Call someone an "illegal immigrant" in New York gets you a fine up to $250,000

[pellius]

My, my, you read a lot of meaning into my posts that isn't there. I was not talking down to you; at least not intentionally.  But you are right, I don't, nor do I have reason to use the word haole in my everyday speech. Thanks for the introducing me to the term hapa-haole. It is always good to learn something new. Hope you won't mind if I continue to address you as Pellius. I would not want to insult you by using a slang term which might be taken the wrong way.

Oh, it's there my friend, you just don't see it. That's the point. Just like the balding fatso admiring himself in the mirror doesn't see what others see. You can't be objective about yourself.

And it's not about taking things the wrong way. It's condescending and pretentious. Just like when Hillary Clinton suddenly takes on a Southern accent when she was addressing people from the South or when someone tries to talk ebonics when talking to an inner-city  Black. Just talk normally. You don't have to try to relate to a Hawaiian when it's a culture you have zero experience with. And having relatives that lived there doesn't count.

And your sarcastic "pellius" comment, which to you I assume you think is funny, it's not. It's just more talking down to people. Like I said, self-awareness is not your strong suit which I have no doubt in my mind you will deny. You consider yourself a very pensive, thoughtful, reflectful person. And that's the point.

[pellius]

jeez thats three times now

Look, you want to say that you can personally discriminate but a company can't...

Im not talking about legally , I thought we had cleared that up.
The point is why MORALLY should you be able to descriminate but a company cant?


I know they are not allowed to, you dont need to write it out again.

The simple point is you are saying "I can, but they cant", my point is what gives you the right to descriminate if they dont have that right.

And please dont bang on about the law again when pretending to miss the point AGAIN.

Because we want to live in a civil society. So that the little guy, the employee, is not abused and belittled. In a job, the balance of power is not equal. If you don't like it you can be fired. Do you want to work at a job where someone has the right to insult and belittle you constantly? It's not necessarily a moral issue. It is not a sin to be rude or obnoxious. We pass these laws to equate the balance of power and to preserve some sort of civility and decency in how people interact with each other in these types of situations. Of course, in private life, you can, or should be able to say anything you want.

Case in point, Robert Dinero is looking at a big lawsuit because of a tape they have of him belittling and employee

[pellius]

Yes, it's incredibly pretentious and that was the point. It's obvious satire mocking the average individual on here with their professed genius-level IQ, IFBB Pro-like stats and other exaggerated claims of accomplishment. Nobody in their right mind would seriously give themselves my screen name, but it fits with the 'locker room' aspect of this place. Happy to have a discussion about how one's words on here might be a reflection of their true nature (I happen to believe that to be the case in many instances), but for now let's just keep things specific, without the irrelevant tangents, illogical rhetorical questions or meaningless pejoratives ('you're a leftist', etc).

I addressed a very specific claim that you made, namely 'morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two'. I argued that actually, that very issue has been at the heart of a massive body of literature concerning positivist and natural law philosophy. I gave you the name of a famous debate between two of the most important figures in the field, and then addressed your two examples to demonstrate why they failed. You have stated that you would 'never make an argument that [you] knew was wrong', so after having at least a cursory read over the examples I gave, would you still stand by your claim regarding morality and the law? If so, then please defend the two initial examples you gave against my criticism. We do not yet have to go to the additional examples you gave, which only further demonstrate your confusion.

'You are obviously not a lawyer because a case is never made on the morality of the act but rather the legality'. See Dworkin's 'Hard Cases' and the generation of judicial decisions through principle and policy. Here is a small segment to illustrate the complexity of this: 'Lawyers believe that when judges make new law their decisions are constrained by legal traditions but are nevertheless personal and original. Novel decisions, it is said, reflect a judge's own political morality, but also reflect the morality that is embedded in the traditions of the common law, which might well be different' (1977, p.81).

Furthermore, you state that 'morality implies a religious reference point'. No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. And I believe you might be referring to the Establishment Clause, which is not related to what we are discussing. Once again, you've touched on an entire field of study that you're clearly not too familiar with. For example, the idea of natural law and natural rights are often argued to be fundamental to the Declaration of Independence. What, then, are rights? Let's just define them simply as moral guarantees for a minimum standard of treatment. What is that morality then grounded in? Well, natural rights theorists themselves are divided between secular and theistic interpretations. Secular conceptions based on the idea of human dignity have, however, been enunciated by various Enlightenment figures and continue to rest on a solid naturalistic foundation today.

