Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

We are looking for discussions more then debates. Come with an open mind, maybe we all can grow.

Moderators: 4E Admin, 4E Mod

Post Reply
User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:38 pm

Since I’ve been speaking for some time about the “Harm Equation” as THE tool that grants government its appropriate power upon The People, as well as being the mechanism by which that power is properly limited, I’ve given the matter of “harm” quite a bit of thought. (I should mention at the outset that what follows excludes the context of “accidents”. It deals exclusively with intentional actions.)

Let me begin by asking a question. If someone “flicked” you on the arm today (as one would a bug off the edge of a table) would you engage in violence in defense of self or file a battery report with the police? How about if the person did it twice today? 5 times today? 50 times? 100 times? The point of this exercise is to show that “harm” runs on a gradient.

Let us say for the sake of illustration that you would employ violence in defense of self or file a battery report after you were flicked by someone 50 times. Logic then dictates that while 50 may be your personal threshold to act, it must be “harm” when done just once. I make this point to highlight that most people never stop to think about what “harm” is. They think they know, when in fact they’ve thought what about what “harm” truly is to the same extent they’ve thought about what liberty is, which is almost always zero.

For Constitutional and legal considerations, I divide Harm into 2 categories; 1) physical and 2) impeding another person’s right to pursue happiness in the economic marketplace. These two categories are analogous to the human psyche that possesses intellect and emotion, both working together harmoniously.

The physical element of Harm is what probably 99% of the population defines as “harm” in terms of constitutionality. A few might, on a good day, think to mention being financially harmed due to breach of contract, or some other similar mechanism traditionally resolved in civil court actions. Yet even the few who might think to mention that would base their idea of financial harm on the existence of a contract. It would never occur to them that economic harm – in a constitutional sense – can be done to a person without a contract in operation.

Since physical harm is, for the most part, an open and shut issue, I’ll leave that behind and focus exclusively on “Impeding another person’s right to pursue happiness in the economic marketplace.”

Most people are aware the phrase “Pursuit of Happiness” comes from the Declaration of Independence and is the third broad category of rights enunciated by Jefferson; the first two being “Life” & “Liberty”. Yet few people actually ponder the implications of Jefferson’s sweeping categories.

One of the themes of Christianity is that the Pharisees interpreted Jewish scriptures in such a way as to adhere to the mechanical (or legalistic) aspects thereof while reading out of them the larger more important spiritual messages intended. I contend that the vast majority of Americans have done the exact same thing with the idea of unalienable rights. One long time friend of mine once postulated to me that “rights” are something each person possesses and can only utilize alone – on his own – and that if it involves another person it cannot be a “right.” I believe most people would agree with him. But then most people have never spent even an instant thinking about the specifics of how rights work. I believe he has to done to Jefferson’s ideal of the “Pursuit of Happiness” what the Pharisees did to Jewish scriptures; he read the deeper meaning out of it.

99.9% of men live within a society. This was no less true in Jefferson’s time (and the time of his greatest influence, John Locke) as it is today. The idea that Locke, Grodius, Pufendorf, Vattell, Rousseau, Jefferson, etc., were expounding on the rights of man in the sense that man can, ney must, exercise, enjoy, and secure those rights only as an island in the sea of society is an absurd proposition. And saying that each person possesses such rights individually in no way implies a lack of obligation to one another in respecting them.

According to Jefferson, the sole and exclusive reason for man to create government – and the sole legitimate purpose and end of government – is to secure the rights of The People. In order that such a stated purpose is actually meaningful it must be read to include ALL rights, and embrace ALL of the body politic. If any right is left out, or any portion of the body politic is excluded, then the words cease to have meaning.

At the end of the Civil War the slaves were freed and made citizens. Despite this, there was in much of the country a conspiracy to “impede another person’s right to pursue happiness in the economic marketplace”. The “other person” in this case being millions of black Americans. This conspiracy to impede the rights of black Americans in the marketplace took the form of denying them products, services, and opportunities in the marketplace. (That “conspiracy to impede rights” continued for 100 years, until it was made a violation of federal law.)

Impeding the rights of black Americans in the marketplace bound them as an economic underclass for 100 years. Is this what Jefferson meant when he wrote “the Pursuit of Happiness”; that other men could deny people their ability to “Pursue Happiness” in a meaningful manner by blocking them meaningful access to the marketplace? No rational person would admit that as a truth.

This conspiracy to “impede another person’s right to pursue happiness in the economic marketplace” was repeated time and again with other minorities as well. Each time it created a significant obstacle to “the Pursuit of Happiness in the economic marketplace” and created yet another economic underclass.

Earlier I said that for Jefferson’s three sweeping categories of rights to have meaning they must apply to ALL of the body politic. Did the right to Pursue Happiness in the economic marketplace extend to blacks from 1866 into the mid-1960s? It did not. Did it apply to the Chinese? It did not. Did it apply to the Irish when they arrived? It did not. The Italians? It did not.

Is it an unalienable right to Pursue Happiness in the economic marketplace on equal footing with all others? It must be so if we believe in the right to Pursue Happiness at all because they are inexorably linked.

The idea that one can actually Pursue Happiness anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, while being denied meaningful access to the economic marketplace on equal footing with all others is an absurdity.

Let’s now put this situation in modern context. Let’s use the baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

Federal and state laws have long prohibited impeding meaningful access to the economic marketplace regarding specific minorities, and so the reprobates engage in such conduct only rarely these days; when they think they can effectively conceal their actions. But many states have not enacted statutes protecting homosexuals from having their “Pursuit of Happiness” impeded by denying them meaningful access to the economic marketplace. Homosexuals are the newest group targeted for a denial of the Pursuit of Happiness by these reprobates.

The reprobates would have you believe that each singular denial is “unimportant” and does not impede homosexuals from meaningful access to the economic marketplace. But just as such people are moral reprobates, they are also liars.

It should be readily apparent to any intelligent and decent human being that such deprivation of rights were dismissed with the same false rationale 100 years ago.

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can get a job somewhere else.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can get clothing somewhere else.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can buy his food somewhere else.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can get that medicine for his nigger kid somewhere else.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can find another restaurant at which to eat.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can find somewhere else to live.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. He can rent a room in some other hotel.”

