Should we have the freedom to discriminate?

[Daithi]

Should a man who owns a restaurant have the right to refuse service to black people?

What about the devote Christians who want to rent out the other side of their connecting duplex. Should they have the right to refuse to rent to a homosexual couple that they believe are living in sin?

Should the Boy Scouts be allowed to exclude homosexuals as scout-masters, or atheists as troop members?

How about the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Should they be allowed to demand that their members only be Irish Catholics who are approved by other members?

Should the Augusta National Golf Club be allowed to limit its members to just men?

I imagine each of the above questions will likely be answered along the lines of something like "If an individual or group has crossed the line into commerce then the discrimination should be forbidden."

My real question is "Why is discrimination OK when no commerce is involved, but when commerce is involved it trumps 'Freedom of Association'?"

One last question, if commerce is the line that cannot be crossed, then can the Boy Scouts, Golf Clubs, Religious organizations have members pay dues, seek donations, or have fund raisers (selling cookies like the Girl Scouts)?

[elwoodblues]

Private clubs/organizations go ahead and discriminate. Public accomodations, nope.

Keep in mind that nobody (or at least nobody worth listening to) was arguing that Augusta LEGALLY had to allow women. Rather, people were saying that they SHOULD allow them and that if they didn't there would be financial repercussions in the form of boycotts of sponsors.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine each of the above questions will likely be answered along the lines of something like "If an individual or group has crossed the line into commerce then the discrimination should be forbidden."


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure anybody strongly believes this. The commerce clause is the means by which Congress and the courts have upheld some anti-discriminatory laws, but it's more of a means to an end than anything else.

Pretty much all of us can agree that discrimination is a bad thing, but what we don't agree on is how far the government should go in abrogating freedom of association in the interest of advancing minority rights. Forbidding black people to eat in restaurants puts a hardship on blacks and stigmatizes them in the eyes of the public. It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.

[Daithi]

The reason I asked this question is because I myself struggle with the answers. I have no problem with the discrimination practiced by some groups. It would not bother me if the Jewish Anti-Defamation League required its members to be Jewish, or that the AOH requires its members to be Irish, or that Augusta National requires its members to be men.

So it appears I'm not opposed to discrimination based on sex, race, or religion.

Nor is this just a legal/illegal question for me, but is a moral/immoral question as well. For example, morally I have no problem with a group of men forming a men's only club. I don't have a problem if they bought a golf course and only allowed their members and guest to play on the course. But if they excluded black members instead of women (or in addition to women) I now see it as morally wrong. However, if the club were a little more exclusionary and limited their membership to just Irish men, then I wouldn't have the same moral objections.

The same applies to commerce (or public accommodation) as well. I do find a diner that refuses to serve blacks to be reprehensible. On the other hand, I also feel it is wrong to force a deeply religious couple to rent their duplex to a gay couple (even though I personally would be thrilled to rent to them if their credit was good). The owner of the diner discriminates based on hate that has probably been instilled in him by his parents and peers. The religious couple discriminates based on teachings that have likely been instilled in them by their parents and peers. Not a lot of difference, but I personally still feel different about the two.

I believe that coming to an understanding as to why some discrimination is OK and others is not is important, because I think laws should be based on a concrete principle. I don't know what that principle is in this case. Maybe it has something to do with commerce (or public accommodation) but I don’t think so.

[zaxx19]

Pretty much all of us can agree that discrimination is a bad thing,


If that was true then there wouldnt be an issue....think about it logically.

[RogerZBT]

It's still logical. It's not discrimination when "we" do it. That same couple that doesn't want to rent to gays wouldn't not hire a black person. That's discrimination and it's wrong. With the apartment, they're just "not comfortable." That's not discrimination (in their eyes.)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I do find a diner that refuses to serve blacks to be reprehensible. On the other hand, I also feel it is wrong to force a deeply religious couple to rent their duplex to a gay couple (even though I personally would be thrilled to rent to them if their credit was good). The owner of the diner discriminates based on hate that has probably been instilled in him by his parents and peers. The religious couple discriminates based on teachings that have likely been instilled in them by their parents and peers. Not a lot of difference, but I personally still feel different about the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect that you feel the difference lies somewhere in what you see as rational and relevant distinctions between groups of people. You answer that question with regard to color of skin as no rational/relevant distinction. With regard to religion/gender you believe that in some contexts it is rational/relevant, in others it isn't. The more rational/relevent the distinction the more likely you are to allow the discrimination when you also factor in the social effects of the discrimination.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much all of us can agree that discrimination is a bad thing,


If that was true then there wouldnt be an issue....think about it logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

A belief that discrimination in the abstract sense is generally wrong is not the same thing as never practicing discrimination. Think about it logically.

