# Someone tell me why I can't descriminate with my business. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662 "2002-05-12T18:49:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/41 "2002-05-13T04:53:35Z")
DPwhite, The Ryan is displaying his usual command of economics. The economy is a system. An aggregate of markets that we might think of as being possessed in the aggregate by market participants in the widest sense. Or society. Government, being at least in democratic systems the rough proxy for “society” in the aggregate helps manage those markets to ensure that the greatest common good is had. Thus we have market supervision to protect against various kinds of market failures in which an actor or actors pursuit of self interest, in combination with some form of market power or breakdown, harms other participants and undermines the overall operation of the market. Well, this is a bit too brief and a bit too facile. I have to complete a project tomorrow, I hope to be able to return and give the purely economic argument – and there is indeed a very strong case-- against Senor Beef’s impoverished understanding of the rational for banning uncommercially justifiable discrimination by economic actors Of course, this being the poster who tried to argue women’s getting the vote was bad for United States because he perceived that some of his pet ideological positions were undermined by the same one should not expect very much out of this argument. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/42 "2002-05-13T05:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Thus we have market supervision to protect against various kinds of market failures in which an actor or actors pursuit of self interest, in combination with some form of market power or breakdown, harms other participants and undermines the overall operation of the market. Boiled down, this is precisely the rationale behind the _Heart of Atlanta_ decision. The thinking was: the negative impact of discrimination on interstate commerce was extensive enough, and detrimental enough, to justify the excercise by Congress of its constitutional power to regulate said interstate commerce. This was held to be true _even though_ the Civil Rights Act of 1964 obviously did impinge upon the property rights of those seeking to discriminate – like the Heart of Atlanta hotel, which sought to remain a “whites only” establishment. So there was a weighing of the individual rights of the hoteliers (including their property rights) versus the ability to Congress to proscribe certain actions it deemed to detrimentally impact interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court held that of the two, Congress’s rationale for _its_ actions was more compelling. And virtually every court considering _Heart of Atlanta_ since has agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/43 "2002-05-13T05:51:43Z")
Someone mentioned that it is legal to refuse to lease to any college students, just because they are college students. Why is this allowed? Because college students are more likely to mess up the place? Are businesses allowed to discriminate against someone because they are part of a group that has a high percentage of members with a characteristic that is detrimental to the business? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/44 "2002-05-13T06:30:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grendel72 \* > This is the type of argument that makes me fear for the SDMB. How dare anyone disagree with you! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **Beef** , the _only_ right being taken away from property owners is the right to be an asshole- don’t be an asshole and you don’t even need to think about the law. The right to act in ways that other people consider to be “being an asshole” is a basic, fundamental right. Without that right, democracy is meaningless. > [@](#): > > **Ryan** , this may be hard for you to accept but just because the word “Apartheid” wasn’t used doesn’t mean it wasn’t the practice in this country. “Apartheid” is a word with a specific meaning, to describe a specific attitude towards another race. The way it has been hijacked to describe any racist policy is inaccurate. > [@](#): > > Beef, the invalidation of rights by the majority is exactly what anti-discrimination laws exist to counteract. The paradoxical part about those laws is that they are not possible in a society in which the majority is opposed to equality. It’s only when the majority has been convinced of the value of equality that the laws become possible, making the laws unnecessary. The very fact that the laws exist proves that we shouldn’t have the laws. bnorton: > [@](#): > > What you have are two perfectly reasonable rights that conflict with one another. No, you have a reasonable right on the one hand, and a ridiculous “right” on the other. If I walk into a store, and I say “hey, can someone sell this to me?” and everyone ignores me, I might get annoyed. But I’m certainly not going to call the cops. Next time the waitress takes a bit too long to get to your table, try calling 911. See how interested they are in your “rights” being violated. > [@](#): > > Also, there is an objective “right thing” it’s called the golden rule. That’s a religious “right thing”, not an objective one. Religion has no place in law. Jodi > [@](#): > > Certainly every U.S. citizen has a legislatively created right not be discriminated against on the basis of race, national origina, etc., in places of public accommodation, because Congress so provided in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. **Rights are not created by laws!