Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Apr '16 23:41
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]




    I can see where it says that governments can't discriminate, but where does it say that private citizens can't discriminate?
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    12 Apr '16 00:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, o ...[text shortened]... governments can't discriminate, but where does it say that private citizens can't discriminate?
    "I can see where it says that governments can't discriminate, but where does it say that private citizens can't discriminate?"

    The Article 1 section 8 Commerce Clause is part of the alleged justification of antidiscrimination laws. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

    But who says that as a private citizen you can't discriminate? In what ways is the government unconstitutionally preventing you from discriminating?
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    12 Apr '16 01:23
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, o ...[text shortened]... governments can't discriminate, but where does it say that private citizens can't discriminate?
    You're right. It doesn't. Private people can discriminate. The government can pass anti-discrimination laws in employment and in public accommodations under the commerce clause, but you can discriminate in your private life to your heart's content. If you want to bar black people from your weekly poker game in your basement, government cannot stop you.

    On the contrary, the freedom of association gives you the freedom to associate with whomever you choose and on whatever basis you choose.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    12 Apr '16 09:582 edits
    It depends on who you are relative to the law.

    For example, people like Hillary and Charley Rangle and company can break every law in the books and not be held accountable. Or perhaps you are a Muslim who refuses to make a gay cake, like in the link below.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/muslim-bakers-dont-want-to-make-your-gay-wedding-cake-either-where-are-the

    Then you become above the law, just so long as you hold political power or are supported by those who hold political power.

    This is what happens when the Constitution and rule of law begins to fall apart. We become a nation of men and not laws.
  5. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    12 Apr '16 14:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    It depends on who you are relative to the law.

    For example, people like Hillary and Charley Rangle and company can break every law in the books and not be held accountable. Or perhaps you are a Muslim who refuses to make a gay cake, like in the link below.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/muslim-bakers-dont-want-to-make-your-gay-wedding-cake-either-wh ...[text shortened]... the Constitution and rule of law begins to fall apart. We become a nation of men and not laws.
    Wow!
    Where's the liberal media?
    No double standards here, let's just move along and blame Christians. 😞
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Apr '16 15:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    You're right. It doesn't. Private people can discriminate. The government can pass anti-discrimination laws in employment and in public accommodations under the commerce clause, but you can discriminate in your private life to your heart's content. If you want to bar black people from your weekly poker game in your basement, government cannot stop you.

    On th ...[text shortened]... on whatever basis you choose.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale
    Yet, at this very moment, there are many efforts to limit individual rights to discriminate.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    12 Apr '16 15:40
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Yet, at this very moment, there are many efforts to limit individual rights to discriminate.
    Such as?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    12 Apr '16 15:58
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Wow!
    Where's the liberal media?
    No double standards here, let's just move along and blame Christians. 😞
    Just so you know your place boy.
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Apr '16 16:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Such as?
    Laws on equal opportunity in employment. Government employment is one thing, but private employment is an entity spending its own money, to hire people. Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    12 Apr '16 16:07
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Laws on equal opportunity in employment. Government employment is one thing, but private employment is an entity spending its own money, to hire people. Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?
    Private employment is commerce and any private employer uses public goods and services.

    You can "privately employ" your friend to play poker in your basement and you can exclude all the transsexual dark-skinned people you like.
  11. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Apr '16 16:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Private employment is commerce and any private employer uses public goods and services.

    You can "privately employ" your friend to play poker in your basement and you can exclude all the transsexual dark-skinned people you like.
    Private employment is commerce and any private employer uses public goods and services.

    So do people who don't employ anyone.

    Years ago, I discerned that growing a business to where I needed to employ people, took it out of my hands, so I kept it small, and sole proprietorship. A lot of people who grown their businesses wish they didn't later.
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    12 Apr '16 16:401 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Laws on equal opportunity in employment. Government employment is one thing, but private employment is an entity spending its own money, to hire people. Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?
    You said, " at this very moment, there are many efforts to limit individual rights to discriminate."

    and "Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?"

    I think there are two rights in conflict, (1) the right to equal opportunity in employment (and somewhat OT to this thread, use of public accommodations) without regard to certain factors covered in civil rights acts established under article 1 section 8 and the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, and (2) the right to freedom of association under the 1st amendment. Legislation and enforcement is how this conflict is resolved to best provide for the general welfare, it is to be hoped peaceably and without the use of force.

    Not everyone will have their way, in a constitutional democratic republic.
  13. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Apr '16 18:09
    Originally posted by JS357
    You said, " at this very moment, there are many efforts to limit individual rights to discriminate."

    and "Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?"

    I think there are two rights in conflict, (1) the right to equal opportunity in employment (and somewhat OT to this thread, use of public accommodations) without regard to certain factors cover ...[text shortened]... the use of force.

    Not everyone will have their way, in a constitutional democratic republic.
    There are some "squishy" definitions at work here. Equal opportunity in employment, presumes equally qualified individuals, which may be very difficult to quantify.

    For example: the employer may be hiring a minimum wage worker, to do simple data entry, but the business is also looking for someone who will be able to progress in understanding and using the data, down the road.

    I think that the so called rights you list, don't negate the rights of a business or individual to select employees that best suit their needs. Nobody is entitled to a job.
  14. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65518
    12 Apr '16 19:08
    Originally posted by JS357
    Legislation and enforcement is how this conflict is resolved to best provide for the general welfare, it is to be hoped peaceably and without the use of force.
    That's what legislation is, the state exercising it's franchise on force and threats of force, do you think waving a stick at a cowering dog is 'peaceable'.

    How control freaks like to use doublespeak.

    You will do X or we will take your license, or we will take your money, or we will take your property. Attempt to defend your property and you're going to find out about force, big time.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Apr '16 19:51
    Originally posted by JS357
    You said, " at this very moment, there are many efforts to limit individual rights to discriminate."

    and "Why is it forced to use anything but its own standards?"

    I think there are two rights in conflict, (1) the right to equal opportunity in employment (and somewhat OT to this thread, use of public accommodations) without regard to certain factors cover ...[text shortened]... the use of force.

    Not everyone will have their way, in a constitutional democratic republic.
    No, some will have their rights violated, to protect the somewhat arguable and dubious "rights" of others.

    Do you think a peaceful black couple, and a vicious white biker gang have equal rights to secure overnight lodging? The property owner ought to have inalienable rights as to how he uses his property, even when it is a "public accommodation".
Back to Top