No. The state is not enforcing the hate speech of the WBC. Protecting someone's freedom of speech is not an endorcement (nor enforcement) of anything they might be saying. It's an enforcement of their natural right to speak their mind.
How so?
Discrimination is what I do when I choose to date someone who's smart instead of dumb, attractive instead of ugly. I'm also discriminating when I refuse service to someone who's being an asshole. The company I work for is discriminating when they choose to hire (or fire) someone based on their personality. Not all discrimination is wrong, or illegal.
Discrimination is what I do when I choose to date someone who's smart instead of dumb, attractive instead of ugly. I'm also discriminating when I refuse service to someone who's being an asshole. The company I work for is discriminating when they choose to hire (or fire) someone based on their personality. Not all discrimination is wrong, or illegal.
But your comparison fails in that in your examples above, you're discriminating against individuals due to something about that particular individual...and that's a far cry from discriminating against someone because of the color of the skin that they were born with.
That was really my point in post #2274. They are different, and should not be treated as the same. The term "discrimination" also describes many perfectly acceptable acts.
That's why we have to worry about context. Almost all of the time in this forum, when we speak of discrimination, we're speaking of discrimination against groups and not individuals, and I expected that you understand that.
No discrimination or any action for that matter is illegal until it is written into law as such. To use the existence of something in law as the support of it being law is simply circular reasoning.
There are only two types of discrimination that I can think of that should be allowed the government; citizen vs non-citizen; and ability to consent (usually accomplished by arbitrary age laws). Otherwise the government should have NO laws rules or anything else that even references age, gender. orientation, race, etc. Maybe census numbers but that's about it.
In that case, not all discrimination should be illegal. I have already said not all discrimination is wrong.
I did. Discrimination against stupid people is still discrimination against a group of people. Ugly people, assholes, and antisocial people are all groups of people whom I believe can justifiably be discriminated against, in many circumstances. I would be against most any attempt by government to provide those groups of people (among others) with some kind of special status that protected them from discrimination from employment, for example.
I stand by my position that not all discrimination is bad. The thread title and opening post were poorly phrased.
In relation to the topic of the thread, what specific rights are being violated? Besides private property rights and freedom of association? What is beginning to end those two rights?
Um....guys....just a suggestion.....you're starting to move a little too much off the topic. I mean I'm not a mod or anything, but that doesn't mean I can't give a nudge or two, eh?
The right of equal treatment.
What is equal treatment? Under what context?
WB. Hadn't seen you on in a while. Hope everything is alright.
Thanks, been busy.
Equal treatment as in treating people the same regardless of race etc.....For example, you have a line of people waiting to make a purchase. You don't say, all black people must leave.
So then you are only for equal treatment under certain circumstances.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?