Fox News poll on civil rights law

[spidey07]

<snip>
Businesses receive a lot of protections from the government not spelled out in the Constitution.

Actually it IS spelled out in The Constitution. I can bring my grievances in each and every one of your examples to a court of law, guaranteed by The Constitution. Why do you think the 1st amendment is so damn important?

So your examples have already been decided by precedent.

 

[jhu]

I think most people are missing the bigger picture. There are valid reasons to discriminate.

Women only gyms are very popular, but they do discriminate. Women like them, I dont have a problem with them, but they are choosing who they pick to do business with. And according to you, that is wrong.

There are valid reasons. I don't think the one you gave is a good example though. Catering to women is one thing. Denying men entirely is quite another. BTW, men also go to Curves so it doesn't even count.

A better example is trying to see an OB/Gyn for treatment when you are a man.

 

[charrison]

There really isn't a slippery slope. The general rule is that you cannot discriminate against people based on things they cannot change or should not have to change. I actually disagree on the "should not have to change" thing but really it's a pretty safe rule.

So you think curves should be shut down or ordered to take men as customers?

there probably is not difference in the end result of these two options.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Actually it IS spelled out in The Constitution. I can bring my grievances in each and every one of your examples to a court of law, guaranteed by The Constitution. Why do you think the 1st amendment is so damn important?

So your examples have already been decided by precedent.

Who do you believe enforces The Constitution?

 

[charrison]

There are valid reasons. I don't think the one you gave is a good example though. Catering to women is one thing. Denying men entirely is quite another. BTW, men also go to Curves so it doesn't even count.

A better example is trying to see an OB/Gyn for treatment when you are a man.

As near as I can tell curves is women only. Even their website says they are created specifically for women. Curves was created so women could go work out without being bothered by men.

Their moto:
&#8220;no makeup, no men, and no mirrors&#8221;



If catering to wome is ok, is catering to men ok? If catering to one is ok, then catering to each group should be ok. We cant have some people be more equal than others.

 

[Infohawk]

So you think curves should be shut down or ordered to take men as customers?

I think gender is a special case since there really are clear differences between the genders. Wikipedia suggests southerners added this to the Civil Rights Act to try to sink it which sounds plausible to me.

 

[charrison]

I think gender is a special case since there really are clear differences between the genders. Wikipedia suggests southerners added this to the Civil Rights Act to try to sink it which sounds plausible to me.

But gender is important and most people realize and that is the poll is getting the numbers it is getting. People realize there are valid reasons to discriminate. I think it is pretty obvious our society has come along way in the past 50 years in regards to discrimination.

Right now we have a black president and 600k more women than men will get a college degree in 2010. Quit looking back, look forward.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The Federal government discriminates every day in its hiring practices, contracts, grants, etc. Why should they be allowed to do it but not private business? If we want to remove discrimination then remove it completely.

 

[Infohawk]

Besides gender do you have any other issues with the protected classes?

I'm not sure what college graduation proportions or having a black president has to do with discrimination laws. It makes sense when arguing against affirmative action which is designed to correct historical biases, but not here. Again, to me these rules are necessary to create a unified society. If people can't conduct business together they really aren't part of the same society.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Besides gender do you have any other issues with the protected classes?

I'm not sure what college graduation proportions or having a black president has to do with discrimination laws. It makes sense when arguing against affirmative action which is designed to correct historical biases, but not here. Again, to me these rules are necessary to create a unified society. If people can't conduct business together they really aren't part of the same society.

If people can't choose who to do business with we are not really a FREE society either.

 

[Zorba]

Your first mistake is assuming businesses exist because of government when it is the other way around. Governments do not create wealth they only consume and redistribute it.

Absolutely disagree. This is the failed logic of the liberal. That business is granted operation by the government. That the rulers "allow" you to operate in return for their "protection". Sounds like a criminal mob, doesn't it?

Now tell me about all businesses receive government support and protection? What kind of support are you talking about? Protections however are guaranteed in The Constitution.

Basically, fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

How many businesses would invest in new products without patent protections? How many businesses would invest in media without copyright protections? How many businesses would invest in manufacturing if their products could be freely stolen at any time? How many people would purchase goods, if there were no consumer protections?

Anarchy doesn't work.

 

[Infohawk]

If people can't choose who to do business with we are not really a FREE society either.

So you think the US hasn't been a free society since 1964?

 

[frostedflakes]

I don't think it's a big deal, because it's one of those things that will sort itself out. If a business refuses to serve customers based on race, for example, they'll more than likely get a ton of bad PR, lose customers, and go out of business. No reason for the government to get involved, let people speak with their wallet.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So you think the US hasn't been a free society since 1964?

Have we been racism free since 1964?

 

[Infohawk]

Have we been racism free since 1964?

Why can't you just answer the question? You suggested not being able to discriminate means not being free.

I didn't suggest we've been racism free since 1964. But I think we are today a more unified society than in 1964.

 

[charrison]

Besides gender do you have any other issues with the protected classes?

Since the world is not black and white, I am sure there are things that would suffer if the government regulated who did business with who.

There should be no protected classes at this point.

I'm not sure what college graduation proportions or having a black president has to do with discrimination laws. It makes sense when arguing against affirmative action which is designed to correct historical biases, but not here. Again, to me these rules are necessary to create a unified society. If people can't conduct business together they really aren't part of the same society.

Well people(mainly liberals) continue to want to look at race relations through a lens that is 50 years old. Reality is much different than that perception.

 

[Infohawk]

Since the world is not black and white, I am sure there are things that would suffer if the government regulated who did business with who.

It's not a hypothetical. The government already heavily regulates business. We're specifically talking about discrimination regulation here. I'm just curious what other protected classes, besides sex, you think are a waste of time...

 

[charrison]

It's not a hypothetical. The government already heavily regulates business. We're specifically talking about discrimination regulation here. I'm just curious what other protected classes, besides sex, you think are a waste of time...

I think at this point, all protected classes are a waste of time. Society is fairly color blind at this point, so I dont think there is any need to regulate this aspect of business.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why can't you just answer the question? You suggested not being able to discriminate means not being free.

I didn't suggest we've been racism free since 1964. But I think we are today a more unified society than in 1964.

Bush unified us after 9/11 as well.

 

[Infohawk]

Bush unified us after 9/11 as well.

You still haven't answered the question... You're just diverting.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Actually it IS spelled out in The Constitution. I can bring my grievances in each and every one of your examples to a court of law, guaranteed by The Constitution. Why do you think the 1st amendment is so damn important?

So your examples have already been decided by precedent.

It's spelled out as much as the government ensuring that businesses can't discriminate based on race is spelled out in the Constitution.

For example, where exactly do you find "trademark dilution" in the Constitution?

 

[her209]

There should be no protected classes at this point.

Well people(mainly liberals) continue to want to look at race relations through a lens that is 50 years old. Reality is much different than that perception.

That may be, but I don't think the U.S. would have the stomach to roll back all the progress that has been made in the last 50 years in the civil rights arena to see "if" its the case or not.

 

[Throckmorton]

Can someone post a link to the poll?

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't think it's a big deal, because it's one of those things that will sort itself out. If a business refuses to serve customers based on race, for example, they'll more than likely get a ton of bad PR, lose customers, and go out of business. No reason for the government to get involved, let people speak with their wallet.

That wasn't the case 50 years ago. Bigotry is stigmatized now because of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Fear No Evil]

You still haven't answered the question... You're just diverting.

I don't think we've truly been free since things like property taxes and income taxes started.