“I’m not impeding that nigger’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace. It’s my right not sell a car to a nigger.”

And on and on the justifications go.

So what was the end result of all these actions that “didn’t” impede black Americans from meaningful access to the economic marketplace? It forced black Americans to live as an economic underclass for 100 years while white men claimed each denial was “unimportant” and “did no harm”. The effect was as “the death of a thousand cuts”; one cut does almost nothing, but a thousand kills. Every time a white man impeded a black man’s meaningful access to the economic marketplace he’d claim it was such a small thing it didn’t matter and you should shut about it and respect his rights. And the progeny of those bigoted assholes are doing the same exact thing today, merely focusing their harm on a new unprotected group.

You will recall I began this article asking you when being “flicked” would rise to a level of justifying violence in defense of self or the filing of a battery complaint with the police. We discussed that though 50 flicks may be your personal threshold, the act of a single flick must be considered “battery” or else no wrong can be declared at 50 flicks. After all, 50 acts of non-battery equals no battery. Likewise, a single denial of access to the economic marketplace is a deprivation of the right to Pursue Happiness. To hold otherwise is to say there is no deprivation of the right of Pursuit of Happiness when the denials are in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions. Our own national history has repeatedly proven that to be a corrupt and fallacious view parroted by bigots and the unintelligent.

Bigots and the unintelligent cry, “But what about my right of free association? You can’t force me to associate with someone against my will!” Such pathetic claims are specious and irrelevant. Such claims are put forth as a supposed defense by those who see unalienable rights in a crass, Neanderthal-like, self-serving paradigm. It is a grotesque perversion of the true ideal of liberty.

Let’s set the record straight right here and now: No claim of a right can be used as a defense for violating another man’s rights. No right possessed by one person has the authority to deprive or impede the rights of another person. Phrased another way, once it has been established that a particular action violates or impedes an unalienable right of others, one loses the prerogative to claim his rights allow him to do so. Such is the argument of bigots and fools who wish to spout off about liberty with their mouths, while rejecting it by their actions. It is the cry of those who practice the corrupt “For me, not thee” version of liberty.

There simply is no Pursuit of Happiness in any meaningful sense when one is impeded from enjoying access to the economic marketplace on an equal footing with all others. Accordingly, impeding anyone’s access to the economic marketplace on equal footing with all others – even once – is both “harm” (in an incredibly real sense) and a violation of that person’s unalienable rights. And since the only legitimate role of government is to secure the rights of The People, those who would deny others free and open access to the economic marketplace on equal footing with all others are a proper target for the coercive remedy of the law.

https://davechampionsliberty.com/2016/0 ... itutional/



User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:51 pm

This is an old article from Dave Champions. It's interesting to see a liberty argument being made for anti-discrimination laws. I disagree with him on a few points.

First the pervasiveness of the issue post Civil war wasn't simply a matter of individuals making discriminatory market place decisions, it's often presented this way, but it is historically inaccurate. Jim Crow was a series of laws that prevented White Americans and Americans of Color from fairly competing in the same market place. In fact, in the states where these laws did not exist there was still indvidual discrimination but American's of Color still found access to the market place. Markets are not friendly to nonsensical discrimination.

Second, he mistaken access to the market for access to do business with a specific vendor. These are not the same thing unless we allow monopolies to form. In a truly competitive marketplace someone being discriminated against has access to the same market through other vendors. This is just one example of why monopolies are such a danger to capitalism.

Finally his use of harm here is a little too broad. No one is harmed because they can not buy a cake from a particular bakery. Some may argue the emotional harm of being annoyed or disappointed, but no one is responsible for our emotions but ourselves. Freedom does not give us the right to control others and eliminate anything that we fine unpleasant. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion no one could do anything for the danger that someone else might find that behavior annoying.

All of that being said, this is something I struggle with. I don't want to see people discriminated against in the market place and would not knowingly do business with anyone who did so. At the same time I think freedom of association matters. I don't want to be forced to associate with people I find distasteful, how can I force others to do so when I disagree with their assessment? That being said, I can understand making an exception for those things that are innate in us, like age, race and disabilities. I have a hard time finding room to make such an exception when the behavior involves a choice, like who we chose to date, or the religion we follow.

User avatar
eponymousbosch?^
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 3007 times
Been thanked: 2976 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by eponymousbosch?^ » Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:26 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:51 pm
This is an old article from Dave Champions. It's interesting to see a liberty argument being made for anti-discrimination laws. I disagree with him on a few points.

First the pervasiveness of the issue post Civil war wasn't simply a matter of individuals making discriminatory market place decisions, it's often presented this way, but it is historically inaccurate. Jim Crow was a series of laws that prevented White Americans and Americans of Color from fairly competing in the same market place. In fact, in the states where these laws did not exist there was still indvidual discrimination but American's of Color still found access to the market place. Markets are not friendly to nonsensical discrimination.

Second, he mistaken access to the market for access to do business with a specific vendor. These are not the same thing unless we allow monopolies to form. In a truly competitive marketplace someone being discriminated against has access to the same market through other vendors. This is just one example of why monopolies are such a danger to capitalism.

Finally his use of harm here is a little too broad. No one is harmed because they can not buy a cake from a particular bakery. Some may argue the emotional harm of being annoyed or disappointed, but no one is responsible for our emotions but ourselves. Freedom does not give us the right to control others and eliminate anything that we fine unpleasant. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion no one could do anything for the danger that someone else might find that behavior annoying.

