Landmark night for civil rights

[sys]

Does a daycare owner have the right to discriminate against a jobseeker who is sexually oriented to small children (who has never acted on these urges, no criminal record)?  I sure hope so.

Good rough ridin' god, that isn't discrimination.  What the eff is "sexually oriented to small children?"  Each day I'm stunned as to how stupid can be.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/index.cfm

man, today's a high water mark for me disagreeing with mir.  that is discrimination, just socially acceptable (and legal) discrimination.  sexually oriented to small children clearly means someone who finds small children sexually attractive - not hard to parse.

[Tobias]

Does a daycare owner have the right to discriminate against a jobseeker who is sexually oriented to small children (who has never acted on these urges, no criminal record)?  I sure hope so.

Good rough ridin' god, that isn't discrimination.  What the eff is "sexually oriented to small children?"  Each day I'm stunned as to how stupid can be.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/index.cfm

man, today's a high water mark for me disagreeing with mir.  that is discrimination, just socially acceptable (and legal) discrimination.  sexually oriented to small children clearly means someone who finds small children sexually attractive - not hard to parse.

semantics error, yeah.  yes, "sexually oriented to small children" can be a class to discriminate against but not one afforded any protections by law

[Stevesie60]

The "being attracted to small children" is the argument that ignorant bigots use to say discrimination against homosexuals is okay. "What if in a few years a group of people comes about that is attracted to small children, and they want to marry them? Will there be a movement to make that legal too?" There is literally nothing that has made me more infuriated than when I heard that.

[star seed 7]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

[MakeItRain]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

Federal civil rights laws are applicable to housing access.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

[Fedor]

The "being attracted to small children" is the argument that ignorant bigots use to say discrimination against homosexuals is okay. "What if in a few years a group of people comes about that is attracted to small children, and they want to marry them? Will there be a movement to make that legal too?" There is literally nothing that has made me more infuriated than when I heard that.

Don't read into my post too much.  I was merely trying to counter MIR absolutism and elicit the inevitable rage post.

[Tobias]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

the civil rights act of 1968 applies to the sale, rental, and financing of housing.  have fun not selling candy bars to people in wheelchairs too.  your civil right in these instances is the right to non-discrimination based on status as a protected class, not the right to candy bars and condos

[star seed 7]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

Federal civil rights laws are applicable to housing access.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

only because the law states it.

kinda torn on nic's position.  i agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell you as a business or property owner who you have to do business with.  on the other hand, without previous laws, a lot of people would be at a disadvantage.

if i own a store, and a guy in a klan suit comes in, i'm gonna tell his ass to leave.  that's getting into choices vs. born that way arguements, but it's still discrimination.

[MakeItRain]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

Federal civil rights laws are applicable to housing access.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

only because the law states it.

kinda torn on nic's position.  i agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell you as a business or property owner who you have to do business with.  on the other hand, without previous laws, a lot of people would be at a disadvantage.

if i own a store, and a guy in a klan suit comes in, i'm gonna tell his ass to leave.  that's getting into choices vs. born that way arguements, but it's still discrimination.

So the premise that the country was founded on should be disregarded when writing our laws and guiding our moral compass?  We've spent the last 236 year's expanding the definition of man, don't think we should stop now.

[MakeItRain]

The "being attracted to small children" is the argument that ignorant bigots use to say discrimination against homosexuals is okay. "What if in a few years a group of people comes about that is attracted to small children, and they want to marry them? Will there be a movement to make that legal too?" There is literally nothing that has made me more infuriated than when I heard that.

Don't read into my post too much.  I was merely trying to counter MIR absolutism and elicit the inevitable rage post.

The rage was with the dumbass example, there has been plenty of conversation without rage.

[star seed 7]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

[nicname]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

Federal civil rights laws are applicable to housing access.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

only because the law states it.

kinda torn on nic's position.  i agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell you as a business or property owner who you have to do business with. on the other hand, without previous laws, a lot of people would be at a disadvantage.

if i own a store, and a guy in a klan suit comes in, i'm gonna tell his ass to leave.  that's getting into choices vs. born that way arguements, but it's still discrimination.

I'm a liar.  I said I wouldn't post again in this thread.  I agree with this and have stated that there are instances where laws probably needed to be instated to ease a transition to a society that would no longer see discrimination based on biological differences as acceptable.  Problem is most of those racially, etc. charged were brought about, not by the lack of regulation protecting peoples right to private mutual exchange, but by Government sanctioned intervention into not only private enterprise but education, health care, and the atrocity of one man being able to own another as well.  YO!

[nicname]

Also Fedor's post, WOOF!

[Stevesie60]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

Yes, because there is no way a minority has gone through life without being discriminated against. This is a measly attempt to make up for it. We should probably have jobs that are only for minorities, too.

[star seed 7]

so, now you are pro-discrimination?

[Stevesie60]

so, now you are pro-discrimination?

Of white people? Sure.

[MakeItRain]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

I must be thick because I don't know how anyone can understand the point of "people should be able to discriminate against anyone if they want to" but then acknowledge that no one in the history of this country has ever been afforded that right.  It's incongruous to what the country is.