It might be possible to make a sound argument to defend your initial statement, but you haven't done so and most of what you've written in this thread is simply incoherent. Someone like Kahn would be much better qualified to fully explore this subject, but I'd suggest at least reading up on legal positivism, the separability thesis, and arguments for and against this - your opinions might then change. I'd rather hear your conclusions after reading the PDF and Al Doggity's criticism of your interpretation, though.

Yes, you did address the very specific examples I had given but you in no way presented and argument to refute it. The first one you said was something taken out of Milton Friedman, which it wasn't, but even if it did does not refute the point. The second example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't. Again not presenting an argument but speculating what I would or can do. And yes, there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books that nobody got around or bothered to include in a congressional session as it has become so trivial no one bothers. Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?

Saying that there is a massive body of literature and making reference to an obscure
debate over 60 years ago is again not an argument. Just like saying there are "massive" numbers of debates both pro and con for the existence of God is not an argument. And just to be clear Fuller claimed that morality is a source or an inspiration for many laws (an act can be both immoral and illegal, i.e. murder). So though there is often a connection between morality and laws, morals control both the internal and external behavior (conscious and action) whereas laws can only control the external (what you actually are caught doing). Therefore, often related but not the same. It is not a sin to park illegally or to take steroids.

But that is neither here or there as again it depends on one's perspective as to who you think "won" that debate. What is pertinent here is that making reference to it is not arguing your point.

So I still stand by my claim that I would never knowingly argue for something that I knew was wrong. I am sincerely concerned only with the truth and have no problem being proved wrong. You gave no concrete arguments against my examples so it still stands as is. Your condescending and superior tone that giving examples to prove a point only shows my confusion is so patently preposterous and absurd. Giving concrete real-world examples is what clarifies often obscure topics. And I can prove it right now. Do you want to jail a person who commits adultery? Let us see how you would act in a real-world situation?

And of course, in an ideal world Judges would base their decisions on the law and the Constitution independent of their own personal opinion and beliefs. But nobody believes this is the case 100% of the time. As human beings, we have our own personal bias and beliefs and it is quite a feat to detach one's self completely from this. Some do it better than others. How else can we have such strong disagreements with, say, something like the 2nd amendment? For each side, it is crystal clear even though they reach opposite conclusions. But just because a principle isn't followed strictly 100% of the time doesn't mean we should get rid of it as the ideal to strive for.

And it should be noted that just because someone doesn't understand or grasp a concept or idea does not in and of itself make the concept or idea incoherent. There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding. A lot, if not a majority of people, do not understand where the concept of morality comes from. And even if they did, their own personal bias would not accept it.

Morality, objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias, and therefore must exist outside of one's self. Other than that it is simply an opinion. Not so much what is right or wrong but what I like and dislike. Morality does not exist physically. If I ask you how you know, say, murder, is wrong what would you say? In the physical world, you show physical concrete examples. If I say I weigh 200 lbs or that piece of lumber is a 2x4 we can measure that. Not so with morality. It exists apart from the physical world. It is above nature. It is supernatural. So the very existence of objective morality outside and above human opinion proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. And that's what we call God. And without God morality is just personal opinion which varies widely from person to person and known as moral relativism.

[joswift]

Because we want to live in a civil society. So that the little guy, the employee, is not abused and belittled. In a job, the balance of power is not equal. If you don't like it you can be fired. Do you want to work at a job where someone has the right to insult and belittle you constantly? It's not necessarily a moral issue. It is not a sin to be rude or obnoxious. We pass these laws to equate the balance of power and to preserve some sort of civility and decency in how people interact with each other in these types of situations. Of course, in private life, you can, or should be able to say anything you want.

Case in point, Robert Dinero is looking at a big lawsuit because of a tape they have of him belittling and employee

you just have to be doing this deliberately, no one could be so way off the mark when it comes to comprehension.

[pellius]

you just have to be doing this deliberately, no one could be so way off the mark when it comes to comprehension.

Again you are wrong. You can think you know what my motivation is or that you can read my mind. But thinking that you know is not the same as knowing that you know. The only person that knows what I am thinking and what my motivation is, is me.