All of that being said, this is something I struggle with. I don't want to see people discriminated against in the market place and would not knowingly do business with anyone who did so. At the same time I think freedom of association matters. I don't want to be forced to associate with people I find distasteful, how can I force others to do so when I disagree with their assessment? That being said, I can understand making an exception for those things that are innate in us, like age, race and disabilities. I have a hard time finding room to make such an exception when the behavior involves a choice, like who we chose to date, or the religion we follow.
The competitive nature of American Capitalism usually manifests itself in an environment of winners and losers. When an entity becomes a valuable market asset, it may become a target of acquisition by merging, or hostile take-over. That entity might also grow into a monopoly, which might end up also as a target of regulatory intervention. The enterprise either prevails enough to be imperious to encroachment, or becomes overwhelmed by attrition or predation.
The Market is a battlefield.
Chambers of Commerce are zones of armistice, where local competitive merchants, of whom cannot cancel each other out, decide to combine to control any other market participants from becoming a mutual threat. That is a particular seed of market dominance, which flowers into the job markets as well. After the end of the Civil War, northern industrial states ended up facing an interstate migration of freed slaves, of whom wanted to flee enduring racism, and find more financial opportunity. The migrations also flowed west as well. Such an exodus alarmed established communities, of which were already centers of destination for overseas immigration. As freed southern slaves were immediately identifiable by skin color, they were also easily targeted as unwelcome by local established communities.
One may remember the first scene of 2001-A Space Odyssey; two tribes fighting over the water hole......neither tribe would tolerate the company of the other, so only one would prevail.
Racism is a factor of competition. Variants of a particular species, not to mention competition between different species hold up as a particular storm of nature. What Human Nature manifests itself as, would need to find balance in the interests of procuring a stable society. Diversity is thought of as a condition for harmony, yet differences in various cultures still offer a probability of discord in a shared environment.
Harm within a community (local, or global) had deeper roots, than branches. Whatever lies possible as a solution, may cause more harm than the effects towards such a goal.
The challenge seems to be how to avoid the Cancer for the cure.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:06 pm

eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:26 pm
The competitive nature of American Capitalism usually manifests itself in an environment of winners and losers. When an entity becomes a valuable market asset, it may become a target of acquisition by merging, or hostile take-over. That entity might also grow into a monopoly, which might end up also as a target of regulatory intervention.
This is why Adam Smith called monopolies the greatest threat to capitalism and why it is a necessary role of goverment to prevent them. Part of the issue we have is that instead of preventing monopolies our government often supports them. Most often indirectly, but they do it directly as well.

I have seem some argue that monopolies can not exist without goverment intervention. I'm not so convinced this is the case, but I do know that a government supported democracy is even more damaging then one that arrives naturally.
eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:26 pm
Diversity is thought of as a condition for harmony, yet differences in various cultures still offer a probability of discord in a shared environment.


This is why you can not have diversity with out true liberty. This also means that sometimes we have to allow things that make us uncomfortable. Note there is a difference between allowing something and supporting it.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:40 pm

When you think about it. We are refighting The Civil War today. It's not a coincidence that both Johnson, and Trump, are both impeached presidents, and that the root of the problem for both, is the economics of bigotry.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:43 pm

The root problem? Why how to maintain wealth gap status quo, of course.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:35 pm

Image

1NewDay
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:20 am
Location: A Planet near you.
Has thanked: 648 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by 1NewDay » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:51 pm
This is an old article from Dave Champions. It's interesting to see a liberty argument being made for anti-discrimination laws. I disagree with him on a few points.

First the pervasiveness of the issue post Civil war wasn't simply a matter of individuals making discriminatory market place decisions, it's often presented this way, but it is historically inaccurate. Jim Crow was a series of laws that prevented White Americans and Americans of Color from fairly competing in the same market place. In fact, in the states where these laws did not exist there was still indvidual discrimination but American's of Color still found access to the market place. Markets are not friendly to nonsensical discrimination.

Second, he mistaken access to the market for access to do business with a specific vendor. These are not the same thing unless we allow monopolies to form. In a truly competitive marketplace someone being discriminated against has access to the same market through other vendors. This is just one example of why monopolies are such a danger to capitalism.

Finally his use of harm here is a little too broad. No one is harmed because they can not buy a cake from a particular bakery. Some may argue the emotional harm of being annoyed or disappointed, but no one is responsible for our emotions but ourselves. Freedom does not give us the right to control others and eliminate anything that we fine unpleasant. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion no one could do anything for the danger that someone else might find that behavior annoying.

All of that being said, this is something I struggle with. I don't want to see people discriminated against in the market place and would not knowingly do business with anyone who did so. At the same time I think freedom of association matters. I don't want to be forced to associate with people I find distasteful, how can I force others to do so when I disagree with their assessment? That being said, I can understand making an exception for those things that are innate in us, like age, race and disabilities. I have a hard time finding room to make such an exception when the behavior involves a choice, like who we chose to date, or the religion we follow.
A few thoughts on the article and your expressed views.

First off, we need to make a distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The first, The Declaration of Independence, is a statement of justifying an otherwise illegal rebellion and a declaration of the Revolutionary War which had been in progress for nearly a year. The Declaration was a product of the 2nd Continental Congress, at the same time they worked on the Articles of Confederation. The final draft of the Articles of Confederation was completed about a year later And 12 states had ratified it in just a bit over a year later. That served as the Law of the Land from that point forward.

The 2nd document, the Constitution, is a document specifying the details of the government put into place to replace the former British Colonial Law and the subsequent Articles of Confederation. British Colonial law governed the people of the British Colonies, in what is now the United States. At the dawn of the Revolution, the Articles of the Confederation took over during the Revolution. The Constitution is the governing document of the United States, the Law of the Land. It was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, which had proved to be highly lacking in the way of a workable central government. Although the Declaration of Independence provides some context for the Constitution, as do the Articles of Confederation, it is not the law.

The term, "Pursuit of Happiness", is a concept. But it is overstating it to say that it is some sort of right guaranteed by the Constitution. It provides context for what is written in the Constitution, but the term does not appear there. In the Constitution, the preamble provides some background about its purpose.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Many people use the language of the Declaration of Independence as if it were a part of the Constitution and part of the Law of the Land. It is not. It's a reference document, much as the published words of Jefferson and founders, are reference documents that can be interpreted to provide context for what was actually included in the Constitution. That is a problem with the article which seems based more on the words of the Declaration of Independence, than the Constitution. We are not legally bound to any language in the Declaration of Independence.

