It isn't possible to legislate humanity into pigs...but there can be laws that protect the rights of others from the actions of pigs...libertarians are terrified of laws that would alter their behavior (out of fear of punishment for violation of those laws) to behave in a human manner toward all people...it is so absurd to see people claiming to have a "human right" to discriminate against other human beings on the basis of the color of their skin...no you can't legislate humanity, but you can provide meaningful negative consequence to those who behave inhumanely to fellow human beings of a different race.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
No one disagrees with that. Doctors took the Hippocratic oath. Tailors, restaurateurs, and computer salesmen did not.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
When the views are inhumane, not serving humanity (which does include black people) then it applies to the inhumane actions of everyone equally, even communists...or even libertarians.
The actions matter, law governs behaviors, not a political affiliation.
A doctor can hate black people, but the ethical responsibility is to treat them is there...and if the doctor refuses on the basis of color...his license to practice should be revoked.
If a tailor, a restaurateur, a computer salesmen offer their services and products to the public...and then refuse to someone of color take part in their services or purchase their products...that isn't going to work out too well for the racist business owner.
Quote from phenomena:
No one disagrees with that. Doctors took the Hippocratic oath. Tailors, restaurateurs, and computer salesmen did not.
His demands won't be met in the way he likes, so the possibility of him fulfilling his demands here don't exist...
People on their own don't determine what the law actually means...only courts determine what the law means in a given situation.
So people who think it is going to work out practicing racism in their business that is open to the public...by all means let them try it...and see how it works out.
People on their own don't determine what the law actually means...only courts determine what the law means in a given situation.
So people who think it is going to work out practicing racism in their business that is open to the public...by all means let them try it...and see how it works out.
Quote from phenomena:
Well, at least you can admit that it doesn't exist and you can't produce it.
He was asking which part you interpret as meaning it. You couldn't answer him, hence an agreement that it doesn't exist. If there was a portion which you interpreted to mean what you said, you could have simply pointed it out.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
His demands won't be met in the way he likes, so the possibility of him fulfilling his demands here don't exist...
People on their own don't determine what the law actually means...only courts determine what the law means in a given situation.
So people who think it is going to work out practicing racism in their business that is open to the public...by all means let them try it...and see how it works out.
I posted a link from legalzoom.com.
My take is that someone who opens a business that is open to the public (not a private group or club...but open to the general public) but discriminates against people being able to participate in that product or service offered by a business that is open to the public...is going to be open to a lawsuit by a person or group who believe the business has violated the Civil Rights Act.
Is it my job to play lawyer and cite the exact line in the Civil Rights Act, and then get in silly arguments on how to interpret the law as it is written?
That is a no win situation, as people will claim their opinion of written is what is right...
The courts decide these things, and they have, and the trend has been to protect the rights of the consumers over the business.
Now, you may think that trend is wrong, and that is your opinion.
I am simply suggesting that if anyone wants to test their opinion on something...try it. See what happens.
I have already posted what happened in California when a business owner denied a gay couple the rights of a straight couple in his business, and there are quite a few cases out there where the court viewed discrimination on the basis of race in a business that is open to the public as illegal and/or in the favor of the plaintiff's position.
ET is not a court of law.
ET is a court of public opinion...in which I am often in the minority position in this forum.
So?
That should stop me from voicing my opinion?
The majority opinion on ET is the right opinion?
LOL!!! Now that is extremely illogical...but some actually do think that way.
ET isn't even a court of logic or an effective debate setting...there are no moderators forcing people to keep to the rules of logic and/or proper argumentation, etc.
So I get to voice my opinion, others get to voice theirs...and if they think they are winning an argument they are fools...
My take is that someone who opens a business that is open to the public (not a private group or club...but open to the general public) but discriminates against people being able to participate in that product or service offered by a business that is open to the public...is going to be open to a lawsuit by a person or group who believe the business has violated the Civil Rights Act.
Is it my job to play lawyer and cite the exact line in the Civil Rights Act, and then get in silly arguments on how to interpret the law as it is written?
That is a no win situation, as people will claim their opinion of written is what is right...
The courts decide these things, and they have, and the trend has been to protect the rights of the consumers over the business.
Now, you may think that trend is wrong, and that is your opinion.
I am simply suggesting that if anyone wants to test their opinion on something...try it. See what happens.
I have already posted what happened in California when a business owner denied a gay couple the rights of a straight couple in his business, and there are quite a few cases out there where the court viewed discrimination on the basis of race in a business that is open to the public as illegal and/or in the favor of the plaintiff's position.
ET is not a court of law.
ET is a court of public opinion...in which I am often in the minority position in this forum.
So?
That should stop me from voicing my opinion?
The majority opinion on ET is the right opinion?
LOL!!! Now that is extremely illogical...but some actually do think that way.
ET isn't even a court of logic or an effective debate setting...there are no moderators forcing people to keep to the rules of logic and/or proper argumentation, etc.
So I get to voice my opinion, others get to voice theirs...and if they think they are winning an argument they are fools...
Quote from phenomena:
He was asking which part you interpret as meaning it. You couldn't answer him, hence an agreement that it doesn't exist. If there was a portion which you interpreted to mean what you said, you could have simply pointed it out.
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Simply continue to demand something you are not going to get...see how that works out...
I already know how it works out...you will huff and puff and blow the house down...
No it just proves you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the law except in an anecdotal manner.
You haven't had to deal with it, obviously, so I wouldn't expect you to know the law. Had you, you would have quickly cited the relevant law and more importantly made a scenario that is unimpeachable.
I'm not going to "huff and puff" because I know how you roll. You can support anything you say and you love to go around in circles by dodging questions and giving what you think are clever non-answers.
Quote from RCG Trader:
Yet again, lets trot this elephant in the room out. People are not noticing it. Worse, some believe that the nature of humanity has changed in the last 50 years.
Were it not for government bayonets, most of what we see today would not be possible in terms of tolerance.
It was the Government who legalized slavery, in the first place.
That sword cuts both ways. Careful what you wish for.
As for Rand, there is nothing violent about private business exercising their right to choose.
So get over it. You lefties are over-exaggerating.