** > [@](#): > > I find it interesting that you would dismiss the eradication of racial discrimination as something done “for convenience’s sake.” Are you seriously claiming that anti-discrimination laws have eradicated discrimination? > [@](#): > > Boiled down, this is precisely the rationale behind the Heart of Atlanta decision. The thinking was: the negative impact of discrimination on interstate commerce was extensive enough, and detrimental enough, to justify the excercise by Congress of its constitutional power to regulate said interstate commerce. But why create more holes in the Bill of Rights when the existing holes were sufficient? DPWhite > [@](#): > > The Ryan asserted that the economy doesn’t belong to everyone, but to those that own it. Really? Cite? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really unable to recognize a moral statement? > [@](#): > > The government at various levels have the right/power to regulate, tax and manipulate the economy. The power to allow access and exclude. No other entity does. This approximates possession and ownership for all practical purposes. So does the government own its citizens as well? What you are advancing is one of the basic tenets of fascism: that private property exists only on the sufferance of the government. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/45 "2002-05-13T06:52:55Z")
> [@](#): > > The right to act in ways that other people consider to be “being an asshole” is a basic, fundamental right. Without that right, democracy is meaningless. May I assume, then, that I can find this “right to be an asshole” in the Constitution? Third Amendment, isn’t it? (Since who the hell cares about quartering soldiers…) By the way, I’d like to exercise my right to act in ways that other people consider to be “being an asshole” by coming to your house and taking all your stuff. Without that right, democracy is meaningless. And what’s that, you say? Theft is illegal? Well: > [@](#): > > Rights are not created by laws! Perhaps not, but they’re sure as hell _enforced_ by laws. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/46 "2002-05-13T07:08:20Z")
> [@](#): > > private property exists only on the sufferance of the government Private property does exist only on the sufferance of the government. Exhibit A: **The discovery principle.** Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823) > [@](#): > > The principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. > > [D]iscovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest, and gave them also a right to such a degree of sovereignty, as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. > > Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny. Exhibit B: **Eminent domain.** See the Fifth Amendment ("…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") or look[here:](http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wemindom.htm) > [@](#): > > Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their police power. > > … > > Eminent domain was created to authorize the government or the condemning authority, called the condemnor, to conduct a compulsory sale of property for the common welfare, such as health or safety. Just compensation is required to ease the financial burden incurred by the property owner for the benefit of the public. One last quote: > [@](#): > > Property is often thought of a way of defining a domain of self-control–“a shield for the individual against the intrusions of the collective.” But the creation and maintenance of property–something of value that you may restrain others from using–requires the blessing and protection of state power. Property is a creature of the state. –From the Introduction to _Cases, Materials, and Problems in Property_ by Richard H. Chused. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/47 "2002-05-13T11:24:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bnorton \* > \*\*What you have are two perfectly reasonable rights that conflict with one another. As you say, a business owner should have the right to serve, hire or accommodate anyone he so chooses. That seems reasonable in and of itself. On the other hand the Joe Public should have the right to patronize any store he wants and not be barred because of the whim of the owner. That’s reasonable, also. These two rights can’t exist together so one has to go. > > The situation is different for the home. Obviously the homeowner has the right to keep anyone he wants off his property, but I can’t see any argument for the right for Joe Public to invite himself into anyone’s house. Thus there are no rights in conflict. \*\* Apparently you missed what I said above, or didn’t bother to contest it. A right cannot derive from the labor or expense of another person. “A right to be served by a person who does not want to serve you” is costing them in some manner, and hence, can’t really be a right. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/48 "2002-05-13T11:26:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grendel72 \* > \*\ ***Beef** , the invalidation of rights by the majority is _exactly_ what anti-discrimination laws exist to counteract. \*\* … By removing property rights. This, of course, assumes that “there is a right to be served by someone who does not wish to serve you” is a right, which is silly in my book. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, there is an objective “right thing” it’s called the golden rule. If you’ve somehow never heard of it let me summarise: “Don’t be an asshole, people don’t like assholes and will treat you badly if you are one.” \*\* Right. “Think the way I do, and you’re alright. Otherwise, I’ll try to force legislation on you.” ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/49 "2002-05-13T11:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*SENOR BEEF – > > Well, that depends on what we mean by “right.” Certainly every U.S. citizen has a legislatively created right not be discriminated against on the basis of race, national origina, etc., in places of public accommodation, because Congress so provided in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. \*\* I don’t believe that Congress has the ability to create or destroy rights. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Yep. That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re saying: Innkeeper, you cannot _not_ rent a hotel room to this person on the basis of race. \*\* And hence you’re limiting property rights and forcing the innkeeper to do something he does not wish to do. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > The right does not “derive” from “the expense of another,” it derives from an Act of Congress. \*\* Rights are innate. Rights cannot be created by a legislative body. Rights also cannot derive at the expense of others. You cannot say “Everyone has the right to have a house built for them”, because it requires time, material, and labor from others in order to fulfill that “right”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > It _conflicts_ with the right of another, when a person desiring not to be discriminated against bumps up against a person desiring to discriminate against his or her, through the exercise of a property right. \*\* The idea that “You have to serve me against your will” is a right is silly to me. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Congress has provided that in such a case, the right of the individual not to be discriminated against trumps the other individual’s right to do what he/she wants with his/her property, andd the courts have agreed. (I should also point out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not set forth any new affirmative right, but rather prohibits discriminatory actions on the part of those who might wish to discriminate. But the effect is largely the same.) \*\* Congress has written a law which forces people to, in some cases, do what they do not wish to do, and it does this by limiting (or infringing upon) their property rights. It did not create a right, because legislative bodies have no ability to create rights. They can merely recognize and protect them, or try to suppress them. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well, perhaps it would be better to consider it to be a conflict between the full exercise of a right (property right) and a limitation on the exercise of that right. But those two certainly conflict. \*\* There’s a conflict of property rights and the government deciding that it would force people to serve who they may not wish to serve, and hire who they may not wish to hire, under threat of legal action or force. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I’d construe it as a limitation, not a usurpation; it’s not as if the government has taken to itself the right to discriminate. But in either case – what danger do you see in it? And please put forward something other than a “slippery slope” argument. \*\* You suggest ‘slippery slope’ arguments are invalid. In any case, if people don’t have the right to descriminate who can use their property, the property isn’t really theirs, I don’t think, it’s just something the government has decided they were gracious enough to let them use. It invalidates the idea of property rights, which were a core principle of this country’s founding. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Actually, it’s not all that arbitrary; the list of what constitute “places of public accommodation” is right in the statute. It has been slightly expanded since through case law interpretation (for example, the Court in the _PGA Tour v. Martin_, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) stated that the statutory phrase “place of entertainment or exhibition” included golf courses). But if you’re curious whether a particular business is or is not a “place of public accommodation,” you can look it up. \*\* Fair enough, I suppose. Although simply because they codified it and applied it consistently doesn’t inherently suggest it isn’t arbitrary. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Well, yes. Can you think of another way to fix it? \*\* I’m not so quick to assume that people having control over their own property is a problem. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Again, the right does not derive from “the labor or expense of others;” it impinges upon a different right possessed by them. \*\* If I am forced to hire or serve you, even though I do not wish to do so, it is certainly derived from my labor. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I find it interesting that you would dismiss the eradication of racial discrimination as something done “for convenience’s sake.” \*\* Instead of fixing a social problem, the government forcifully removed individual property rights. What would you consider it? (Not implying, though, that it’s the government’s responsibility to fix social problems). > [@](#): > > \*\* > > When two rights (or a right and a prohibition) conflict, one must be “redefined,” or “limited” or, if you like, “violated.” \*\* “The right to be served by someone who does not wish to serve you” is as unrealistic as “The right to have a house built for you”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That’s what happens when you try to carry your gun into an airport. \*\* Actually, that _should_ probably simply be a matter of property rights. All the airlines would privately ban guns on all their flights, and you’d have a reasonable, normal excercise of property rights, rather than a governmental restriction on natural rights. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That’s what happens when you attempt to disseminate obscenity under the flag of free speech. That’s what happens when the cops tap your phone. I can’t think of a right that U.S. citizens possess that is held without limitation – not religion, not speech, not personal liberty, and certainly not property. \*\* And, of course, this alone can be used to justify a limitation or suppression of any right. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You appear to be arguing that no infringement on property rights may ever be justified. It’s a popular libertarian argument, but not one I happen to agree with. \*\* That’s a larger statement that I’m not going to commit to without more thought. I do, however, tend to lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to discriminate, in any way they see fit, when it comes to their own property. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/50 "2002-05-13T11:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Of course, this being the poster who tried to argue women’s getting the vote was bad for United States because he perceived that some of his pet ideological positions were undermined by the same one should not expect very much out of this argument. \*\* Nice, unnecesary, character assassination. In the thread to which you refer, I merely posed a question. It is inaccurate, and possibly deceitful, to suggest that I declared it was a bad thing that women had the right to vote. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/51 "2002-05-13T11:58:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\* > > A right cannot derive from the labor or expense of another person. “A right to be served by a person who does not want to serve you” is costing them in some manner, and hence, can’t really be a right. \*\* As pointed out by others, it depends on how you define what a “right” is. Most people would define it differently, but let’s not quibble over semantics. What you are really saying is that, as a matter of policy, the government should not force person A to serve person B. This seems like a pretty radical position to me. A hypothetical: It’s the middle of a cold winter, and the your local gas company decides to boost profits by tripling its charges to the customer for natural gas. Anyone who can’t pay immediately will be cut off. Should the government (and customers) be able to force the gas company to continue serving the public at rates approved by the Board of Public Utilities? Or should the gas company be free to charge whatever price it wants for gas and cut off customers for any reason? Hey, the natural gas is the private property of the gas company, right? ---
**Author:** ![grendel72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/91b2a8/32.png) [@grendel72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grendel72)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/52 "2002-05-13T12:59:26Z")
**Beef** , and **Ryan** : I guess I didn’t simplify my definition of the golden rule enough for y’all. It has absolutely _nothing_ to do with religion, so I guess I’ll have to attempt to simplify it again. “If you treat others poorly you give them every reason to treat you poorly. For society to function, it is best if you treat others as you would wish to be treated.” ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/53 "2002-05-13T13:10:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*“Apartheid” is a word with a specific meaning, to describe a specific attitude towards another race. The way it has been hijacked to describe any racist policy is inaccurate. > \*\* a·part·heid Pronunciation Key (-pärtht, -ht) n. 1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. 2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation. Definition 1 is specific to South Africa, so for the purpose of discussing pre-Civil Rights Act America, it can be ignored. Please explain how definitions 2 and 3 of the word “apartheid” do not apply to pre-1964 America, with particular attention to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine in _Plessy_ and George Wallace’s 1962 Alabama gubernatorial campaign with the slogan “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!” N.B. You might, in the future, want to operate under the principle that others have at least as good a grasp of the English language as you do. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/54 "2002-05-13T13:20:35Z")
**Senor Beef**. In almost every post you’ve made in this thread, you’ve stated (or attempted to imply): > [@](#): > > “The right to be served by someone who does not wish to serve you” Anti-discrimination laws have not created rights to be served, or to be put up in a hotel, or to have a house built for you. They have, however, stated that **IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THESE THINGS IN THE UNITED STATES** you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc. Nobody is forcing you to open a diner, but if you do, you can’t refuse service to somebody because they are black. You also continue to say: > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that Congress [or the government] has the ability to create or destroy rights. Well, here you are just plain wrong. Factually wrong. In your ideology, you may think that the government SHOULDN’T be able to do these things, but to say they don’t is a gross misstatement of the facts and the history of the United States. I may be off base, but I would be willing to bet that you were not even alive while government-sanctioned segregation was going occurring. Don’t worry, neither was I. However, I took the time to research, learn, and hear the stories of how the “Jim Crow” laws, segregation, and racial hatred did nearly irreparable harm to this country. I suggest you do the same. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/55 "2002-05-13T13:36:47Z")
Rights don’t even have any meaning beyond the power to enforce them. Of _course_ your private property is held under suffrance of government since government has the _power_ to remove it. Rights are not absolute, although it could be argued that the _concept_ of (certain) rights are absolute. And the notion that rights are inherent is fair enough but the reality of life is that (despite what certain aspirational documents might say) they are granted. You are not granted the right to discriminate on the basis of colour. Diddums. pan ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/56 "2002-05-13T14:36:38Z")
Sorry, **pan** , but I can channel the response right now. Quoth **The Ryan** or **Señor Beef** : “No, rights _are_ inherent and God-given and absolute and cannot be granted or removed by governments. Period, end of statement, full stop. You are simply wrong.” Hard to refute dogma, innit? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/57 "2002-05-13T17:31:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Beef: > > A right cannot derive from the labor or expense of another person. “A right to be served by a person who does not want to serve you” is costing them in some manner, and hence, can’t really be a right. How is it costing them? Doesn’t the server get compensated for their labor? > [@](#): > > lucwarm to Beef: > > What you are really saying is that, as a matter of policy, the government should not force person A to serve person B. That sounds to me like what **Beef** is saying. But The People in this land of supposed equality, by way of their government, have decided that if you open a business that promises to render goods & services in exchange for compensation from person A, you must do the same thing (within reason, and as defined & regulated by law) for persons B, C & D. Unless your “beef” is really with the core assumption of equal rights for all. ---
**Author:** ![UrbanChic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9dc877/32.png) [@UrbanChic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UrbanChic)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/58 "2002-05-13T17:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **\ > “Apartheid” is a word with a specific meaning, to describe a specific attitude towards another race. The way it has been hijacked to describe any racist policy is inaccurate. > \** Well, according to [www.dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com), apartheid also means a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. The original meaning has nothing at all to do with a ‘specific _attitude_’ towards a segregrated group. It has everything to do, however, with _actions_ toward a segregrated group. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/59 "2002-05-13T18:01:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > As pointed out by others, it depends on how you define what a “right” is. Most people would define it differently, but let’s not quibble over semantics. What you are really saying is that, as a matter of policy, the government should not force person A to serve person B. \*\* This is a cop out. “It IS a right, because I say it’s a right, now let’s not argue over this…” when it’s a core issue. Do people have a right to have a house built for them? A right to free ice cream? > [@](#): > > \*\* > This seems like a pretty radical position to me. A hypothetical: It’s the middle of a cold winter, and the your local gas company decides to boost profits by tripling its charges to the customer for natural gas. Anyone who can’t pay immediately will be cut off. Should the government (and customers) be able to force the gas company to continue serving the public at rates approved by the Board of Public Utilities? Or should the gas company be free to charge whatever price it wants for gas and cut off customers for any reason? Hey, the natural gas is the private property of the gas company, right? \*\* That’s an entirely different can of worms, I think. Without giving it some thought, I’m not sure what, precisely, my position would be. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/60 "2002-05-13T18:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grendel72 \* > \*\ ***Beef** , and **Ryan** : > I guess I didn’t simplify my definition of the golden rule enough for y’all. It has absolutely _nothing_ to do with religion, so I guess I’ll have to attempt to simplify it again. > “If you treat others poorly you give them every reason to treat you poorly. For society to function, it is best if you treat others as you would wish to be treated.” \*\* Sure, everyone should be nice to each other. But what we’re discussing here is: If someone doesn’t live up to your idea of ‘nice’, do you have the government come in and force them to do something by limiting their property rights? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662.md?page=4)