The reality is that the "Pursuit of Happiness" is a rather vague term and "Happiness" is something very relative to a person's desires. Happiness might be to achieve control of all slave trade or many other personal goals that might otherwise be inconsistent with what others might interpret as an unalienable right, by the individual. In many ways, the "Pursuit of Happiness" and "Liberty", could easily be interpreted as a right to do what any individual might want to do. I believe there was good reason to use such a broad and vague term in the Declaration of Independence. What better way to get many people to fight with you in a rebellion against the ruling power? Who would not sign up for a goal of pursuing happiness? Very easy to individualize and then say, "Yeah, I want some of that."

But because it is so broad and vague, it's probably not a very useful term to use when defining how the new governing power would work. Take a relatively small number of people and you can almost be assured that your "right to pursue happiness" will infringe on someone else's pursuit of happiness. It shouldn't take a lot of thought to see why the phrase was not included in the Constitution. But many people do not even realize that it's not a part of the Constitution. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is most certainly not an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.

One needs to look at the time that transpired between the words, "The Pursuit of Happiness" being enshrined in the Declaration, the arguably failed Articles of Confederation, through to the ratification of the Constitution. But the words stick with us as a profound concept and as some sort of unalienable right. But when you put in in the complete context of the time and in light of the evolution, from Revolution to the Constitution as the Law of the Land, it might be closer associated with a modern marketing slogan. I don't mean to make light of it as a admirable conceptual principle, but it often garners way too much attention and authority today, as a guiding principle.

It is noteworthy that the phrase has been used in Amicus briefs before the courts and in arguing cases for Constitutionality, but I know of no Supreme Court ruling that hinges on the phrase, as it is not a part of the Constitution. It has indeed been mentioned in Court opinions, as have the words of many founders and even excerpts from the Articles of Confederation, in order to support an opinion and bring some historical context to it.

It is no wonder that in its original context, it was highly successful in uniting the people of the Colonies, into conducting a motivated revolution against the ruling British government. And it is no wonder that today, it remains a concept that appeals to virtually everyone. But that is based on the simple fact that it is easy to individualize the concept into something that is highly desirable to the individuals who interpret its meaning to their own desires.

Although the article makes some convincing arguments as to the "Pursuit of Happiness", it makes a fundamental mistake of equating it to a Constitutional right. In that regard, it should come as no surprise that institutional discrimination has existed for generations and can only be protected against by the passing of specific laws or to be specifically addressed in a Constitutional Amendment. And even then, it can only be effective, if vigorously enforced. Ironically, one reason for that, can be the very individualized interpretation of what is the "pursuit of happiness". No doubt, those who discriminate are pursuing their own personal interpretation of happiness.

I think it is interesting that one objection to the original draft of the Constitution, was that individual rights and the rights of local/state governments, was too vague and potentially too broad, as to be subject to personal interpretation or the interpretation of the ruling power at any point in time. To a number of the framers, that vagueness and generality, was seen as a desirable, idealistic value. But overall, everyone saw in that, a different vision of where it could lead to. In the end, there was consensus that there was great value in spelling out some very key individual rights. And thus the Bill of Rights, in the form of the first ten Amendments, was adopted.

You can make a good argument today, that the Bill of Rights, was a very good idea and over 200 plus years, the need for additional Amendments, was relatively small. Through those years, Court decisions have further defined the interpretation of those rights and through the principle of Stare Decisis, these have become a part of the law of the land. The 1st Amendment is one of the most often expanded of all the Bill of Rights Amendments.

The Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Of course, when challenged, it is ultimately the courts which determine what and what is not included in these unenumerated rights.

You mention the right of free association. This is not an enumerated right, but one that has been endorsed by the courts across a variety of applications, stemming from multiple cases. The vast majority of cases have defined freedom of association under the 1st Amendment with some support under the due process clause, depending on the individual case. The precedent set by these decisions, fundamentally become an accepted part of the law, but only in relatively narrowly focused circumstances. The reach of such decisions tend to expand over time as additional cases make their way through the courts.

An interesting component in the situation you describe has a couple sides to it. On the one hand, on an individual private basis, one has a 1st Amendment individual right to free association. But on a public basis it's a bit different because it could be considered a function of government to regulate business. The Constitution has two aspects to protecting rights and freedoms. Individuals have rights as individuals, but the Constitution is also something that limits the reach of government in some cases. Because businesses which serve the public are generally regulated by some form of government and usually require some sort of licensing, the business has a public role different from purely private decisions and private transactions.

Arguably, as a private individual, one has a right to discriminate. However, I believe that the restrictions can and should be different for a public facing business. As the owner of a business, you are subject to government restriction and regulation in order to receive permission to operate as a business. The rules and regulations that cover businesses are designed to provide protections for the public. Likewise, if you are a business, you have some advantages provided to you by the government. For example, tax laws that allow different deductions and tax rates. Additionally, you have some advantages of public services that tax payer dollars provide to you, which are different from what a private citizen gets.

As a business, you are generally prohibited from discriminating by race. These are restrictions that have been codified into laws. But as a private citizen, you can choose to discriminate by refusing entry into your private home on racial, gender, sexual preference grounds or any other reason that is otherwise protected in public. It seems to me that there is a clear distinction between private citizen and public facing businesses serving the public. I believe that extending individual rights to businesses, is a misguided approach. It's also somewhat inconsistent with other restrictions on businesses against discriminatory practices, frequently applied and prohibited by law.

That said, even though gay marriage is now legal nationally, we are a long way from guaranteeing equal rights for those in the LGBTQ community. Much as women won the right to vote, coming up on 100 years ago, gender equality is still not in the Constitution. It was 1923 when the ERA was first proposed. But it has never been ratified. States and some federal laws have helped to close some of the equality gap, however it still exists.

Ultimately, for the situation you refer to, it may take a Constitutional Amendment or at least specific laws that prohibit such discrimination. In reality, this is much what the article spoke of, occurring for generations until the laws prohibited it and as importantly, enforced the compliance with the laws. Constitutional Amendments aren't easy to achieve, particularity when the individuals needing protections are looked down on by a significant portion of the population. Getting well written, inclusive laws written can be difficult too as people with power in opposition to change, can do a lot to stop laws from being enacted.Court rulings take time and effort too and often the rulings are fairly narrow in scope pertaining to a specific case. Personally, I would like to see an Amendment that sets a clear line between individual rights being awarded to individuals only while excluding such rights from businesses and organizations. This would help with a number of issues including institutionalized discrimination and things like campaign financing, which ultimately allows people in power to achieve even more power by using the influence of their money.

