4 ms·
>where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone There's a word for that: mob justice. Is that really what you a
by RandomOpinion 10y ago
>where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone
There's a word for that: mob justice. Is that really what you and your ilk stand for?
- icebraining 10y agoNo, it's freedom of association. Mob justice would be doing something that violated his rights.
- int_19h 10y agoI'm curious what you think about private discrimination on account of race, then (e.g. when hotels and restaurants were turning away black customers, back in 50s in US - not because the law said so, but because they could).
- evgen 10y agoDiscrimination in commercial transactions within the public marketplace are illegal (c.f. Katzenbach v. McClung, et al) and discriminatory membership requirements for "private" clubs that operate in public is unpleasant, but I have no idea how to fix that particular problem legally so we solve it with the previously noted social pressure (aka "mob justice") and this seems to work reasonably well. OTOH, the state does not get to tell you who your friends will be or who you should be spending your time with.
- int_19h 10y agoThey are illegal, yes. I was wondering whether OP also treats it as "just freedom of association", since fundamentally refusing to serve some customer for any reason whatsoever is exactly that - and yet most people would agree that, done on such scale, it violates people's rights, too.
- icebraining 10y agoThere's a difference between discrimination - ie, different treatment based on the group, class, or category to which that person is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit - and choosing not to associate oneself with a specific individual.
- int_19h 10y agoChoosing to not associate oneself with a group of people is also freedom of association, though - as well as discrimination.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]