# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/101 "2002-05-14T21:32:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > I’m not going to defend my entire moral system. That’s a completely different subject, and not a simple one. I am not presenting my morality as a given, I am presenting the fact that I believe in my morality as a given. > > Can you explain why discrimination is immoral? \*\* Easily, under any one of a number of theories of justice. I was hoping that, at least, you or **Senor Beef** would respond with a citation to Nozick. I’m quite sure you believe in your morality. What of it? Why should I or anyone else believe in your morality? If you are simply going to assert that property rights should be absolute then there is no discussion here. Yes, if you assume that property rights are absolute and that it is “immoral” for the government to infringe on them, then it is “immoral” to have to pay taxes or to have to do any one of a thousand other things that were are regularly required to do as members of society. You are basing your entire position on your morality yet you are unwilling to defend – or even explain – the proposition from which you reason. What you are doing is the logical equivalent of saying “Assume the moon is made of cheese. Someone tell me why I can’t make pizzas out of moon rocks!” If you are unwilling to explain your theory of rights, then I am equally free to respond that the government can invade your property rights because they can. “Might makes right” is a theory of rights, though not, intellectually speaking, a particularly compelling one. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/102 "2002-05-14T22:35:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > > > [@](#): > > > > from me: > > > > 1. Actually, that’s exactly what’s happening, in a literal sense. By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the government controls the roads, the trains, the airways. This is the governments’ property. > > So? I bow before your brilliant response. > [@](#): > > also from me: > 2. Your property rights stop at the front door. Your property rights do not extend to requiring the government to let you use the public roadways to promote discrimination. But no one’s asking to force the governent to allow the use of the roads. The governent has expressed absolutely no interest in denying the use of their roads. If the governent were to say “stop discriminating or you can’t use our roads”, you’d sorta have a case, but that never happened. Nor has any business owner signed a contract allowing the governent to tell them what to do. As I said, you can say that, metaphorically speaking, there is a contract, but literally speaking, the governent has not agreed to a contract. The business has not agreed to a contract. **There is no contract**. If you insist that there is one, I’d like to see a copy of it. [/QUOTE] Well, you’re right. What the government said was “you cannot use our roads to gain profit if you are going to discriminate.” It’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if you want to see the contract, it’s called the U.S. constitution. The Commerce Clause sets out the U.S. government’s property interest in the roads, waterways, and other means of commerce. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > from me again: > > 2. The diner owner is not a third party to this contract. He/she is availing him/herself of the public roadways in order to give value to his/her property. > > Simply because one is benefitting from a service, that hardly means they aren’t a third party. Government- one. Truckers- two. Diner- what? Two and half? There are three parties. The diner is the third. If I tell someone “hey, you should go see this barber” does the barber now have the right to tell me how to run my business? In this analogy, the trucker is your agent - he is on the road at your behest. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > guess who? > > 3. In any event, of course a contract specifying how a third party can act would stand up. Take an easement. You own the property between Mr. X’s house and the road. You allow Mr. X. to build a driveway across your property, but as part of the deal, you prohibit him from having trucks over X weight use the driveway. Mr. X cannot (a) invite his friend with the monster truck to his house (inducement), or (b) have a moving company roll up the driveway with their semi- (direction). > > I’m the first party, right? And Mr. X is the second, right? So prohibitions about what Mr. X can do aren’t involving a third party. Mr. X cannot direct or induce a third party to violate the easement contract, much as Mr. Diner Owner cannot induce or direct third parties. > [@](#): > > one: This sort of logic can be used to justify anything. You want to worship in a Catholic Church? Okay, but you’re going to have to use public roads to get there. And as we all know, once you use public roads, you lose all your rights :rolleyes:. Your example is silly. 1. In the same contract (the Constitution), an exception is carved out for religious worship. 