Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (76826)	10/8/2003 11:01:28 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

They are entitled not to be refused service on the basis of gender, race, or sexual orientation. As a matter of law yes. I don't think there is any right as a function of natural law. I think the laws against discrimination might be justified by the difficulties and ugliness that where caused by wide spread discrimination and bigotry. Some method of dealing with the problem was needed. Its just not right that members of certain racial or ethnic groups (or women or members of certain religions) are treated as 2nd class citizens and shut out from a lot of societies benefits. If however we hadn't had any such wide spread bigotry the laws would not be justified and would even be an injustice. But let me answer your question with a question. Suppose he refused to give massages to blacks. Do you consider that it would his right to do that? Even from your libertarian viewpoint, does a business owner have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race? Yes, I think a business owner does have that right. Like other rights its not without limit. How far someone can go in exercising their rights does depend on its impact on other individuals and society in general. I would place the bar justifying infringement on that right, and most others, higher then many people would but there are still circumstances that might justify limitations on the ability to fully exercise that right. Any law against it would only be justified by a greater injustice done by bigotry and discrimination. Laws against "whites only" restaurants are only justified by the need to combat the overall injustice and practical difficulties caused by widespread discrimination. Enforcing a law against more personal, less in you face discrimination (a masseur's services are more personal and intimate then those of a restaurateur, and the discrimination could be less "in your face if the masseur took only a few clients by word of mouth) absent a conspiracy of discrimination is probably not justified under most circumstances IMO. And even when it is justified I would not say that means the business owner doesn't have a right to discriminate but rather that the expression of that right is being limited do to more important concerns, just like innocent peoples freedoms are limited by quarantines when they are carriers of a dangerous highly communicable disease. Tim