Also why would you "guess I would say yes" to the question of whether or not minorities should be given preference like say scholarships?  I really want an answer to this question, it isn't rhetorical.  Every post I've made in this thread has been in the name of equality, so why would you think I'd take an inequitable stance here?

[star seed 7]

so, now you are pro-discrimination?

Of white people? Sure.

so a black guy doesn't want to rent out his place to white people, total cool right?

[nicname]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

Yes, because there is no way a minority has gone through life without being discriminated against. This is a measly attempt to make up for it. We should probably have jobs that are only for minorities, too.

 

[star seed 7]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

I must be thick because I don't know how anyone can understand the point of "people should be able to discriminate against anyone if they want to" but then acknowledge that no one in the history of this country has ever been afforded that right.  It's incongruous to what the country is.

Also why would you "guess I would say yes" to the question of whether or not minorities should be given preference like say scholarships?  I really want an answer to this question, it isn't rhetorical.  Every post I've made in this thread has been in the name of equality, so why would you think I'd take an inequitable stance here?

because you're super liberal guy.  liberals are generally supportive of affirmative action programs.

i was asking to get your answer, sorry if my assumption was incorrect.

[Tobias]

so, now you are pro-discrimination?

Of white people? Sure.

so a black guy doesn't want to rent out his place to white people, total cool right?

illegal.

[Tobias]

The "being attracted to small children" is the argument that ignorant bigots use to say discrimination against homosexuals is okay. "What if in a few years a group of people comes about that is attracted to small children, and they want to marry them? Will there be a movement to make that legal too?" There is literally nothing that has made me more infuriated than when I heard that.

Don't read into my post too much.  I was merely trying to counter MIR absolutism and elicit the inevitable rage post.

i'm fine with it as a troll post - just had no idea if it was serious or not 

[MakeItRain]

buying a candy bar and renting an apartment aren't civil rights.

Federal civil rights laws are applicable to housing access.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

only because the law states it.

kinda torn on nic's position.  i agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell you as a business or property owner who you have to do business with. on the other hand, without previous laws, a lot of people would be at a disadvantage.

if i own a store, and a guy in a klan suit comes in, i'm gonna tell his ass to leave.  that's getting into choices vs. born that way arguements, but it's still discrimination.

I'm a liar.  I said I wouldn't post again in this thread.  I agree with this and have stated that there are instances where laws probably needed to be instated to ease a transition to a society that would no longer see discrimination based on biological differences as acceptable.  Problem is most of those racially, etc. charged were brought about, not by the lack of regulation protecting peoples right to private mutual exchange, but by Government sanctioned intervention into not only private enterprise but education, health care, and the atrocity of one man being able to own another as well.  YO!

So if I'm reading this correctly you don't think people should have the right to discriminate.  Also the slavery example is in no way applicable when it comes to conversations of discrimination.  Man has never owned man in this country, slaves we're not viewed as people, they were property no different than a stove or a swather.  Since blacks were acknowledge as people and not property there have been some level of rights afforded.

Also I previously missed sevens Klansman example.  You are not discriminating against anyone if you don't allow someone to wear a Klan robe unless you think wearing Klan robes are part and parcel with being white, in which case you'd be wearing one too making said discrimination weird.  Not allowing Klan robes is no different than making someone wear a shirt.

Do we need a thread explaining what discrimination is?  Would make this thread flow better.

[MakeItRain]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

I must be thick because I don't know how anyone can understand the point of "people should be able to discriminate against anyone if they want to" but then acknowledge that no one in the history of this country has ever been afforded that right.  It's incongruous to what the country is.

Also why would you "guess I would say yes" to the question of whether or not minorities should be given preference like say scholarships?  I really want an answer to this question, it isn't rhetorical.  Every post I've made in this thread has been in the name of equality, so why would you think I'd take an inequitable stance here?

because you're super liberal guy.  liberals are generally supportive of affirmative action programs.

i was asking to get your answer, sorry if my assumption was incorrect.

1. That's an assumption and an odd one in the context of this thread.  Discrimination has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.
2. What you described and what you and Jakesie are discussing is not affirmative action.

[star seed 7]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

I must be thick because I don't know how anyone can understand the point of "people should be able to discriminate against anyone if they want to" but then acknowledge that no one in the history of this country has ever been afforded that right.  It's incongruous to what the country is.

Also why would you "guess I would say yes" to the question of whether or not minorities should be given preference like say scholarships?  I really want an answer to this question, it isn't rhetorical.  Every post I've made in this thread has been in the name of equality, so why would you think I'd take an inequitable stance here?

because you're super liberal guy.  liberals are generally supportive of affirmative action programs.

i was asking to get your answer, sorry if my assumption was incorrect.

1. That's an assumption and an odd one in the context of this thread.  Discrimination has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.
2. What you described and what you and Jakesie are discussing is not affirmative action.

i would say having race even be a factor in scholarships is discrimination, so it's well within the context of the thread.  you still haven't answered the question, so i don't know if my assumption is correct or not.  i asked simply because i want to know if you approve of other levels of discrimination, as long as minorities are the benefactor (as jakesie, and probably a lot of people, seem to think is alright).

i'm not trying to get into some sort of reverse discrimination debate, just wondering if your position is consistent.