The reality is that most people fully understand that there is appropriate behavior in public and this potentially varies significantly, to what is acceptable behavior in private and/or one's home. I also think that when someone owns or runs a business, open to the public, they should be held to a different standard of behavior, than in their private, personal lives. I don't buy the idea that a business is just an extension of one's private life. There are societal norms, some of which are laws about how we behave in public vs. in private.

If you want to go naked in the privacy of your home, that's up to you and it might even be some part of your religious beliefs. But if you are waiting at a bus stop naked or running a lunch counter naked, you are not only violating societal norms, but you are most likely breaking a law.

You might say that there is no religion that sees nudity as part of their belief, but I'll counter with the fact that religious beliefs are personal and the government is prohibited from ruling on or making laws on the legitimacy of religious belief. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In reality, the 1st Amendment allows us to hold any beliefs we so desire, but civil law may prohibit acting on these beliefs. Human sacrifice was once a common part of some religious beliefs. Jihad is a part of religious belief held by billions of people across the world. Polygamy is still a common religious belief. But you can't act on these beliefs in a way that violates civil laws. If I have a deeply held belief that redheads are a manifestation of the Devil, should I be able to refuse to serve them in my business? Or ban them from entering my place of business? Seems to me that if I have beliefs that prevent me from associating with any particular group of people in my private life, than I probably should not run a business that is open to the public.

User avatar
eponymousbosch?^
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 3007 times
Been thanked: 2976 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by eponymousbosch?^ » Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:06 pm

1NewDay wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:51 pm
This is an old article from Dave Champions. It's interesting to see a liberty argument being made for anti-discrimination laws. I disagree with him on a few points.

First the pervasiveness of the issue post Civil war wasn't simply a matter of individuals making discriminatory market place decisions, it's often presented this way, but it is historically inaccurate. Jim Crow was a series of laws that prevented White Americans and Americans of Color from fairly competing in the same market place. In fact, in the states where these laws did not exist there was still indvidual discrimination but American's of Color still found access to the market place. Markets are not friendly to nonsensical discrimination.

Second, he mistaken access to the market for access to do business with a specific vendor. These are not the same thing unless we allow monopolies to form. In a truly competitive marketplace someone being discriminated against has access to the same market through other vendors. This is just one example of why monopolies are such a danger to capitalism.

Finally his use of harm here is a little too broad. No one is harmed because they can not buy a cake from a particular bakery. Some may argue the emotional harm of being annoyed or disappointed, but no one is responsible for our emotions but ourselves. Freedom does not give us the right to control others and eliminate anything that we fine unpleasant. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion no one could do anything for the danger that someone else might find that behavior annoying.

All of that being said, this is something I struggle with. I don't want to see people discriminated against in the market place and would not knowingly do business with anyone who did so. At the same time I think freedom of association matters. I don't want to be forced to associate with people I find distasteful, how can I force others to do so when I disagree with their assessment? That being said, I can understand making an exception for those things that are innate in us, like age, race and disabilities. I have a hard time finding room to make such an exception when the behavior involves a choice, like who we chose to date, or the religion we follow.
A few thoughts on the article and your expressed views.

First off, we need to make a distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The first, The Declaration of Independence, is a statement of justifying an otherwise illegal rebellion and a declaration of the Revolutionary War which had been in progress for nearly a year. The Declaration was a product of the 2nd Continental Congress, at the same time they worked on the Articles of Confederation. The final draft of the Articles of Confederation was completed about a year later And 12 states had ratified it in just a bit over a year later. That served as the Law of the Land from that point forward.

The 2nd document, the Constitution, is a document specifying the details of the government put into place to replace the former British Colonial Law and the subsequent Articles of Confederation. British Colonial law governed the people of the British Colonies, in what is now the United States. At the dawn of the Revolution, the Articles of the Confederation took over during the Revolution. The Constitution is the governing document of the United States, the Law of the Land. It was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, which had proved to be highly lacking in the way of a workable central government. Although the Declaration of Independence provides some context for the Constitution, as do the Articles of Confederation, it is not the law.

The term, "Pursuit of Happiness", is a concept. But it is overstating it to say that it is some sort of right guaranteed by the Constitution. It provides context for what is written in the Constitution, but the term does not appear there. In the Constitution, the preamble provides some background about its purpose.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Many people use the language of the Declaration of Independence as if it were a part of the Constitution and part of the Law of the Land. It is not. It's a reference document, much as the published words of Jefferson and founders, are reference documents that can be interpreted to provide context for what was actually included in the Constitution. That is a problem with the article which seems based more on the words of the Declaration of Independence, than the Constitution. We are not legally bound to any language in the Declaration of Independence.

The reality is that the "Pursuit of Happiness" is a rather vague term and "Happiness" is something very relative to a person's desires. Happiness might be to achieve control of all slave trade or many other personal goals that might otherwise be inconsistent with what others might interpret as an unalienable right, by the individual. In many ways, the "Pursuit of Happiness" and "Liberty", could easily be interpreted as a right to do what any individual might want to do. I believe there was good reason to use such a broad and vague term in the Declaration of Independence. What better way to get many people to fight with you in a rebellion against the ruling power? Who would not sign up for a goal of pursuing happiness? Very easy to individualize and then say, "Yeah, I want some of that."

But because it is so broad and vague, it's probably not a very useful term to use when defining how the new governing power would work. Take a relatively small number of people and you can almost be assured that your "right to pursue happiness" will infringe on someone else's pursuit of happiness. It shouldn't take a lot of thought to see why the phrase was not included in the Constitution. But many people do not even realize that it's not a part of the Constitution. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is most certainly not an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.

