5 ms·

Theres a fine line between “being allowed to throw a loud ranting racist out of a pub” because the pub is your business and you should be allowed to choose who

Theres a fine line between “being allowed to throw a loud ranting racist out of a pub” because the pub is your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and you don’t like racists... and throwing out a person of a different race because it’s your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and don’t like that race... That is, we want businesses to have the right to choose who to do business with, unless we disagree with their reasons for not wanting to do business with someone.

anu_gupta 8y ago
The line isn't very fine. There's a clear difference between traits that you were BORN with, and things that you CHOOSE to say. To put it more simply for you – it's difficult for someone to change their skin colour. It's not really that difficult for them to not say racist things in a pub.
nine_k 8y ago
Yes, a society* enforces certain choices, but not every choice. "Everything what is not expressly forbidden is allowed" still applies. * Yes, "society" here works through state. But without a reasonably wide consensus in the society, a norm cannot be effectively imposed: most people would break it and be sure that everyone around won't mind. (Manufacturing such a consent, if it's not yet there, is another business.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mrkurt 8y ago
It's not really a fine line. There are specific, protected people-features you can't use to discriminate. Saying stupid shit isn't one of them. Race is. Those laws don't exist because we don't agree with their reasons. They exist to protect people who have been categorically repressed for hundreds of years.
- sharpneli 8y ago
  This brings an interesting workaround to mind. What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. However people getting banned like this rarely are inventive enough to figure out ways to fight back.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. The thing about the law is that it doesn't operate like code. You can't just cast<Religion>(ideology) and expect it to work within the framework of law, because the law is (luckily) interpreted by people who expect it to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. Otherwise, literally every corporation would already have registered themselves as a religion just to avoid paying taxes.
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      What if a law is passed to make political affiliation a protected class?
      - krapp 8y ago
        IANAL, but as I understand it, the typical qualifiers for being a protected class tend to be immutable (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information, per Wikipedia[0].) Obviously you can change your sex and religion, though, and disability status in some cases, though. Maybe a case could be made for political affiliation under "creed," since there appears to be no specific legal definition for that[1], although the consensus seems to be centered around religious belief. In any case, since one can (and many people do) change their political affiliations often, I would expect such a law to meet with some extreme legal challenges at the very least, because it seems like such an obvious attempt to game the system, particularly since "discrimination against a political group" is pretty much the purpose of other political groups. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group [1]https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed-legally https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...
CyberDildonics 8y ago
This is not a fine line. One is behavior and the other is physical attribute which can not be changed and does not affect anyone else.
zamalek 8y ago
> who to do business with and don’t like that race... Although not the historical reason, a far simpler one is: you can change your mind and ideas but can't change your race. In addition, it is that behavior and not that belief that gets the racist removed from the premises. You can choose to be quiet about your ideas where they are not welcome, but you can't choose to not be your race where it is not welcome.
- dkersten 8y ago
  Yes, this makes sense.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  So if being black was a choice you would be okay with businesses discriminating against black people unless they chose to be a different race?
  - krapp 8y ago
    In this hypothetical universe, is it as easy to change one's race as it is to change one's clothes? If so, it seems no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service." But then a world in which race was a choice would be so different from our own that one would wonder whether racial discrimination would even exist, or what "black" would even mean.
    - y2kenny 8y ago
      If I understand the arguments some folks are putting out these days, race, like gender, is now a social construct and therefore entirely mutable: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i... I am not saying I agree or disagree with it, but perhaps things are not as hypothetical as you believe.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- 8y ago
jyounker 8y ago
There isn’t a fine line. One is based on a person’s beliefs. The other is based on a person’s genetics.

anu_gupta 8y ago

The line isn't very fine. There's a clear difference between traits that you were BORN with, and things that you CHOOSE to say. To put it more simply for you – it's difficult for someone to change their skin colour. It's not really that difficult for them to not say racist things in a pub.

nine_k 8y ago

Yes, a society* enforces certain choices, but not every choice. "Everything what is not expressly forbidden is allowed" still applies. * Yes, "society" here works through state. But without a reasonably wide consensus in the society, a norm cannot be effectively imposed: most people would break it and be sure that everyone around won't mind. (Manufacturing such a consent, if it's not yet there, is another business.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mrkurt 8y ago

It's not really a fine line. There are specific, protected people-features you can't use to discriminate. Saying stupid shit isn't one of them. Race is. Those laws don't exist because we don't agree with their reasons. They exist to protect people who have been categorically repressed for hundreds of years.

sharpneli 8y ago
This brings an interesting workaround to mind. What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. However people getting banned like this rarely are inventive enough to figure out ways to fight back.
- krapp 8y ago
  >What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. The thing about the law is that it doesn't operate like code. You can't just cast<Religion>(ideology) and expect it to work within the framework of law, because the law is (luckily) interpreted by people who expect it to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. Otherwise, literally every corporation would already have registered themselves as a religion just to avoid paying taxes.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    What if a law is passed to make political affiliation a protected class?
    - krapp 8y ago
      IANAL, but as I understand it, the typical qualifiers for being a protected class tend to be immutable (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information, per Wikipedia[0].) Obviously you can change your sex and religion, though, and disability status in some cases, though. Maybe a case could be made for political affiliation under "creed," since there appears to be no specific legal definition for that[1], although the consensus seems to be centered around religious belief. In any case, since one can (and many people do) change their political affiliations often, I would expect such a law to meet with some extreme legal challenges at the very least, because it seems like such an obvious attempt to game the system, particularly since "discrimination against a political group" is pretty much the purpose of other political groups. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group [1]https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed-legally https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...

CyberDildonics 8y ago

This is not a fine line. One is behavior and the other is physical attribute which can not be changed and does not affect anyone else.

zamalek 8y ago

> who to do business with and don’t like that race... Although not the historical reason, a far simpler one is: you can change your mind and ideas but can't change your race. In addition, it is that behavior and not that belief that gets the racist removed from the premises. You can choose to be quiet about your ideas where they are not welcome, but you can't choose to not be your race where it is not welcome.

dkersten 8y ago
Yes, this makes sense.
creaghpatr 8y ago
So if being black was a choice you would be okay with businesses discriminating against black people unless they chose to be a different race?
- krapp 8y ago
  In this hypothetical universe, is it as easy to change one's race as it is to change one's clothes? If so, it seems no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service." But then a world in which race was a choice would be so different from our own that one would wonder whether racial discrimination would even exist, or what "black" would even mean.
  - y2kenny 8y ago
    If I understand the arguments some folks are putting out these days, race, like gender, is now a social construct and therefore entirely mutable: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i... I am not saying I agree or disagree with it, but perhaps things are not as hypothetical as you believe.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
8y ago

jyounker 8y ago

There isn’t a fine line. One is based on a person’s beliefs. The other is based on a person’s genetics.