consequence.

I don't know how it could be solved either. But it's a "possibility" to consider.

In another society, it might be viable. Like, if 99% of people were tolerant open minded vegan etc. etc. and there were 1% holdout bigots who did terrible things that were just barely legal. Maybe not letting them in private establishments would serve that end.

Hm. Well, I don't think it should be. It's rude, but the person who is being insulted can just keep walking, if this happened on the street for instance.

If said gay person punched that bigot in the face, he or she would have a strong defense in any assault charges (and probably wouldn't be prosecuted).

That, I think, should be illegal. I don't think you should be allowed to get violent unless somebody is threatened with violence.

Just how the law works now. It's for social order.
If that weren't the case, you could say terrible things to people until they punch you, and then press charges against them.
The consequences of that kind of speech being protected are problematic. Civil discourse, not directed at any one person, is always protected (if in the right place at the right time).

There's a certain point of personal disgust that's hard to overcome, no matter how you rationalize it.

What's the difference?

It may be hard to overcome.

[EquALLity]

I think that we should think about possible repercussions that could arise from allowing businesses to discriminate. What if the owner of a pharmaceutical shop decided to deny service to a group of people specifically for a superficial reason? What if the person being discriminated against is unable to go to any other store for a medication that they need, maybe it is a pain reliever or a cure for a disease, it doesn't matter, the point is if they are denied the medicine,where could they go to get it? This is the reason that discrimination should not be allowed in businesses, it should just be like " Hey I want to buy this." "Okay, pay me for it.". It is that simple, I often find myself confused as to why people care to discriminate based on superficial reasons, why does anyone care? Feel free to critique as you see fit.

I would have responded to this with, "That's a good point. I think there should be exceptions for when lives will be significantly impacted."

If in person, someone asked somebody to bake a cake for them, and they refused, no real harm is done other than emotionally.
But if someone had medicine and refused, there is a lot of harm done, and I think they should have to give the medicine (obviously, unless they need it).

I like that position. It's legal for them to discriminate, but only up to a certain point (also- they would have to put up a sign). But then, I'd be favoring the bully over the victim... Hm...

As for why they discriminate, well, they're just assholes.

Just how the law works now. It's for social order.

Well, maybe the law is wrong.

If that weren't the case, you could say terrible things to people until they punch you, and then press charges against them.

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't think people should be threatened with violence for things they say unless they're threatening somebody else. People should be able to control themselves enough where they aren't hitting people for being offensive.

Harassing someone doesn't make it my fault if they hit me. It's still their choice.

It may be hard to overcome.

Ahhhh.

[brimstoneSalad]

I would have responded to this with, "That's a good point. I think there should be exceptions for when lives will be significantly impacted."

If in person, someone asked somebody to bake a cake for them, and they refused, no real harm is done other than emotionally.
But if someone had medicine and refused, there is a lot of harm done, and I think they should have to give the medicine (obviously, unless they need it).

I like that position. It's legal for them to discriminate, but only up to a certain point (also- they would have to put up a sign).

You just took a law that was once sentence, and turned it into twenty chapters outlining every conceivable type of business, and details of when people can and can not discriminate, with exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

I think you can see how that goes. The more complex a law is, the harder it is for people to follow, and the harder it is to enforce because nobody understands it.

But then, I'd be favoring the bully over the victim... Hm...

And yes, then there's that. You'd be going through a lot of trouble, and for what purpose?

Well, maybe the law is wrong.

Maybe. Also maybe not. It's very difficult for people without experience with the justice system to look at laws and understand their consequences and purposes.

We can do all of the speculating and back-seat-driving we want, but until we're in the position to have that first hand experience and knowledge of how these systems play out in reality, it's very difficult to say.

I don't think people should be threatened with violence for things they say unless they're threatening somebody else. People should be able to control themselves enough where they aren't hitting people for being offensive.

Should, maybe. But that's not reality.

How full do you want the prisons to be? They're already spilling over as it is.

[EquALLity]

You just took a law that was once sentence, and turned it into twenty chapters outlining every conceivable type of business, and details of when people can and can not discriminate, with exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

I think you can see how that goes. The more complex a law is, the harder it is for people to follow, and the harder it is to enforce because nobody understands it.

Maybe in practice, but morally, I'm not sure it's unethical to let people do that.