[Cpt Spaulding]

[/ QUOTE ]

. Forbidding black people to eat in restaurants puts a hardship on blacks and stigmatizes them in the eyes of the public. It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is not being allowed into a restaurant a hardship? There are many restaurants out there that I can't go to because I can't afford them. Are they now discriminating againts me because I am not wealthy? I agree that discrimination is ignorant, however if a person owns a place of business and does not want a specific group using his/her business...that is their right

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is financial hardship for women CEOs (and I guess all businesswomen) who can't play at private golf courses that only allow male members. In this article I have in front of me it state's, "CEOs of America's major corporations play there (Augusta), and we all know that business is done there. Their policy places businesswomen at a disadvantage at that venue. Sure, female CEOs enjoy the right to form their own groups, but it wouldn't be the same thing since there are many more men who hold the title CEO."

[natedogg]

In a word, yes.

natedogg

[Richard Tanner]

Wealth isn't a "suspect class" in the eyes of the legal system, race is. THe major qualifier for being a suspect class is that the "factor" wasn't a choice (race certainly isn't).

Cody

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that discrimination is ignorant, however if a person owns a place of business and does not want a specific group using his/her business...that is their right

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of restaurant patronage, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. As for whether or not discrimination at a restaurant presents a hardship, imagine what would happen if, say, all the restaurants in Mississippi refused to serve blacks.

[Cpt Spaulding]

People are born into poverty....People are also born into wealth...I see your point, and you are right for the most part. I was just poking fun at the topic...

[Cpt Spaulding]

Well....I guess alot of blacks will be cooking their own meals then.... Look, I do not agree with discrimination, I think it is just as wrong as the next person...That doesn't mean other people have to live by my standards...Who am I to tell someone how to run their business? I know the SC says differently, but I don't look to the SC for guidance either...

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

sure business is done on the golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

There is financial hardship for women CEOs (and I guess all businesswomen) who can't play at private golf courses that only allow male members. In this article I have in front of me it state's, "CEOs of America's major corporations play there (Augusta), and we all know that business is done there. Their policy places businesswomen at a disadvantage at that venue. Sure, female CEOs enjoy the right to form their own groups, but it wouldn't be the same thing since there are many more men who hold the title CEO."

[/ QUOTE ]

sure business is done on a golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

sure business is done on the golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

There is financial hardship for women CEOs (and I guess all businesswomen) who can't play at private golf courses that only allow male members. In this article I have in front of me it state's, "CEOs of America's major corporations play there (Augusta), and we all know that business is done there. Their policy places businesswomen at a disadvantage at that venue. Sure, female CEOs enjoy the right to form their own groups, but it wouldn't be the same thing since there are many more men who hold the title CEO."

[/ QUOTE ]
sure business is done on a golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not serious, are you?

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to say that any of your other examples involves such a hardship. This is why I personally answer no to the first question, and yes to the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

sure business is done on the golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

There is financial hardship for women CEOs (and I guess all businesswomen) who can't play at private golf courses that only allow male members. In this article I have in front of me it state's, "CEOs of America's major corporations play there (Augusta), and we all know that business is done there. Their policy places businesswomen at a disadvantage at that venue. Sure, female CEOs enjoy the right to form their own groups, but it wouldn't be the same thing since there are many more men who hold the title CEO."

[/ QUOTE ]
sure business is done on a golf course, if a female CEO wants to business on a golf course I am sure there are atleast 40 golf courses around there...It isn't about doing business though, that is just a front for the real reason. Women want to join because they are told they can't...Plain and simple...I don't see the big deal anyway, if they became a CEO without use of the club, why would they all of a sudden need to join to survive? This is all just immature playground behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not serious, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have laid it on a bit thick there at the end, but in general yes I am serious.