Should a religious employer be exempt from anti-discrimination laws?

No. Religion is a personal view. If you allow this then you are encouraging people to force their religion on others. Something I am sure most of those who support this have feared Muslims doing. Am i right?

 

Actually, maybe as an afterthought, I should have the 'freedom' to refuse to employ any religionist.

After all, it proves that the candidate believes in a delusion.

Being non delusional sort of helps for a smooth work place.

 

Supporting liberty for the right of people to freely associate is not the same as wanting people to use that in ways that I find despicable or even immoral. As someone new to PF, how about trying harder rather than descending into the muck and avoiding the ad hominem?
Should all things, thoughts, and actions that that are "not good" be prohibited by law?

 

This was a question of "should", not what is. Must all discussion stop when 50%+1 vote on something?

 

There was NO ad hom.

Why do those losing the arguement oft fall behind this false defence.

 

Well if you think freedom is being taken away why don't you fight for that freedom? Why don't you open a business and openly challenge that law? Are you afraid to stand up for what you say you believe in or do you not actually believe in what you say? White only business will cause strife in our country and it should never return. If you want to openly be a bigot do it, but don't pretend its some noble ideal of freedom.

 

Morons who think that because some people prefer voluntary action versus forced action through the police powers of the state that it must mean they are racist or something. Those are the type of people that I would not want to deal with in my business.

 

What makes a law that prevents someone from saying something unjust, but a law that prevents free association just? Please, objectively define the principles of justice as you see them, so that we can derive right and wrong in a political context. Otherwise, I think you are just making it up as you go along.

 

You don't own a business. Those who don't want to serve a person who is black because they are black, and in violation of the law is a racist and bigot. People who say I should be free to discriminate against blacks or latinos or jews or whatever are bigots.

If you want to openly discriminate do so then defend your "rights" in court. The problem is people like you complain, but are too afraid to put your money where your mouth is. You are so tough when no one knows who you are. So unless you are willing to fight for these "rights" you can't complain you don't have them.

 

What a low blow. Is it beyond your comprehension that someone could oppose a restriction based on fundamental principles and not be racist at all? Only bigots and cowards can disagree with you, right?

 

There is no prevention of free association. If you own a business then you must comply with the law in regards to that business. That you want to openly discriminate doesn't mean you have lost any rights. Bigotry is wrong. If you want legal bigotry then be brave enough to firght for your right to hate. Anonymous bigotry on an internet forum is cowardly. John Hancock wasn't afraid to put his name on paper to fight for freedom. He risked his life for freedom. Stop talking about these lofty issues if you aren't willing to do the same.

 

I'm against the drug war and believe that drug prohibition should be ended. Is it your argument that I should go ingest marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, oxycontin and even <gasp> pseudofed becuase I don't believe those things should be illegal to own or ingest? Your argument has to be the most ridiculous that I've ever seen in any forum, ever, and should be an insult to anyone on this forum who as a position on anything.

I believe in the principles of natural rights. That is the right of self-ownership and from that the right to speak freely, dispose of one's property voluntarily as one sees fit, to choose one's associations, etc. So cut the ad hominem crap. My associations are probably far more diverse than yours, but I would not impose on any human being my moral values through the violence of the state.

The Jim Crow laws did cause strife, and they never should have existed. However, according to your argument, they were just laws so long as the fight against them was not strong enough to overturn them.

 

Only bigots and cowards want to discriminate. That is a fact.

 

I am saying the bigots lost and discrimination is illegal as it should be. If you want to discriminate fight for your right to be a bigot. Be open about it. Let the world know how you feel. Don't be ashamed even though you should be.

 

You're wasting your time.

His entire premise is based around something no company that he can evidence, or no body of people that he can evidence are lobbying for - the 'right' to say you cannot have the job, because your skin is too dark, or your nose is too hooked.

I asked him to give it more depth earlier, but he couldn't.

Opted to bombard me with student debating terms like ad hom, logical fallacy etc, as if he either is a student, or has just learned the terms, and uses them a bit too liberally.

He is probably lovely in real life.

 

I guess it would come as a surprise to you that the same principles that urge me to support gay marriage and oppose anti-miscegenation laws also urge me to support the right of business owners to choose who they want to hire? Can you even comprehend that? Or is it completely beyond you?

 

And what are statutes but writings on paper backed by police powers to prevent things? Of course it's to prevent association that some people may or may not desire.

Alright then, define rights as you see them.. We have different definitions, apparently. Mine are objective, and derived from natural rights ethics. How do you arrive at what a right is?

So is adultery. Would you outlaw sex outside marriage? If not, would it be fair of me to ask why you like to cheat on your wife or why you want your father to cheat on your mother?

 

So, Jack, is it your believe that people who want to own guns want to shoot people at random for any reason? Is it your belief that people who want drugs to be legal want to ingest every substance they can get their hands on? I'm curious, because that is the gist of Kenvin's utterly ridiculous argument, and, apparently, you support his argument.

 

So you are a homosexual bigot married to a person that you hate because of her race?

 

According to my positions...I must be! It is the only logical conclusion, don't-cha-know?

 

What have guns got to do with this?

That's right, nothing.

And nothing is what this has all been about, since their is no demand from any business or group of people to discriminate against other people.

Apart from maybe the KKK.

I think they would support the motion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lan-is-alive-and-kicking-in-2009-1625732.html

 

I understand that bigots are pro discrimination.

 

If you want to make bigotry legal then do something about it. Be like John Hancock and George Washington. Sue for your business to have the right to not hire black people. Why haven't you done that?

 

Your argument is too simplistic.
There is nothing wrong with being free to associate and being an owner of a business shouldn't take away that right.
If you only want to sell to girls in mini-skirts that should be your right.
If you only want customers who think the Beatles are hot, that should be your right.
If your a barber but you only want to do crew cuts, that should be your right.
or if Your Catholic and you only want to service other Catholics, that should be your right.

 

There's an OP. There's a discussion around the OP. If your argument is that there can be no legitimate discussion around something that is otherwise a very low priority for most people, then why are you here? Is it your contention that people only discuss things that they are passionate about? I'm passionate about liberty, so there are many issues that can be discussed from the angle of liberty. I don't have much concern about anti-discrimination laws, but there is an objective, ethical libertarian argument against them, and since the OP came up, I considered them worthy of trotting out. To you, that seems to mean that I am a bigot, an ad hominem attack with no merit and which you cannot logically or rationally support except upon a ridiculous belief that in order to argue for something, one must *want* some of the possible consequences of that something to occur.