As for in practice, I could just make it more clear. If the person needs the goods for their health, for example, it should be required to sell it to them.

And yes, then there's that. You'd be going through a lot of trouble, and for what purpose?

I'm also enabling the harmer to harm by supporting their right to insult people, and I don't see anything wrong with that position.

Maybe. Also maybe not.

Maybe includes maybe not. I wasn't using that as an argument against what you said, I was just pointing out that "that's just the way the law is" isn't relevant as to whether or not something is moral.

Should, maybe. But that's not reality.

If you agree (I think you're implying you do?), then what were you talking about here?

If that weren't the case, you could say terrible things to people until they punch you, and then press charges against them.

Were you already thinking in terms of prison population? I thought you were saying there was something unethical about that.

As for whether or not most people can refrain from punching people, I think most people are level-headed. What, is that not true?

How full do you want the prisons to be? They're already spilling over as it is.

What? Because I have this stance, I want the prison population in America to be higher?

I don't agree with all of the laws that are being used to put people in prison, but violence is something that people should be in for.

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe in practice, but morally, I'm not sure it's unethical to let people do that.

It is if they're hurting people. Compare harmed caused to good done. Siding with the bully over the bullied is problematic.

As for in practice, I could just make it more clear.

No, in practice, you make laws clear by writing books containing chapters, sections, subsections, addendums, amendments, and twenty page tables of contents.

If the person needs the goods for their health, for example, it should be required to sell it to them.

I need this cake, it's for my health.

See chapter 5, subsection 3, paragraph 2, and amendment 12, section 6, part A, C and M.

I'm also enabling the harmer to harm by supporting their right to insult people, and I don't see anything wrong with that position.

There's plenty wrong with that. Haven't you ever witnessed bullying, and the harm it can cause?

The issue is, that prohibiting free speech tends to cause MORE problems than it solves. It has to be handled very carefully.
Prohibiting businesses from discriminating doesn't open a can of worms like limiting free speech does. It's pretty simple to avoid negative repercussions.

If you agree (I think you're implying you do?), then what were you talking about here?

The right law, or policy, isn't the right policy for an ideal world. It's the right one for the world we have.
So, even if you're right in some abstract ideological way, you may be wrong in practice.

Were you already thinking in terms of prison population? I thought you were saying there was something unethical about that.

That kind of practice would cause more harm than good, particularly in the way it could be or would likely be used. You have to think in terms of cost and benefit.
It's unethical to allow that, because of the problems it would cause.

As for whether or not most people can refrain from punching people, I think most people are level-headed. What, is that not true?

The law, as it is, only restricts speech that would be likely to illicit a violent reaction from most people.
And most people will react violently, if you insult them well enough, particularly to their faces and on issues they're sensitive to.
They won't necessarily beat somebody to death, but it will start a fight.

What? Because I have this stance, I want the prison population in America to be higher?

I don't agree with all of the laws that are being used to put people in prison, but violence is something that people should be in for.

In a sense, yes. Because that's the consequence of laws that criminalize so many people. You can't lock people away for minor acts of violence like that, particularly when they were provoked. We don't have the means to deal with that. And even if we did, people may USE that to their ends, provoking others deliberately just to get them locked up.

If I thought I could provoke fundamentalists until they punched me, and get them locked away, that might be a pretty effective form of activism.

That's actually a pretty big topic, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ive_speech

It deals with criminal law and free speech, and balancing the two. You have to look not at the law itself, but at the effects of the law.

[Jebus]

The night club industry, in my opinion, needs to be under more scrutiny. They will often refuse service to people who don't look the way they want, regardless of how the person is dressed.

[brimstoneSalad]

The night club industry, in my opinion, needs to be under more scrutiny. They will often refuse service to people who don't look the way they want, regardless of how the person is dressed.

Clubs are a different issue, since they aren't generally open to the public. It is distinctly in a club's business interests to only allow in certain guests, because socialization with their other guests is the major part of what they're selling (you can buy booze and blast your ears out with loud music plenty of places).

When people are the product being sold (or access to them), then companies need to do a certain level of quality control.


For example, even as an atheist, if I owned a "Christian singles' nightclub", it would be in my business interest to filter the guests to allow in only Christian Singles, since that's what the guests are paying to have access to. That is, it goes beyond anybody's bigotry or intolerance, to a genuine practical need.