[joswift]

Again you are wrong. You can think you know what my motivation is or that you can read my mind. But thinking that you know is not the same as knowing that you know. The only person that knows what I am thinking and what my motivation is, is me.

said Humpty Dumpty....

[pellius]

said Humpty Dumpty....

Moronic, childish, and nonsense comeback.

Game, set, match.

[joswift]

Moronic and immature comeback.

Game, set, match.

no, you missed the point again, from "Alice through the looking glass"

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

now do you get it?

[pellius]

no, you missed the point again, from "Alice through the looking glass"

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

now do you get it?

“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”

[joswift]

“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”

exactly

now, want to try the question again and leave the law out of it?

What makes you think its OK for you to discriminate and also tell others that they can't?

oh, and for the record, companies cant discriminate, only human beings can discriminate, a company is a fictional entity.

[Big Tex C*ckburn, PhD]

Yes, you did address the very specific examples I had given but you in no way presented and argument to refute it. The first one you said was something taken out of Milton Friedman, which it wasn't, but even if it did does not refute the point. The second example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't. Again not presenting an argument but speculating what I would or can do. And yes, there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books that nobody got around or bothered to include in a congressional session as it has become so trivial no one bothers. Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?

Saying that there is a massive body of literature and making reference to an obscure
debate over 60 years ago is again not an argument. Just like saying there are "massive" numbers of debates both pro and con for the existence of God is not an argument. And just to be clear Fuller claimed that morality is a source or an inspiration for many laws (an act can be both immoral and illegal, i.e. murder). So though there is often a connection between morality and laws, morals control both the internal and external behavior (conscious and action) whereas laws can only control the external (what you actually are caught doing). Therefore, often related but not the same. It is not a sin to park illegally or to take steroids.

But that is neither here or there as again it depends on one's perspective as to who you think "won" that debate. What is pertinent here is that making reference to it is not arguing your point.

So I still stand by my claim that I would never knowingly argue for something that I knew was wrong. I am sincerely concerned only with the truth and have no problem being proved wrong. You gave no concrete arguments against my examples so it still stands as is. Your condescending and superior tone that giving examples to prove a point only shows my confusion is so patently preposterous and absurd. Giving concrete real-world examples is what clarifies often obscure topics. And I can prove it right now. Do you want to jail a person who commits adultery? Let us see how you would act in a real-world situation?

And of course, in an ideal world Judges would base their decisions on the law and the Constitution independent of their own personal opinion and beliefs. But nobody believes this is the case 100% of the time. As human beings, we have our own personal bias and beliefs and it is quite a feat to detach one's self completely from this. Some do it better than others. How else can we have such strong disagreements with, say, something like the 2nd amendment? For each side, it is crystal clear even though they reach opposite conclusions. But just because a principle isn't followed strictly 100% of the time doesn't mean we should get rid of it as the ideal to strive for.

And it should be noted that just because someone doesn't understand or grasp a concept or idea does not in and of itself make the concept or idea incoherent. There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding. A lot, if not a majority of people, do not understand where the concept of morality comes from. And even if they did, their own personal bias would not accept it.

Morality, objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias, and therefore must exist outside of one's self. Other than that it is simply an opinion. Not so much what is right or wrong but what I like and dislike. Morality does not exist physically. If I ask you how you know, say, murder, is wrong what would you say? In the physical world, you show physical concrete examples. If I say I weigh 200 lbs or that piece of lumber is a 2x4 we can measure that. Not so with morality. It exists apart from the physical world. It is above nature. It is supernatural. So the very existence of objective morality outside and above human opinion proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. And that's what we call God. And without God morality is just personal opinion which varies widely from person to person and known as moral relativism.

‘There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding.’