One needs to look at the time that transpired between the words, "The Pursuit of Happiness" being enshrined in the Declaration, the arguably failed Articles of Confederation, through to the ratification of the Constitution. But the words stick with us as a profound concept and as some sort of unalienable right. But when you put in in the complete context of the time and in light of the evolution, from Revolution to the Constitution as the Law of the Land, it might be closer associated with a modern marketing slogan. I don't mean to make light of it as a admirable conceptual principle, but it often garners way too much attention and authority today, as a guiding principle.

It is noteworthy that the phrase has been used in Amicus briefs before the courts and in arguing cases for Constitutionality, but I know of no Supreme Court ruling that hinges on the phrase, as it is not a part of the Constitution. It has indeed been mentioned in Court opinions, as have the words of many founders and even excerpts from the Articles of Confederation, in order to support an opinion and bring some historical context to it.

It is no wonder that in its original context, it was highly successful in uniting the people of the Colonies, into conducting a motivated revolution against the ruling British government. And it is no wonder that today, it remains a concept that appeals to virtually everyone. But that is based on the simple fact that it is easy to individualize the concept into something that is highly desirable to the individuals who interpret its meaning to their own desires.

Although the article makes some convincing arguments as to the "Pursuit of Happiness", it makes a fundamental mistake of equating it to a Constitutional right. In that regard, it should come as no surprise that institutional discrimination has existed for generations and can only be protected against by the passing of specific laws or to be specifically addressed in a Constitutional Amendment. And even then, it can only be effective, if vigorously enforced. Ironically, one reason for that, can be the very individualized interpretation of what is the "pursuit of happiness". No doubt, those who discriminate are pursuing their own personal interpretation of happiness.

I think it is interesting that one objection to the original draft of the Constitution, was that individual rights and the rights of local/state governments, was too vague and potentially too broad, as to be subject to personal interpretation or the interpretation of the ruling power at any point in time. To a number of the framers, that vagueness and generality, was seen as a desirable, idealistic value. But overall, everyone saw in that, a different vision of where it could lead to. In the end, there was consensus that there was great value in spelling out some very key individual rights. And thus the Bill of Rights, in the form of the first ten Amendments, was adopted.

You can make a good argument today, that the Bill of Rights, was a very good idea and over 200 plus years, the need for additional Amendments, was relatively small. Through those years, Court decisions have further defined the interpretation of those rights and through the principle of Stare Decisis, these have become a part of the law of the land. The 1st Amendment is one of the most often expanded of all the Bill of Rights Amendments.

The Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Of course, when challenged, it is ultimately the courts which determine what and what is not included in these unenumerated rights.

You mention the right of free association. This is not an enumerated right, but one that has been endorsed by the courts across a variety of applications, stemming from multiple cases. The vast majority of cases have defined freedom of association under the 1st Amendment with some support under the due process clause, depending on the individual case. The precedent set by these decisions, fundamentally become an accepted part of the law, but only in relatively narrowly focused circumstances. The reach of such decisions tend to expand over time as additional cases make their way through the courts.

An interesting component in the situation you describe has a couple sides to it. On the one hand, on an individual private basis, one has a 1st Amendment individual right to free association. But on a public basis it's a bit different because it could be considered a function of government to regulate business. The Constitution has two aspects to protecting rights and freedoms. Individuals have rights as individuals, but the Constitution is also something that limits the reach of government in some cases. Because businesses which serve the public are generally regulated by some form of government and usually require some sort of licensing, the business has a public role different from purely private decisions and private transactions.

Arguably, as a private individual, one has a right to discriminate. However, I believe that the restrictions can and should be different for a public facing business. As the owner of a business, you are subject to government restriction and regulation in order to receive permission to operate as a business. The rules and regulations that cover businesses are designed to provide protections for the public. Likewise, if you are a business, you have some advantages provided to you by the government. For example, tax laws that allow different deductions and tax rates. Additionally, you have some advantages of public services that tax payer dollars provide to you, which are different from what a private citizen gets.

As a business, you are generally prohibited from discriminating by race. These are restrictions that have been codified into laws. But as a private citizen, you can choose to discriminate by refusing entry into your private home on racial, gender, sexual preference grounds or any other reason that is otherwise protected in public. It seems to me that there is a clear distinction between private citizen and public facing businesses serving the public. I believe that extending individual rights to businesses, is a misguided approach. It's also somewhat inconsistent with other restrictions on businesses against discriminatory practices, frequently applied and prohibited by law.

That said, even though gay marriage is now legal nationally, we are a long way from guaranteeing equal rights for those in the LGBTQ community. Much as women won the right to vote, coming up on 100 years ago, gender equality is still not in the Constitution. It was 1923 when the ERA was first proposed. But it has never been ratified. States and some federal laws have helped to close some of the equality gap, however it still exists.

Ultimately, for the situation you refer to, it may take a Constitutional Amendment or at least specific laws that prohibit such discrimination. In reality, this is much what the article spoke of, occurring for generations until the laws prohibited it and as importantly, enforced the compliance with the laws. Constitutional Amendments aren't easy to achieve, particularity when the individuals needing protections are looked down on by a significant portion of the population. Getting well written, inclusive laws written can be difficult too as people with power in opposition to change, can do a lot to stop laws from being enacted.Court rulings take time and effort too and often the rulings are fairly narrow in scope pertaining to a specific case. Personally, I would like to see an Amendment that sets a clear line between individual rights being awarded to individuals only while excluding such rights from businesses and organizations. This would help with a number of issues including institutionalized discrimination and things like campaign financing, which ultimately allows people in power to achieve even more power by using the influence of their money.

The reality is that most people fully understand that there is appropriate behavior in public and this potentially varies significantly, to what is acceptable behavior in private and/or one's home. I also think that when someone owns or runs a business, open to the public, they should be held to a different standard of behavior, than in their private, personal lives. I don't buy the idea that a business is just an extension of one's private life. There are societal norms, some of which are laws about how we behave in public vs. in private.

If you want to go naked in the privacy of your home, that's up to you and it might even be some part of your religious beliefs. But if you are waiting at a bus stop naked or running a lunch counter naked, you are not only violating societal norms, but you are most likely breaking a law.