Likewise, for a gay nightclub, only gays might be allowed in -- letting straights in would cause a problem with the social environment. Gays IN that club don't want to get shot down by people or waste money buying drinks on those later claiming to be straight, or worse, be threatened by homophobes.

It is difficult to draw a line between practical need, and bigotry (e.g. whites only club), but for private club establishments, it may be necessary to allow the latter to facilitate the former.

[EquALLity]

It is if they're hurting people. Compare harmed caused to good done.

In both situations, people are being hurt. It's just about the lesser of the two evils, like you said.

I'm not sure what causes more harm. What's worse, people having to make their own cakes for example, or people having to make cakes for people they don't want to make them for? I don't really know.

No, in practice, you make laws clear by writing books containing chapters, sections, subsections, addendums, amendments, and twenty page tables of contents.

No? You didn't argue against anything I wrote there. You agreed that I would have to make it clear.

If all laws are this way, why is that relevant?

I need this cake, it's for my health.

See chapter 5, subsection 3, paragraph 2, and amendment 12, section 6, part A, C and M.

I don't really see many people looking too far into these laws to get cake etc.

There's plenty wrong with that.

No there isn't, not inherently.

For example, regarding the free speech thing, by supporting free speech, I am enabling the "bully" (Is it even bullying? It's not repetitive, and not making anyone do anything.). That doesn't, in and of itself, make me wrong.

The right law, or policy, isn't the right policy for an ideal world. It's the right one for the world we have.
So, even if you're right in some abstract ideological way, you may be wrong in practice.

Weren't you just before talking about how businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because it makes people conform to good social norms, but that conformity to social norms is only alright in an ideal world?

Anyway, I'm not really necessarily denying that or your next comment (I'm unsure), I was just also interested in talking about this in an ideological way. I wasn't really thinking about it in practice there.

I'm leaning towards that it's better the way I'm envisioning, but I'm going to have to see based on your response to my question about the next thing I'm addressing.

The law, as it is, only restricts speech that would be likely to illicit a violent reaction from most people.
And most people will react violently, if you insult them well enough, particularly to their faces and on issues they're sensitive to.
They won't necessarily beat somebody to death, but it will start a fight.

They will? How do you know?

In a sense, yes. Because that's the consequence of laws that criminalize so many people.

As long as we're talking about hypotheticals here (this law coming into action), I would also end policies etc. that cause people to go to jail for unnecessary reasons.

And even if we did, people may USE that to their ends, provoking others deliberately just to get them locked up.

You can't blame them for that, you blame the people who overreacted.

If I thought I could provoke fundamentalists until they punched me, and get them locked away, that might be a pretty effective form of activism.

Hahaha!

That's actually a pretty big topic, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ive_speech

It deals with criminal law and free speech, and balancing the two. You have to look not at the law itself, but at the effects of the law.

Ok, I'll check those out.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not sure what causes more harm. What's worse, people having to make their own cakes for example, or people having to make cakes for people they don't want to make them for? I don't really know.

Well, again, it's not just about cakes.

You have to ask:
What's worse? A law that needs one sentence to understand, or one that needs twenty chapters?

No? You didn't argue against anything I wrote there. You agreed that I would have to make it clear.

You seemed to be denying that you changed a simple law that would be one sentence into twenty chapters. Clarifying laws (when they are not simple), is a complicated process that means writing books filled with exceptions and special cases, and application to every possible situation.

If all laws are this way, why is that relevant?

All laws are not that way. They are long to the extent that they need to be "clarified" and have special exemptions and exceptions.

A law that flatly and across the board prohibits discrimination against customers on sexual orientation for a retail business is pretty much just that one sentence. There are no clarifications or exceptions needed. Are you a retail business? Yes? Then you can't deny service to a customer because he or she is gay. End of story.
The trouble you have when you're trying to draw a line between the important stuff (like life saving medicine) and the optional discrimination stuff (like cakes, hypothetically), is that line is both highly subjective and ultimately arbitrary. It depends on all of the details of the situation, and in allowing those exceptions you either require a law that's so incomprehensibly complex so that nobody ever understands it, or you tie up the courts with massive amounts of litigation over this law, constantly, since everybody thinks they're right.