That’s probably the first accurate thing you’ve said, and the rest of your post serves as a clear example of something going over one’s head. You are literally all over the place and it is incoherent. The reason for this is that what you are replying with has no logical connection to what I presented. As for my ‘condescending and superior tone’ that was allegedly present last time: it wasn’t. Stating that you are unfamiliar with something, and then demonstrating why, is how reasonable people debate. I deliberately withheld any acerbity in order to give you the benefit of the doubt and argue fairly about a specific point. Allow me to therefore inject some condescension into my tone and see if your stupid fucking brain can spot the difference (this is humour, but I'd never turn down a free flight to Hawaii if it's offered). In addition, allow me to remind you about what it is we are discussing:

You have stated, quite forcefully, that ‘morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two’. This is what I have challenged. Asking me irrelevant questions about my own personal views, e.g. do I want to jail a person who commits adultery? (No, I don’t) does nothing to make your point. In addition, your entire last paragraph here is completely redundant. It is also embarrassingly confused. There is absolutely no reason at all to trail off onto some tangent about ‘objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias’ and how it ‘exists apart from the physical world, is above nature and is supernatural’. Clearly, this is simply your opinion presented without argument. Given that I have already stated that natural rights can be grounded in both theistic and secular conceptions of morality, it is a needless elaboration. Stating your own Christian morality does nothing to strengthen your initial statement; it merely strengthens mine and I’ll demonstrate why:

For somebody arguing your position they face a number of problems. For the sake of brevity I’ll simply mention one: is something a moral act because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If it is the former, then the commands are arbitrary. If it is the latter, then we have no need for God as we can ground a concept such as rights in the same source of external morality as the religious texts do. Tautological answers to this dilemma will not suffice. I happen to find the naturalistic grounding of morality, without the need for some deeper transcendental meaning, very appealing and currently spend far too much time wrestling with it (it’s not objective but the logical conclusions of it currently trouble me at times). But I will again put this aside and instead highlight the fact that Jeremy Bentham famously dismissed the notion of natural and inalienable rights as ‘nonsense upon stilts’ (1792). His point, however, was that this notion of rights exists only as a mental construct of the human mind, without any unambiguous referent in the external world. He sought to establish a rational foundation of ethics and legal rights based on utilitarian principles and you may have heard of this seminal work. It’s called An Introduction to the Principles of MORALS and Legislation (1789). Morals and legislation? Pellius cries! Nonsense upon stilts! The two are entirely separate!

I’ll try and bring this to a close as it’s getting far too lengthy. ‘Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?’ I could give innumerable cases from all over the world. Why is this? Possibly some sort of vague connection between conceptions of morality and law?


‘The second [first] example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't.’

When I said that you could easily make an argument as to why speeding should be considered both immoral and illegal and I then followed this up with an example. I did it for you. I take it that you still reject the idea that speeding past a school would be immoral? Seeing as you are intent to stand by your statement, tell me why doing this is not immoral, or why speeding when you have, say, a baby in the back of your car wouldn’t be considered immoral? Clearly I think it is both immoral and illegal, given that the individual speeding is recklessly endangering the lives of other, very vulnerable people. It is YOU who has no argument here. As to your claim that ‘there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books’ which nobody has yet bothered to change. Ask yourself, how did they get on the books in the first place? Clearly you think that morality and law are entirely separate and should not be conflated, yet there are ‘archaic’ laws in existence which should now be removed. Why remove them? Let me help you out with this by reminding you of what you’ve now claimed in your rebuttal: ‘there is often a connection between morality and laws’. Quite different from your initial statement, isn’t it? And with that statement, allow me to borrow your own words: Game, set, match.

[joswift]

‘There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding.’

That’s probably the first accurate thing you’ve said, and the rest of your post serves as a clear example of something going over one’s head. You are literally all over the place and it is incoherent. The reason for this is that what you are replying with has no logical connection to what I presented. As for my ‘condescending and superior tone’ that was allegedly present last time: it wasn’t. Stating that you are unfamiliar with something, and then demonstrating why, is how reasonable people debate. I deliberately withheld any acerbity in order to give you the benefit of the doubt and argue fairly about a specific point. Allow me to therefore inject some condescension into my tone and see if your stupid fucking brain can spot the difference (this is humour, but I'd never turn down a free flight to Hawaii if it's offered). In addition, allow me to remind you about what it is we are discussing:

You have stated, quite forcefully, that ‘morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two’. This is what I have challenged. Asking me irrelevant questions about my own personal views, e.g. do I want to jail a person who commits adultery? (No, I don’t) does nothing to make your point. In addition, your entire last paragraph here is completely redundant. It is also embarrassingly confused. There is absolutely no reason at all to trail off onto some tangent about ‘objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias’ and how it ‘exists apart from the physical world, is above nature and is supernatural’. Clearly, this is simply your opinion presented without argument. Given that I have already stated that natural rights can be grounded in both theistic and secular conceptions of morality, it is a needless elaboration. Stating your own Christian morality does nothing to strengthen your initial statement; it merely strengthens mine and I’ll demonstrate why:

For somebody arguing your position they face a number of problems. For the sake of brevity I’ll simply mention one: is something a moral act because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If it is the former, then the commands are arbitrary. If it is the latter, then we have no need for God as we can ground a concept such as rights in the same source of external morality as the religious texts do. Tautological answers to this dilemma will not suffice. I happen to find the naturalistic grounding of morality, without the need for some deeper transcendental meaning, very appealing and currently spend far too much time wrestling with it (it’s not objective but the logical conclusions of it currently trouble me at times). But I will again put this aside and instead highlight the fact that Jeremy Bentham famously dismissed the notion of natural and inalienable rights as ‘nonsense upon stilts’ (1792). His point, however, was that this notion of rights exists only as a mental construct of the human mind, without any unambiguous referent in the external world. He sought to establish a rational foundation of ethics and legal rights based on utilitarian principles and you may have heard of this seminal work. It’s called An Introduction to the Principles and MORALS of Legislation (1789). Morals and legislation? Pellius cries! Nonsense upon stilts! The two are entirely separate!

I’ll try and bring this to a close as it’s getting far too lengthy. ‘Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?’ I could give innumerable cases from all over the world. Why is this? Possibly some sort of vague connection between conceptions of morality and law?


‘The second [first] example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't.’

When I said that you could easily make an argument as to why speeding should be considered both immoral and illegal I then followed this up with an example. I did it for you. I take it that you still reject the idea that speeding past a school would be immoral? Seeing as you are intent to stand by your statement, tell me why doing this is not immoral, or why speeding when you have, say, a baby in the back of your car wouldn’t be considered immoral? Clearly I think it is both immoral and illegal, given that the individual speeding is recklessly endangering the lives of other, very vulnerable people. It is YOU who has no argument here. As to your claim that ‘there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books’ which nobody has yet bothered to change. Ask yourself, how did they get on the books in the first place? Clearly you think that morality and law are entirely separate and should not be conflated, yet there are ‘archaic’ laws in existence which should now be removed. Why remove them? Let me help you out with this by reminding you of what you’ve now claimed in your rebuttal: ‘there is often a connection between morality and laws’. Quite different from your initial statement, isn’t it? And with that statement, allow me to borrow your own words: Game, set, match.

Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..

[Big Tex C*ckburn, PhD]

Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..

Haha, I know. Didn't actually take much time at least. I'd rather he answers you and Al Doggity on your respective points.

[pellius]

Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..

I've answered your question specifically, comprehensively, and repeatedly. The notion that you are unable to grasp the concept of private and public behavior is indicative of the type, or lack of, critical thinking in our culture. Perhaps you shouldn't limit your reading activities to, "Alice in Wonderland" and, "Through the Looking Glass". The words I use have been previously defined independent of my preference and I can't get them to mean what I decide it should mean.

Do you support a person deciding what sex or race he/she wants to or decides to be?

[pellius]

Haha, I know. Didn't actually take much time at least. I'd rather he answers you and Al Doggity on your respective points.

I'm not finished. Just taking care of the low hanging fruit like joswift and Prime first.
You're a bit more labor extensive.

Still need to get back to Aldiggity, but judging by public sentiments, then everybody but him is reading the law wrong.

[joswift]

I've answered your question specifically, comprehensively, and repeatedly. The notion that you are unable to grasp the concept of private and public behavior is indicative of the type, or lack of, critical thinking in our culture. Perhaps you shouldn't limit your reading activities to, "Alice in Wonderland" and, "Through the Looking Glass". The words I use have been previously defined independent of my preference and I can't get them to mean what I decide it should mean.

Do you support a person deciding what sex or race he/she wants to or decides to be?

you cant ask questions until you answered that last one, its called deflection.

would you like to try again?

Morally, what gives you the right to discriminate but not a man who owns a company?