You might say that there is no religion that sees nudity as part of their belief, but I'll counter with the fact that religious beliefs are personal and the government is prohibited from ruling on or making laws on the legitimacy of religious belief. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In reality, the 1st Amendment allows us to hold any beliefs we so desire, but civil law may prohibit acting on these beliefs. Human sacrifice was once a common part of some religious beliefs. Jihad is a part of religious belief held by billions of people across the world. Polygamy is still a common religious belief. But you can't act on these beliefs in a way that violates civil laws. If I have a deeply held belief that redheads are a manifestation of the Devil, should I be able to refuse to serve them in my business? Or ban them from entering my place of business? Seems to me that if I have beliefs that prevent me from associating with any particular group of people in my private life, than I probably should not run a business that is open to the public.
I am happy to point out that "pursuit of happiness" may be interpreted as a luxury of convenience. I am more attracted to the concept of the Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm, than The Golden Rule, which seems to me to be more of a contractual deal which favors the one asking for it.

1NewDay
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:20 am
Location: A Planet near you.
Has thanked: 648 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by 1NewDay » Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:28 am

eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:06 pm
1NewDay wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:51 pm
A few thoughts on the article and your expressed views....
I am happy to point out that "pursuit of happiness" may be interpreted as a luxury of convenience. I am more attracted to the concept of the Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm, than The Golden Rule, which seems to me to be more of a contractual deal which favors the one asking for it.
"The Pursuit of Happiness", can have some widely varied interpretations. In the context of the Declaration of Independence, it was something that governments should provide to their people.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

As to the Hippocratic Oath, in it's original context it's about a guideline for practicing medicine as it relates to dealing with a patient. I think you could apply it to interpersonal relationships with other individuals, but it doesn't fit too well as a role of government. Take the abolition of slavery. It was most definitely the right thing to do. But clearly the slave owners were significantly harmed and arguably their pursuit of happiness was greatly disrupted. In the long run, it was better for the slaves' pursuits of happiness. It was also a step toward following the principle that "all men are created equal". Do no harm sounds good, but there's a lot of situations where it just doesn't apply.

"The Golden Rule", is a good approach as to how you deal with others, whether it's transactional based or not. One can still give like they would like to get in return, but there's no guarantee. When you adopt that approach, you give regardless of what you get back. But again, it doesn't really apply as a principle of government.

Obviously, the way we all behave with each other, is important. But the principles our government follows in its role of governing, is critical to how well things work. By establishing individual rights, freedoms and norms for the society, it helps establish a reasonable baseline of how we should interact with each other.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:35 pm

1NewDay wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am
The term, "Pursuit of Happiness", is a concept. But it is overstating it to say that it is some sort of right guaranteed by the Constitution. It provides context for what is written in the Constitution, but the term does not appear there. In the Constitution, the preamble provides some background about its purpose.
That is a very good point. It's also worth noting that the Pursuit of Happiness even of guaranteed is not the same thing as achieving happiness. True happiness is a very personal thing and has more to do with your approch to your life then outside forces. No one can guarantee this but you. To put it another way the right to pursue happiness is not the same as a promise of being happy.
1NewDay wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am
You mention the right of free association.
Freedom of association is a logical outgrowth of the freedom of assembly. The freedom of assembly includes the right to decide when I assemble and who I assemble with. This is sometimes abbreviated as the "freedom of association". Think of it as similar to the fact that the freedom of speech also implies the freedom to ideas. One can not logically exist without the other.
1NewDay wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:38 am
But on a public basis it's a bit different because it could be considered a function of government to regulate business.
This is actual one of the primary examples of legislating from the bench. The Constitutional clause that gives the federal government authority over business is Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Note that this clause specifically talks of commerce that happens between states not whiten a single state. The courts later decided to extend it to the commerce whiten a given state even though that is clear not what the clause says. This has become very problematic. If laws means whatever the courts want it to mean then law makers are irreverent and we live in a Kritarchy. Of course most people are okay with that when they get their way from the courts, they don't see it as an issue unless the courts rule against them.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Eryk » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:26 pm

I missed this discussion. I enjoy 4E debates.

The article overall was good, the author made excellent points. But time and time again I find that when someone needs to make a strongly worded argument, it means they are about to expose a weakness in their argument.
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:38 pm
The reprobates would have you believe that each singular denial is “unimportant” and does not impede homosexuals from meaningful access to the economic marketplace. But just as such people are moral reprobates, they are also liars.

It should be readily apparent to any intelligent and decent human being that such deprivation of rights were dismissed with the same false rationale 100 years ago.
The author calls people who disagrees reprobates, makes the presumption that they are liars and then insists that his point was confirmed by intelligent people 100 years ago. Then it puts them on the same moral footing as those who would use the n word.

This isn’t a slam dunk argument one way or another. You can’t just dismiss a bakers right to NOT bake a cake, a preachers right NOT to marry someone, a doctors right NOT to preform surgery, a beauticians right NOT to shave a woman’s testicles, and an athletes right NOT to get punched in the face because smart people decided this 100 years ago.

We can’t be so rigid and we need to make exceptions for an extraordinary set of circumstances. A doctor refusing to treat gender dysphoria with surgery is on another level than a pharmacist refusing to sell drugs to someone because of how they look. There is nuance. You shouldn’t over simplify.

User avatar
eponymousbosch?^
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 3007 times
Been thanked: 2976 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by eponymousbosch?^ » Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:52 pm

Eryk wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:26 pm
I missed this discussion. I enjoy 4E debates.

The article overall was good, the author made excellent points. But time and time again I find that when someone needs to make a strongly worded argument, it means they are about to expose a weakness in their argument.
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:38 pm
The reprobates would have you believe that each singular denial is “unimportant” and does not impede homosexuals from meaningful access to the economic marketplace. But just as such people are moral reprobates, they are also liars.

It should be readily apparent to any intelligent and decent human being that such deprivation of rights were dismissed with the same false rationale 100 years ago.
The author calls people who disagrees reprobates, makes the presumption that they are liars and then insists that his point was confirmed by intelligent people 100 years ago. Then it puts them on the same moral footing as those who would use the n word.

This isn’t a slam dunk argument one way or another. You can’t just dismiss a bakers right to NOT bake a cake, a preachers right NOT to marry someone, a doctors right NOT to preform surgery, a beauticians right NOT to shave a woman’s testicles, and an athletes right NOT to get punched in the face because smart people decided this 100 years ago.