Go ahead. Try to write this law. Then I'll tear it apart with a few simple situations. By the time I can't poke holes in it anymore, it will simply be because the law is so huge I can't read or understand it all anymore. In which case, the law becomes useless.
The alternative is to leave the law vague, and spend millions of tax dollars on the courts trying case after case, and where that doesn't work, just letting the whims of the judge decide based on whatever preconceived bigotries or sympathies he or she has.

I don't really see many people looking too far into these laws to get cake etc.

Welcome to the social parasite that is bureaucracy and the wonderful world of lawyers (who range from parasites themselves to heroes, but are usually expensive in either case).
Laws need to be elegant and self explanatory. When they aren't, you enter a world of tort hell.

No there isn't, not inherently.

Causing more harm than good is.
The trouble is, it's hard to protect those who need or deserve the protection without also giving power to those who will abuse it.

For example, regarding the free speech thing, by supporting free speech, I am enabling the "bully" (Is it even bullying? It's not repetitive, and not making anyone do anything.).

It's very repetitive. People who do that kind of thing don't just do it once in their lives. The torch of insult and degradation gets passed from person to person as the oppressed and bullied go through life. From their perspective, it's very repetitive too -- just different people parroting the same line to them again and again.
It's wrong, because it's more harmful than helpful.

The right law, or policy, isn't the right policy for an ideal world. It's the right one for the world we have.
So, even if you're right in some abstract ideological way, you may be wrong in practice.

Weren't you just before talking about how businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because it makes people conform to good social norms, but that conformity to social norms is only alright in an ideal world?

You might want to read that all again.
I said discrimination has potential good and bad points. In the world we live in, the bad massively outweighs the potential good.

Anyway, I'm not really necessarily denying that or your next comment (I'm unsure), I was just also interested in talking about this in an ideological way. I wasn't really thinking about it in practice there.

Ideology is not morality, it's deontological dogma. Morality is a matter of practice.

It's all well and fine to say lying is bad, but it isn't. It's a tool, which is usually used for bad. It does a lot of harm most of the time, and we generally shouldn't do it.
But when an assassin comes to you and asks the location of the target, is it wrong to lie?

They will? How do you know?

Ever seen a western? Or something based a couple centuries ago in England?

The law was made because that was true, and it was necessary. All of the brawls and duels weren't doing it for people. And they couldn't just hang everybody.
Today, you'd need to do some research to prove that has changed. But, read those links I posted for you. The issue is complex.

The important question is whether the law does more harm than good, or more good than harm -- in both intended effects, and unintended.

The trouble with politics today (and for most of history in most places generally) is that politicians aren't scientists, and they often care more about ideology than facts. Fact based politics would be great. For now, without the data, in order to pass laws morally and with a mind to social stability, you have to go based on historical precedent, and make changes very carefully.

As to experimentation, that's how a republic works, ideally. One state or jurisdiction changes the law locally, and you get an experiment running (usually the law is changed by ideological idiots who insist it will work, and not people trying to make an experiment, so it's a poor one with poor controls run unwittingly, but it's an experiment nonetheless).
As it goes, you get to see if it was a terrible failure, or if it helped things. If it's successful in one place, others start copying it. And soon, it's national.

As long as we're talking about hypotheticals here (this law coming into action), I would also end policies etc. that cause people to go to jail for unnecessary reasons.

Yes, that would be smart. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are ideologues, who insist a wrong thing must be illegal, despite the law causing more harm than the thing it outlaws.

You can't blame them for that, you blame the people who overreacted.

It depends on the law. Whoever broke it is to blame. The question is a matter of harm vs. benefit.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is almost a month old, but I thought I should post it:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/opinions/ ... diana-law/

Penn Jillette, a famous Libertarian, also agrees that the business gay discrimination 'right' is bullshit.

This video is good, this is funny:

The acceptance of LGBT lifestyle is moving so fast that soon some of these backwards people are going to be worried that they'll need a law to get cake for themselves.

Also, wow did he ever lose weight (since December, over 100 pounds):
http://greatideas.people.com/2015/04/08 ... egas-home/

Great for him!
Both those points have just made me gain a lot more respect for him.
I feel like he's softened on the libertarian ideology enough to start being pretty reasonable, and he's finally taking responsibility for his health and being the good influence he could always have been.