2. Furthermore, the Constitution delimits Congress’ property rights over the roadways so that it may only control conduct substantially affecting interstate commerce. > [@](#): > > two: The reason the government has all these wonderful roads is because they have eminent domain, which they use to take the land that they want for the roads. So they take land away from people, and then say “if you want to use this land, you have to do what we say”? That’s about right, so long as what the people are doing substantially affects interstate commerce. > [@](#): > > three: You’re wrong. Suppose I were a member of a comune. A comune that, for some reason, has a thing about blacks. We grow our own food, and own a road that goes to the nearest town. People from that town come to our comune every once in a while and buy food from us. Except black people. We don’t like black people. Do you _really_ think the government will say “Oh. Okay. You’re not using any public roads. Guess we’ll leave you alone now.”? Maybe the federal government will, but the state government won’t. Why? \*\*Because the use of public roads is not the basis for this! \*\* I’m decidedly not wrong. Read _Heart of Atlanta_. Sua ---
**Author:** ![berdollos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@berdollos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/berdollos)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/103 "2002-05-14T22:52:54Z")
You apparently disagree with the current law’s rationale. that is no reason, however, to disobey it. I obey laws everyday with underlying rationales with which I do not agree. Tough! ---
**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 14, 2002, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/104 "2002-05-14T22:54:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > Easily, under any one of a number of theories of justice. Then please do so. > [@](#): > > I was hoping that, at least, you or **Senor Beef** would respond with a citation to Nozick. I am not in the habit of citing other people’s opinion as if it proved my position. Another person’s opinion is an opinion, nothing more. > [@](#): > > If you are simply going to assert that property rights should be absolute then there is no discussion here. Yes, if you assume that property rights are absolute and that it is “immoral” for the government to infringe on them, then it is “immoral” to have to pay taxes or to have to do any one of a thousand other things that were are regularly required to do as members of society. I never said that property rights are absolute. Not in the sense that you mean. > [@](#): > > You are basing your entire position on your morality yet you are unwilling to defend – or even explain – the proposition from which you reason. It is not a type of proposition that can be defended. It just is. > [@](#): > > What you are doing is the logical equivalent of saying “Assume the moon is made of cheese. Someone tell me why I can’t make pizzas out of moon rocks!” No it’s not. My position does not contradict any established facts, and your implication that it does is immoral. And no, I’m not going to present a cite for that claim either. > [@](#): > > If you are unwilling to explain your theory of rights, then I am equally free to respond that the government can invade your property rights because they can. Really? Cite? > [@](#): > > “Might makes right” is a theory of rights, though not, intellectually speaking, a particularly compelling one. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/105 "2002-05-14T23:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*\*quote: > > ## You are basing your entire position on your morality yet you are unwilling to defend – or even explain – the proposition from which you reason. > > It is not a type of proposition that can be defended. It just is. \*\* **SenorBeef** I’m a bit pressed for time just now. Could you explain to **The Ryan** the fallacy inherent in his thinking here? Thanks! ---
**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 14, 2002, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/106 "2002-05-14T23:27:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > I bow before your brilliant response. My intent was not to induce prostration, but to prompt an explanation of how that is relevant. > [@](#): > > Well, you’re right. What the government said was “you cannot use our roads to gain profit if you are going to discriminate.” Is that a quote or a paraphrase? > [@](#): > > It’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where in the CRA does it say that? > [@](#): > > And if you want to see the contract, it’s called the U.S. constitution. 1. I think that it is quite safe to say that Senor Beef’s hypothetical business was not a signatory to that. 2. The terms you describe do not appear in the Constitution. > [@](#): > > In this analogy, the trucker is your agent - he is on the road at your behest. Not anymore than the supermarket sells bananas at my bequest. The trucker is not my agent in the legal sense, nor any other sense which would be relevant to your argument. > [@](#): > > Mr. X cannot direct or induce a third party to violate the easement contract, much as Mr. Diner Owner cannot induce or direct third parties. But Mr. Diner Owner **is** the third party. The trucker is the second party. > [@](#): > > 1. In the same contract (the Constitution), an exception is carved out for religious worship. As is an exception for private property. > [@](#): > > 1. Furthermore, the Constitution delimits Congress’ property rights over the roadways so that it may only control conduct substantially affecting interstate commerce. The commerce clause has been stretched so wide that religious worship would fit quite easily. > [@](#): > > I’m decidedly not wrong. Read _Heart of Atlanta_. That is not an acceptable response. If there is something in the case that addresses my argument, then quote it. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/107 "2002-05-14T23:43:31Z")
> [@](#): > > The commerce clause has been stretched so wide that religious worship would fit quite easily. No. It. Hasn’t. If anyone had bothered to read my post on _Lopez_ and _Morrison_, they’d know this. You’re flat wrong here, **The Ryan**. ---