We can’t be so rigid and we need to make exceptions for an extraordinary set of circumstances. A doctor refusing to treat gender dysphoria with surgery is on another level than a pharmacist refusing to sell drugs to someone because of how they look. There is nuance. You shouldn’t over simplify.
Refusals to perform services in any context, especially health services, invites a onerous precedent. Need I say more?

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Eryk » Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:28 pm

eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:52 pm
Refusals to perform services in any context, especially health services, invites a onerous precedent. Need I say more?
If the service requires special consideration then no.

For example, a transexual with lung cancer is more/less the same as a non-transexual. No special consideration. So treatment is the same. If a doctor refused that would be discrimination.

However if a transexual wanted to change or remove sex organs. That would be special consideration and a treatment that a doctor might not agree with. I do not believe that to be discrimination.

Same with catering services. If a homosexual couple wants trays of pasta and salad, same as any other reception, then the catering service needs to comply since no special consideration is taking place. However if they want a baker to make a custom cake with a statue of two men. Or if a child wants a witch graphic on the cake and the baker thinks something dumb like it’s an evil Wiccan spirit or something. That’s special consideration.

User avatar
eponymousbosch?^
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 3007 times
Been thanked: 2976 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by eponymousbosch?^ » Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:22 pm

Eryk wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:28 pm
eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:52 pm
Refusals to perform services in any context, especially health services, invites a onerous precedent. Need I say more?
If the service requires special consideration then no.

For example, a transexual with lung cancer is more/less the same as a non-transexual. No special consideration. So treatment is the same. If a doctor refused that would be discrimination.

However if a transexual wanted to change or remove sex organs. That would be special consideration and a treatment that a doctor might not agree with. I do not believe that to be discrimination.

Same with catering services. If a homosexual couple wants trays of pasta and salad, same as any other reception, then the catering service needs to comply since no special consideration is taking place. However if they want a baker to make a custom cake with a statue of two men. Or if a child wants a witch graphic on the cake and the baker thinks something dumb like it’s an evil Wiccan spirit or something. That’s special consideration.
I think you're trading special considerations from patrons, to providers.
People of all stripes patronize providers which offer services. If a cosmetic surgeon refuses to perform genital surgery for a trans-sexual, yet performs any other surgery for anyone else the surgeon prefers, then that professional is discriminating against another through personal bias. And THAT is allowing special consideration in favor of bigotry.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Eryk » Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:44 pm

eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:22 pm
I think you're trading special considerations from patrons, to providers.
People of all stripes patronize providers which offer services. If a cosmetic surgeon refuses to perform genital surgery for a trans-sexual, yet performs any other surgery for anyone else the surgeon prefers, then that professional is discriminating against another through personal bias. And THAT is allowing special consideration in favor of bigotry.
If you want to look at it that way, then bigotry should remain legal under special circumstances. It doesn’t have to be right/wrong. Just legal.

Consider that special consideration isn’t cut and dry. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the government to decide what is right/wrong. At least not in America. Gender dysphoria and how to treat it isn’t settled science. However, what is considered politically correct supersedes what is scientific. You could be forcing doctors to do what is politically correct even if it goes against what they believe science is telling them. It’s authoritarian in nature. Progressives are authoritarian in nature generally speaking in my opinion. That’s not a bad thing. In communist China the government forced doctors to perform abortions even when the patient didn’t want the abortion because they would be in violation of the 1 child policy. To a progressive that might be the right thing to do for the greater good of the community.

User avatar
eponymousbosch?^
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 3007 times
Been thanked: 2976 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by eponymousbosch?^ » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:49 pm

Eryk wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:44 pm
eponymousbosch?^ wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:22 pm
I think you're trading special considerations from patrons, to providers.
People of all stripes patronize providers which offer services. If a cosmetic surgeon refuses to perform genital surgery for a trans-sexual, yet performs any other surgery for anyone else the surgeon prefers, then that professional is discriminating against another through personal bias. And THAT is allowing special consideration in favor of bigotry.
If you want to look at it that way, then bigotry should remain legal under special circumstances. It doesn’t have to be right/wrong. Just legal.

Consider that special consideration isn’t cut and dry. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the government to decide what is right/wrong. At least not in America. Gender dysphoria and how to treat it isn’t settled science. However, what is considered politically correct supersedes what is scientific. You could be forcing doctors to do what is politically correct even if it goes against what they believe science is telling them. It’s authoritarian in nature. Progressives are authoritarian in nature generally speaking in my opinion. That’s not a bad thing. In communist China the government forced doctors to perform abortions even when the patient didn’t want the abortion because they would be in violation of the 1 child policy. To a progressive that might be the right thing to do for the greater good of the community.
Okay, I'll bite..
Since customers take umbrage at being denied services out of social prejudice, while service providers exercise denial of services as an act of traditional American liberty, one might agree with your assertion that special considerations "aren't cut and dried". As Americans are generally protected from peculiar pathological acts of human behaviors by law, splitting hairs in the pursuit of prevailing within a debate over who's free to do what, flies in the face of legal and lawful solutions.
Social remedies are indeed much more an art, than a science, until enough empirical data is collected to analyze causes and effects. Anyone who decides to identify one topic of social perspective as either pro or con, when the premise is already biased falls into the trap of self-contradiction :mrgreen: :mrgreen: . And whether or not one self-identifies as a PC, a Socialist, a Progressive, or even a Liberal Nihilist, or end up being labeled as an entertaining mixture of them all, ends up becoming trapped in an absurd place within the collective social environment. It'a either a mindless train-wreck, or an intentional minefield.
bwaha…..

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Why Bigotry Extended into the Marketplace is Unconstitutional

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:59 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:38 pm
or file a battery report with the police?

It depends, on who does the flicking, and if that flick conveys a threat.
If a crime boss flicks my arm, it may well be assault.
In fact no touching is necessary for someone to be charged with assault.
As a defendant looks at a witness, and points his finger like a gun, the gesture conveys the idea of a threat.
That is assault.

Post Reply