# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/121 "2002-05-16T23:37:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*(You do acknowledge that many people, some of them even intelligent, disagree with that perspective, right **Beef**?) \*\* Of course. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/122 "2002-05-16T23:39:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > \*\ ***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. \*\* This is some evil tactic to divide and conquer! I can smell it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\* > **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. \*\* No, but there was a certain philosophical basis on how to determine natural rights. I believe one of these - and this is only from my rather limited reading on the subject - was that no one had the right to force anyone else to do anything. This seems reasonable to me, because one person having ‘the right’ to force someone else to do something is slavery to an extent. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/123 "2002-05-16T23:41:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***Jodi** quoth: > Really nice question. I’d be interested to hear your answer to this myself, **Beef**. \*\* Each question would have to be answered on it’s own merits. I’m not saying property rights are immutable, but that, in this particular case, the government may have overstepped it’s bounds and set a bad precedent. The argument then talked about my view of property rights, and I suppose I must’ve conveyed the idea that I think they’re immutable in every single case, because that’s the impression people have gotten. My mind has been changed a bit on the basis of economic harm and the interstate commerce clause. Since I disagree with the argument that there’s a right not to be discriminated against, I’ve argued against that. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/124 "2002-05-16T23:43:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > > 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? \*\* The Constitution is the basis of our government. I was not saying that the Constitution was the end-all when it came to rights, I was saying that out of all those rights considered important enough to specifically enumerate, none of them included a right that let one person force something else on another person. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/125 "2002-05-16T23:50:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I was saying that out of all those rights considered important enough to specifically enumerate, none of them included a right that let one person force something else on another person. Except that’s not true, as **Jodi** has shown with regard to the freedom of speech. ---
**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 17, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/126 "2002-05-17T00:10:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > 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. Let me tell give some advice to you. And everyone else in this thread, you should listen as well, because if you pay attention, it will save a lot of aggravation for both of us. If you ever want me to accept that something is inconsistent or self-contradictory, the proper way to do so is to take a statement and its negation (and be sure to negate it properly; that’s a skill that many people seem to lack), and prove both using the position which you find inconsistent. I do not see how “cannot get anywhere in forming a society” follows from every freaking thing you do affects someone’s property or ability to acquire property or whatever", nor do I see how, even if it did, that would establish incosistency. Gadarene > [@](#): > > Except that’s not true, as Jodi has shown with regard to the freedom of speech. Could you refresh my memory as to how she did so? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/127 "2002-05-17T00:13:33Z")
SENOR BEEF – > [@](#): > > No, but there was a certain philosophical basis on how to determine natural rights. I believe one of these - and this is only from my rather limited reading on the subject - was that no one had the right to force anyone else to do anything. This seems reasonable to me, because one person having ‘the right’ to force someone else to do something is slavery to an extent. You do realize, do you not, that at the time the Constitution was put forth they had, not “slavery to an extent,” but real honest-to-goodness slavery. They also had taxes, and (in some cases) militia obligations, and various laws contstraining behavior. Therefore, reading into the Constitution some underpinning that “rights cannot be impinged by coercion” is reading that document so overbroadly that the reading is simply flat wrong. Now I do not say that _original_ rights, in a state of nature, may include the libertarian ideal of being free from coercion, but in an organized society, some degree of coercion is par for the course – we all pay taxes, for example, though we may not want to. The founding fathers knew that, and while their _philisophical_ underpinnings may have been grounded in natural rights, I have never seen any indication that they ascribed to your belief that no person has the right to force another to do anything. > [@](#): > > Each question would have to be answered on it’s own merits. I’m not saying property rights are immutable, but that, in this particular case, the government may have overstepped it’s bounds and set a bad precedent. I’m afraid I’m not willing to let you off so easily. I have given you a question to answer on its own merits: What is your opinion of zoning restrictions, vis a vis property rights? Okay, or not? (If you feel some are okay and some are not, please explain how you decide that.) > [@](#): > > The argument then talked about my view of property rights, and I suppose I must’ve conveyed the idea that I think they’re immutable in every single case, because that’s the impression people have gotten. My mind has been changed a bit on the basis of economic harm and the interstate commerce clause. Since I disagree with the argument that there’s a right not to be discriminated against, I’ve argued against that. Okay. But then I have never really cared about the right versus privilege argument; as I have said, it does not IMO change the analysis at all. Since the government only needs a rational basis for interfering with property rights, the extension of a privilege that it feels is in society’s best interests is sufficient IMO to justify the limited intrusion at issue. > [@](#): > > The Constitution is the basis of our government. I was not saying that the Constitution was the end-all when it came to rights, I was saying that out of all those rights considered important enough to specifically enumerate, none of them included a right that let one person force something else on another person. Aside from the fact I don’t think that’s true, it misses the point: If you admit that Set [A] does not include the entire subset of [a], then you can draw no fair inference based on the fact that a particular [a] does not appear in Set [A] – because you have admitted Set [A] is not all-inclusive. It’s like arguing against chocolate chip cookies because the cookie store on the corner doesn’t carry them. If you admit the cookie store doesn’t carry _every_ variety of cookie (and in fact doesn’t even claim to carry every variety of cookie), then the fact that it doesn’t carry chocolate chip cookies tells you exactly nothing about cookies in general. See what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/128 "2002-05-17T00:26:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Could you refresh my memory as to how she did so? Here: > [@](#): > > When two rights (or a right and a prohibition) conflict, one must be “redefined,” or “limited” or, if you like, “violated.” That’s what happens when you try to carry your gun into an airport. 