**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 15, 2002, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/108 "2002-05-15T07:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\* > > No. It. Hasn’t. If anyone had bothered to read my post on _Lopez_ and _Morrison_, they’d know this. You’re flat wrong here, **The Ryan**. \*\* That post was regarding the SOCAS view of the commerce class, while I was speaking of Congress’ view. This may be simply a function of my own ignorance, but my impression is the SOCAS often does not grant cert regarding this issue, making COngress’ view the important one. For instance, in California, the state claims that medicinal marijuana is legal, while the federal governent says that it’s not. Has there been any test case to see if drugs grown in California and smoked in California fall under the comerce clause? ---
**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 16, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/109 "2002-05-16T18:31:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*SENOR BEEF – > > But that is not the standard; “rational basis” is. So the first thing to realize as you ask “why can’t I discriminate?” is that most people – more specifically, the people making determining the constitutionality of the law (the Supreme Court) – do not value property rights as highly as you apparently do. They have decided those rights may be infringed by the government so long as it can show a “rational basis” for doing so; it need not show a “compelling state interest.” It may be your opinion that property rights should be valued more highly, but in fact they generally are not. \*\* Fair enough. You don’t see anything wrong with the state deciding that it can limit rights without compelling state interest? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that a person who wants to discriminate against black people will find a way to do so, by coming up with another reason not to serve them? Because that would be what the law calls a “pretext.” Pretextual reasons for discrimination are not legal, either. \*\* That’s what I was saying, yes. And I know it’s not legal, but in a practical sense, people would do it if they were that intent on discrimination by those standards. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Or are you saying that if a person wants to discriminate against black people and is prevented from doing so, they will then start discriminating against, say, fat people instead? That seems to me to be a totally unsupportable assertion – if it is in fact what you are asserting. \*\* No, I didn’t mean that. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Your definition of “right” may include “anything that forces other people to do something cannot be a right,” but that is not a the definition generally used. I have posted multiple examples of how the exercise of a right by one person can “force” another to do something he or she does not want to do. At this point, it appears you are simply ignoring those examples and re-parroting your position. So kindly do not post this again. It does not become more correct for being posted forty times. \*\* To have a right to force someone goes something like this: “Hey, I’d like you to provide me with this service.” “Sorry, I do not wish to provide you with this service.” “To bad. I’m allowed to force you against your will. It’s my right.” I don’t have a very clear, concise view of what I consider a right - and my view mostly agrees with the 18th century view that this country was founded on (and therefore obviously must be inherently archaic and wrong) - but one part of my beliefs is that a right cannot require the labor of someone else, who may or may not want to give it. You don’t have the right to force anyone to do anything in my book. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So what? The _right_ is to be free from discrimination. The _effect_ is to prevent (“force”) people from doing something they want to do – i.e., discriminate. You appear to be arguing that a positive prohibition (“Person A, you cannot discriminate against Person B”) does not effectively grant a right (“Person B, you can be free from discrimination”). Surely you can see that it does. If I prohibit everyone (anyone) in society from tripping you, you _effectively_ have the right to be free from being tripped. They are two sides of the same coin, and the coin does not change based on the side you are looking at. \*\* Although there doesn’t seem to be any real practical difference between our two views on this, I still find it very important to seperate rights, privileges, and government powers on a philosophical level. For that matter, I think if everyone did that, we wouldn’t be gradually losing our rights as we are now. The government has the power to restrict you from causing significant harm to interstate commerce (I’ll just accept it as a given that this is a case of that). In that effect, it creates limitations, created by government powers (not rights) to regulate who the business owner can serve. To say that anything strictly denied by the government automatically creates an affirmative right doesn’t sit with my (archaic, inherently wrong 🙂 ) view of rights. You have the idea that a limitation by the government creates an opposite affirmative right. That’s fine, that’s your view. In most cases, I’d say that creates a privilege. The difference may seem trivial, but it’s quite important to me. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Hypothetically, monkeys could fly out my butt. Look, you have asked “why can’t I discriminate?” I am trying to answer that question. You then want to go beyond that answer, to hypothetical abuses of power having no grounding in reality. But I’m not following you there; I’m not interested in that. \*\* I was just trying to say that because things are done the legal way doesn’t necesarily mean they’re right, moral, or whatever. > [@](#): > > \*\* > No, we say the invasion is alright because a rational basis exists for making it – i.e., that telling people they cannot discriminate obviously results in less (not no, but less) discrimination). Do you or do you not see that? \*\* I see that. I’m not sure I agree - that the invasion is alright, rather than that it affects discrimination to some extent. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Fine. Then go with that argument. It is, after all the one the Court embraced in _Heart of Atlanta_. But as I said, I don’t see what difference the language used makes: If no one may discriminate against you in places of public accommodation (prohibition), then you _effectively_ (meaning, by its effect) have a right not to be discriminated against in places of public accommodation. \*\* If Congress changes it’s mind, and repeals the law, do you no longer have that right? By your definition, yes. By my definition, rights are inherent and unchangable. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I find it interesting that you believe that outlawing discriminatory practices is not an effective way to battle discrimination. To the contrary, it obviously is: "Stop doing this or you will have to pay a huge fine. Stop doing this or we will shut your business down. “Stop doing this or you will go to jail.” – all very effective. Now you appear to be arguing that Congress must “change the actual feelings behind the discrimination” – wrong. Congress doesn’t care about motivation. Neither do the courts. They care about what you _do_, not why you do it. And if you are discriminating, they want you to knock it off, regardless of _why_ you do it. Moreoever, it is no easy thing to “find ways around laws” outlawing discrimination – it is, in fact, very hard to do, and much easier to just stop discriminating. \*\* I’ll concede that to an extent. You’re right, it’ll affect discrimination, but not prejudice. But then again, you’re right if you agree that their motivation was economic. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > **Congress** very clearly has the right to tell people to do things, or not to do things. \*\* Power. State entities do not have rights. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It does it all the time. And it is **Congress** that is doing the forcing – not the person holding the right. Your opinion that the exercise of a right cannot include forcing someone else to do something (or refrain from something) is quite simply contrary to the definition of “right” and the way it is practically interpreted. Again, you may define the right however you like, but no one else has to agree. \*\* None of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution derive from the labor of others - except the 6th, as someone pointed out - but that’s an exception in that it forces the state to provide defense for you should it place the burden of a trial on you - and in that case, the person volunteers. Anyway, I’d say that the idea that rights cannot force other people to do things is consistent with the Constitution. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Heck, why don’t you argue that the sky is green? Argue that “up” is “down.” I mean, since you cling so firmly to your opinions, without any basis except more of your own opinions, and since you appear to not feel yourself constrained by actual reality, it seems to me you could make a lot of arguments that might be more fun than this one. And equally defensible. \*\* How can an argument of rights be anything but opinions, with the logic behind them? I’ve stated that I don’t believe anyone has a right to force anyone to do anything else, and I’m not sure what else I can do. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > That would be the “etc.” one. There is an obvious logic to discriminating against inefficient, bad workers, who are themselves a drain on the economy. There is no logic to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc. \*\* I suppose so. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I have no idea what this means, because I have no idea what you mean by “rights.” It appears that “rights” in your world devolve down to your opinion – we have very strong property rights because you feel property rights should be very strong, but we do not have a right not to be discriminated against, because you don’t think we should, and because you personally define “right” in a way that forecloses this particular right – nevermind that if you used your definition (“no force”) consistently, we wouldn’t have any rights _at all_. \*\* I gave my opinions on what I think rights are, and I think they match the definition used to write the Constitution. And where do you get “If we use your ‘no force’ definiton, we wouldn’t have any rights at all”? Does the right to free speech require forcing someone else to do something? Right to assembly? Right against unreasonable searches and seizures? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yes. That’s exactly how the system works. Because regardless of whether “rights” are inherent or not, the very clearly are not immutable. The concept of “rights” and the application of them has changed dramatically in the last 150 years, and could easily change dramatically in the next 100 years. The interpretation and breadth of our rights are not set in stone. \*\* Which is to say: “We can found a country on the idea of inalienable rights, which no majority can strip from people… and then change what those are, beacuse the majority think it’s fashinable to do so.” Seems inherently contradicting to me, but hey… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Then it’s a bad analogy – just because the right would not exist under situation A (forcing people to build houses) does not mean the right cannot exist under situation B (forcing people to refrain from discrimination). It can, and it does. \*\* I’m saying that they’re analogous. “Build me a house.” “I don’t want to.” “Too bad, I have a right to force you to do it.” “Serve me in your business.” “I don’t want to.” “To bad, I have a right to force you to do it.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Your bad. > > I disagree. If I am a black person walking into a hotel in Atlanta, I will be rented a room without regard to my race – because that’s what the law demands. It is not a matter of being “less obvious” about it; it’s a matter of stopping behavior that before was allowed and now is not. Moreoever, while it is true that the law cannot (and does not) stop discrimination in every case, it makes it a heck of a lot harder to do in public places. Even if the discrimination is driven under ground – made “less obvious” – that is itself a huge improvement over overt, openly-practiced discrimination. You appear to be arguing that if the problem cannot be solved _completely_, we should not attemp to solve it _at all_. I don’t think that follows. \*\* You’re right. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t know. Can you show that failing to rent to college students creates a significant negative impact on the economy of the country as a whole? \*\* Sure, see: “Will refusing to serve college students lead to the apocalypse?” Smith, 1992. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\* > > This is circular reasoning. You say that freedom from discrimination is not a right because it employs force, and then you say that freedom from discrimination cannot employ force because it isn’t a right. This devolves to you deciding what is or is not a “legitimate” right. If the right is (in your opinion) legitimate, then the employment of force in the context of a coflict of rights is okay. But if the right is (in your opinion) not legitimate, then the employment of force is not okay. I respectfully submit that the legitimacy of rights (or prohibitions) is not up to you. \*\* It isn’t up to me, true. I’m just trying to apply what I think are the principles (of rights) that the country was founded upon. There aren’t any rights specifically covered in the Constitution that include the ability to force other people to do what they don’t want to do. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Well, different people are menaced by different things. But I don’t see what you’re doing is “questioning a law that puts restrictions or rights.” What I see you doing is redefining the entire concept of rights under your own personal (largely indefensible) definitions, and then declaring that being free from discrimination does not right to the level of a right. Apparently just because you say so. This takes the inquiry away from questioning the law as it exists in the real world and makes it a hypothetical – _if_ we accept SENORBEEF’s definition of rights, and _if_ we allow him to declare that this particular one is _not_ a right, _then_ is the law still okay? I confess I can’t really care. \*\* Fair enough. I think that my view of rights is pretty consistent with the view this country was founded on, but, I can, of course, be wrong. Then again, the ‘rights are whatever is fashionable at the time for rights to be’ definition can be quite wrong. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > But here in the real world, where rights are not defined by whether or not they may implicate a use of force or a constraint; where people recognize that imposition of an all-inclusive prohibition may _effectively_ create a positive right; and saying that one thing in a class is not okay (race discrimination) is not the same that saying _everything_ in the class is not okay (hair-color discrimination); the law is eminently justifiable and clearly explains why you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., even when you want to. > > \*\* If a restriction creates a positive right, then removal of that restriction removes a positive rights. I don’t think that view meshes with my ideas, or the ideas that founded this country (and, hence, what our legal system is based on). ---
**Author:** ![berdollos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@berdollos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/berdollos)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/110 "2002-05-16T18:50:29Z")
Going back to the OP’s orignial question on why he can’t discriminate, the answer is He may certainly discriminate in his business. But then he would probably be subject to 2) police action b) criminal prosecution and/or c) a civil suit. If he wishes to avoid a-c above, he may choose not to discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/111 "2002-05-16T20:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Rights are innate. Rights cannot be created by a legislative body. Why do people keep saying this? It seems to me that the only rights I know about have come from legislative / governmental bodies. The right to vote in the US certainly seems to come from the constitution and various laws passed by congress. The right of freedom of religion comes from the constitution. What rights do not come from government? ---
**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 16, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/112 "2002-05-16T20:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gazpacho \* > \*\* > Why do people keep saying this? It seems to me that the only rights I know about have come from legislative / governmental bodies. The right to vote in the US certainly seems to come from the constitution and various laws passed by congress. The right of freedom of religion comes from the constitution. What rights do not come from government? \*\* The Constitution does not, and was never meant to, grant any rights. If you don’t believe me, simply read it. “The right to… shall not be infringed”, not “The right to… shall hereby be granted.” This country was founded on the idea that if the government could legislate rights, then they’re not really rights. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/113 "2002-05-16T20:40:54Z")
(You do acknowledge that many people, some of them even intelligent, disagree with that perspective, right **Beef**?) ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/114 "2002-05-16T20:58:45Z")
**SenorBeef** Could you reply to **TheRyan** for me as per my post above? I think he’d be more likely to listen to you on this point than to me. **SenorBeef** is correct that the U.S. Constitution was originally based on the concept of natural rights. However, it’s not like Thomas Jefferson & Co. just made them up. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of philosophical analysis underlying the theory of “natural rights.” You can’t simply say, “X is a “right” and Y is not a “right” because it just is!” X or Y may or may not be rights depending on time, place, condition, history, etc., not to mention which theory of justice you wish to use. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/115 "2002-05-16T21:00:57Z")
SENOR BEEF – > [@](#): > > Fair enough. You don’t see anything wrong with the state deciding that it can limit rights without compelling state interest? Property rights? No, I don’t see anything wrong with that. But then, I don’t see placing restrictions on the manner in which property may be used in a huge infringement on that right. The government does it all the time through, say, zoning. Do you have the same objection to all zoning laws? Because of course they also force property owners to do things they don’t want to do – have signs of a certain size, or no sign at all; not operate certain businesses in certain areas of town; remain open certain hours, or not be open certain hours – the examples are endless. And, no, I don’t think the government should have to demonstrate a compelling state interest before engaging in that type of regulation. > [@](#): > > I know it’s not legal, but in a practical sense, people would do it if they were that intent on discrimination by those standards. I don’t think the facts of history bear this out. Outlawing overt discrimination in places of public accommodation has virtually ended overt discrimination in places of public accommodation. You say that “people will do it if they really want to,” but either that isn’t true, or they don’t really want to. Considering how virulent prejudice can be, I’m inclined to think it’s the former. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a very clear, concise view of what I consider a right - and my view mostly agrees with the 18th century view that this country was founded on (and therefore obviously must be inherently archaic and wrong) - but one part of my beliefs is that a right cannot require the labor of someone else, who may or may not want to give it. You don’t have the right to force anyone to do anything in my book. Why do you think that the 18th century concept of rights included the dictum that the government cannot “force anyone to do anything”? Because you may think that is the view this country was founded on, but you have shown no evidence that it was. > [@](#): > > Although there doesn’t seem to be any real practical difference between our two views on this, I still find it very important to seperate rights, privileges, and government powers on a philosophical level. For that matter, I think if everyone did that, we wouldn’t be gradually losing our rights as we are now. I am not adverse to drawing that distinction, and am willing to accede to it if you like. It doesn’t change the analysis one bit, IMO, as I have already said. I assume that under you definition, “rights” must always trump “privileges” and “powers” – because, one assumes, rights are inherent while privileges are bestowed. The problem with this is the underlying assumption that every right must be free of infringement, or only infringed upon if there is a “compelling state interest.” But this is not the case; the chief body interpreting and enforcing our rights has long held that some are more absolute than others. Your view that they are _all_ absolute may be your philosophical position, but it is not mine (since I consider it unrealistic) and it does not reflect the reality (either current or historical) in this country. > [@](#): > > You have the idea that a limitation by the government creates an opposite affirmative right. Not in all cases, or even in most. What I said is that an _absolute, universal_ prohibition by government may _effectively_ create a right. That is not true of every governmental “limitation.” > [@](#): > > I was just trying to say that because things are done the legal way doesn’t necesarily mean they’re right, moral, or whatever. But what is right and moral is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is based on your definitions of rights, privileges, and powers. I don’t share those opinions because I think they’re unrealistic and not based on the history you now implicitly assert they are based on. > [@](#): > > If Congress changes it’s mind, and repeals the law, do you no longer have that right? By your definition, yes. By my definition, rights are inherent and unchangable. I think that’s a fine and laudable position to take, philosophically, but I also think it ignores reality. In fact, your rights are subject to expansion and contraction by judicial interpretation. And as social circumstances and requirements change, the scope of your rights changes as well. You may argue that the underlying right is absolute and uninfringeable, and that therefore any interpretation to the contrary is “wrong” and doesn’t actually “change” the right, but I see very little value in that opinion on any but the purest of philosophical bases. In _reality_, the scope of your rights is determed by the interpretive body charged with that task, which is to say the Supreme Court. Your opinion to the contrary therefore has very little (if any) practical value. > [@](#): > > None of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution derive from the labor of others - except the 6th, as someone pointed out - but that’s an exception in that it forces the state to provide defense for you should it place the burden of a trial on you - and in that case, the person volunteers. Anyway, I’d say that the idea that rights cannot force other people to do things is consistent with the Constitution. You may say that, but it simply isn’t so. The rights in the Constitution are not exhaustive; that document does not stand for the premise “these are your rights, and that’s all.” It was never meant to be read as an exhaustive list. So how do you extrapolate from the fact that none of the rights listed are (in your opinion) implicitly coercive, to the assertion that no right ever could be implicitly coercive? You seem to be saying “because I don’t see it there, it must not exist.” I don’t think that follows. But then I don’t think your underlying premise – that the founding fathers defined rights as strictly and as mechanically as you do – is correct. > [@](#): > > I gave my opinions on what I think rights are, and I think they match the definition used to write the Constitution. Please cite to the definition used to write the Constitution. > [@](#): > > And where do you get “If we use your ‘no force’ definiton, we wouldn’t have any rights at all”? > > Does the right to free speech require forcing someone else to do something? Right to assembly? Right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Yes. The right to free speech requires forcing people to listen to you when they’d rather you sat down and shut up. It requires forcing people to tolerate speech they consider offensive, sedition, or inflammatory. Doesn’t matter – you get to say it anyway. The right to assembly requires that those who desire you _not_ to assemble nevertheless tolerate your assembly – and put up with the fruits of it, be they a sing-along or a revolution. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures forces the government to refrain from seaching your home, or arresting you at home at night (under most circumstances), even if they know you have evidence or illegal material in your home, and even if they know you’re guilty as sin. Every affirmative right “forces” those opposing it to put up with it anyway. Let me ask you this: My home is next to a public park. I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. You have a right to free speech in a public place, at a reasonable time and place. You wish to give a speech; I do not want you to give it, because you will disturb my quiet enjoyment of my home. Under these circumstances, who wins? How do you decide, if you consider both rights to be inviolate and absolute? And once you’ve explained to me who wins, and why, kindly explain how that victory does _not_ “force” the loser to do something he doesn’t want to do. I said, “it’s a bad analogy,” to which you reply “I’m saying that they’re analogous.” Yes. I understand that’s what your saying. There is no need to repeat your point if you are not going to address yourself to my objection to it. Simply repeating it does not make it any more right or persuasive. > [@](#): > > It isn’t up to me, true. I’m just trying to apply what I think are the principles (of rights) that the country was founded upon. > There aren’t any rights specifically covered in the Constitution that include the ability to force other people to do what they don’t want to do. (A) You’re trying to apply what you think are the principles this country was founded on, but you’ve given me no reason to believe you are correct in how you have interpreted (or declared) those principles. So if you have some basis for saying that the definition of “rights” you use is in fact the definition used by the founders, trot it out. (B) Just because you do not find something in the Constitution does not mean it may not exist. The Constitution was never intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Bill of Rights was added to set forth the _most important_ rights we have, not _all_ the rights we have. > [@](#): > > I think that my view of rights is pretty consistent with the view this country was founded on . . . You keep saying that, but you have given me no reason to think you’re right – oh, pardon me, _correct_ – in this assertion. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/116 "2002-05-16T21:02:55Z")
Where do these rights come from if not from many people agreeing they are rights? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/117 "2002-05-16T21:13:38Z")
> [@](#): > > The Constitution does not, and was never meant to, grant any rights. If you admit that the Constitution does not even _grant_ any rights (rather, it reserves them), then why to you point to the Constitution as authority for what can or cannot be a right? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/118 "2002-05-16T21:19:57Z")
And I should clarify: It is true that the Constitution was prompted in large part by the belief that the British had _excessively_ infringed on the rights of its citizens, through everything from onerous taxation to impressment of sailors. But the Constitution has never stood for the belief that the rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon _at all_, no matter how compelling the reason, no matter how reasonable the interpretation. And this appears to be SENORBEEF’s position. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/119 "2002-05-16T23:26:06Z")
The Ryan, It seems that you are, in this thread and the thread on poverty, holding property rights to be absolute and even an inalienable right outside of the context of society, government, etc. However, my question is what property. The property you acquire necessarily depends on the details of the law in the society in which you live, ranging from the basic government structures, down through corporate and patent law, down to details of the infrastructure provided to you by the government. So, which is my absolute right, the property I am able to acquire in a society in which patent rights extend for 17 years or a society in which patent rights extend for 30 years or a society with no patent rights, to give just one example. Your absolute right of property not only conflicts with the moral views of nearly all the other posters here (which is fine) but I don’t even see how it is in any way self-consistent. If property rights are some sort of absolute then you cannot get anywhere in forming a society because every freaking thing you do affects someone’s property or ability to acquire property or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/120 "2002-05-16T23:29:32Z")
**Jodi** quoth: > [@](#): > > Do you have the same objection to all zoning laws? Because of course they also force property owners to do things they don’t want to do – have signs of a certain size, or no sign at all; not operate certain businesses in certain areas of town; remain open certain hours, or not be open certain hours – the examples are endless. Really nice question. I’d be interested to hear your answer to this myself, **Beef**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662.md?page=7)