Its either we can all discriminate or we cant

[Big Tex C*ckburn, PhD]

I'm not finished. Just taking care of the low hanging fruit like joswift and Prime first.
You're a bit more labor extensive.

Still need to get back to Aldiggity, but judging by public sentiments, then everybody but him is reading the law wrong.

Primemuscle certainly is an incorrigible fruit - I'll grant you that haha.

[pellius]

you cant ask questions until you answered that last one, its called deflection.

would you like to try again?

Morally, what gives you the right to discriminate but not a man who owns a company?

Its either we can all discriminate or we cant

I know this is a very belated response but sometimes life gets in the way of the urgency of GetBig debates and there are several good ones here.

First off, I can answer or not answer any question I want. Where do you get this "you can't ask unless you..." bull shit?

Secondly, I gave a very comprehensive answer regarding discrimination.

Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.

It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.

But, reading over the thread to familiarize myself again with the argument at hand I believe we are talking about two different things. This why I always say that in a debate I much prefer clarity over victory. Often people are arguing about two different things and I always want to be clear of what we are talking about.

Seems to me that I am making a distinction between private and public discrimination. How you conduct yourself in private life as oppose when you "are in uniform" so to speak. You seem to be arguing for a person's right to discriminate against anybody and it doesn't matter if it's in your own home, place of business, of service to the public.

Now that is a touchy situation, not to me, but to most. For me, it's not a question of legality or morality but personal freedom. Everyone understands that in your personal life you can discriminate against anybody for any reason you want. You don't like the way they look, their race, their weight, their gender, their height, their wealth... People may not like that and think you're a horrible person but it's your choice and you should be free to do so.

But say you own a Sports Bars, or a fitness center, retail store... should you be allowed to hire anybody you want as well as not hire anybody you don't want? Should you be allowed to forbid certain kinds of people from entering your place of business? Say you don't want Blacks or Mexicans, phags or transgendered people, coming into your establishment that you own. I mean, it's ok for a restaurant to say "No shirt, no service" here in Hawaii because you just don't want people dressed like that in your restaurant. You can say you don't want babies or pets or smoking. Why can't you say you don't want fat people, or women, or Blacks, or cops in your place of business?

I say you have that right. It's your business, you own it, you can decide who you want and don't want to serve. That sign, "We have the right to refuse service" should mean just that. And I leave it to the market place, the freedom of the consumers and patrons to decide if they want to support your business. Here in Hawaii, you have to be part Hawaiian to be able to go to Kamehameha School. Haoles need not apply. Blatant racial discrimination but it's allowed. Some have tried to sue but they always lose. That is systemic racism.

Now, this does not apply to any organization that receives taxpayer money. Libraries, government jobs, public universities... all do not have the same freedoms of discrimination because they can't discriminate the very people who financially support them. They work for you.

  

[joswift]

But say you own a Sports Bars, or a fitness center, retail store... should you be allowed to hire anybody you want as well as not hire anybody you don't want? Should you be allowed to forbid certain kinds of people from entering your place of business? Say you don't want Blacks or Mexicans, phags or transgendered people, coming into your establishment that you own. I mean, it's ok for a restaurant to say "No shirt, no service" here in Hawaii because you just don't want people dressed like that in your restaurant. You can say you don't want babies or pets or smoking. Why can't you say you don't want fat people, or women, or Blacks, or cops in your place of business?

I say you have that right. It's your business, you own it, you can decide who you want and don't want to serve. That sign, "We have the right to refuse service" should mean just that. And I leave it to the market place, the freedom of the consumers and patrons to decide if they want to support your business. Here in Hawaii, you have to be part Hawaiian to be able to go to Kamehameha School. Haoles need not apply. Blatant racial discrimination but it's allowed. Some have tried to sue but they always lose. That is systemic racism.

Now, this does not apply to any organization that receives taxpayer money. Libraries, government jobs, public universities... all do not have the same freedoms of discrimination because they can't discriminate the very people who financially support them. They work for you.

  

then we have an agreement sir....

[Soul Crusher]

Liberal mental illness

[pellius]

then we have an agreement sir....

Once I understood the question better I had a feeling we were on the same page though the majority, even those who call themselves "Libetarians" disagree. The only difference I can see is that I don't consider it a legal or moral issue but one of personal freedom. The freedom to associate or not associate with whomever you please.