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 here: > [@](#): > > Yep. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot shout obscenities outside a school” you are “forcing them” to be quiet – despite their right to free speech. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot carry your gun into a federal building” you are “forcing them” to leave their gun outside – arguably despite their right to bear arms. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot smoke peyote buds in public” you are “forcing them” to refrain from toking up – despite their right to freedom of religion. Again, you appear to be arguing that any right (all rights) must exist without limitation or infringement. That simply is not true of any right we have. And again here: > [@](#): > > Follow me closely here: Every time two rights conflict, the ‘winning’ right is upheld at the ‘cost’ of the right that loses. You do not want to hear my speeches when you’re at home, but I have a right to free speech in the public area outside your house. If you win, and your right to quiet enjoyment triumphs, it will be at the “cost” of my right to free speech, and I will be “forced to do what I do not wish to do [be quiet] for your ‘right’ to be fulfilled.” Conversely, if I win, and my right to free speech triumphs, it will be at the “cost” of your property right to free enjoyment, and you will be “forced to do what you do not wish to do [endure my speeches] for my ‘right’ to be fulfilled.” The analysis is no different when we are talking about discrimination. Conversely, you have never explained how the coercion implicated in the exercise of _these_ rights does not invalidate the rights, which is the argument you are making regarding freedom from discrimination. ---
**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 17, 2002, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/129 "2002-05-17T00:50:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*This is some evil tactic to divide and conquer! I can smell it. \*\* Not a bit. It’s an opportunity for you to be intellectually honest, since I believed you’ve discussed this kind of reasoning in the past in some depth, or do you now agree with **TheRyan** on this point? > [@](#): > > \*\*No, but there was a certain philosophical basis on how to determine natural rights. I believe one of these - and this is only from my rather limited reading on the subject - was that no one had the right to force anyone else to do anything. This seems reasonable to me, because one person having ‘the right’ to force someone else to do something is slavery to an extent. \*\* Well, you really ought to do a bit of reading on the different theories of justice various people have used to derive natural rights. I’m tempted to send you back to Locke but perhaps you ought to start with Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. It’s quite accessible and even occasionally amusing. I’m quite _certain_ you’d enjoy it. Moreover, you’d then be able to enage in a thought-provoking dicussion on this topic. I’m sure you’ll agree that you can go down in flames all too easily attempting to defend your conception of natural rights with the ammo you now have available. We _could_ go after you on this topic now, but it wouldn’t be sporting, really – too much like shooting a sitting bird. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/130 "2002-05-17T03:39:27Z")
I just would like to point out to **Senor Beef** and **The Ryan** that **Truth Seeker** is being very generous and sporting here in leading you to Nozick’s book which is really, as I recollect it from reading it in college 16 years ago (and just having picked it up again off my bookshelf and browsed the TOC), an attempt to come up with a theory of justice along the lines of your libertarian / minimalist-government thinking. If he wanted to subvert you, he would be telling you to read John Rawls’ **Theory of Justice**. Or maybe something in-between. (Rawls is pretty extreme in the “other” direction.) ---
**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 17, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/131 "2002-05-17T21:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*SENOR BEEF – > > You do realize, do you not, that at the time the Constitution was put forth they had, not “slavery to an extent,” but real honest-to-goodness slavery. \*\* This was, I’m guessing, due to slaves not being considered human. Not that I advocate that in any way, it’s just that it existed in different social conditions. > [@](#): > > \*\* > They also had taxes, and (in some cases) militia obligations, and various laws contstraining behavior. Therefore, reading into the Constitution some underpinning that “rights cannot be impinged by coercion” is reading that document so overbroadly that the reading is simply flat wrong. Now I do not say that _original_ rights, in a state of nature, may include the libertarian ideal of being free from coercion, but in an organized society, some degree of coercion is par for the course – we all pay taxes, for example, though we may not want to. The founding fathers knew that, and while their _philisophical_ underpinnings may have been grounded in natural rights, I have never seen any indication that they ascribed to your belief that no person has the right to force another to do anything. \*\* The examples you give are examples of government requiring some civil service from each individual. This derives from government powers - not individual rights. I never said that no one can be obligated to do anything, ever - I simply said that I don’t believe a right can force private individual A to be able to force private individual B to do anything. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m afraid I’m not willing to let you off so easily. I have given you a question to answer on its own merits: What is your opinion of zoning restrictions, vis a vis property rights? Okay, or not? (If you feel some are okay and some are not, please explain how you decide that.) \*\* Answered that in my second to last post. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Okay. But then I have never really cared about the right versus privilege argument; as I have said, it does not IMO change the analysis at all. \*\* That is unfortunate. The same apathy is shared by almost the entirety of the population - and that’s why the government gets little resistance when it tries to push down illegal laws that violate rights - seizure of suspected drug property without trial, PATRIOT act, etc. We don’t think we have any rights, and whatever the government does to us is, by default, what our rights are. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Since the government only needs a rational basis for interfering with property rights, the extension of a privilege that it feels is in society’s best interests is sufficient IMO to justify the limited intrusion at issue. \*\* And they could judge confining us to house arrest 24/7 will make society safer. That could meet a rational basis test, depending on who is applying it. Not saying you’re necesarily wrong, but the application of a rational basis test doesn’t automatically justify restriction of rights. But you said IMO, and so I’ll take it at that. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Aside from the fact I don’t think that’s true, it misses the point: If you admit that Set [A] does not include the entire subset of [a], then you can draw no fair inference based on the fact that a particular [a] does not appear in Set [A] – because you have admitted Set [A] is not all-inclusive. It’s like arguing against chocolate chip cookies because the cookie store on the corner doesn’t carry them. If you admit the cookie store doesn’t carry _every_ variety of cookie (and in fact doesn’t even claim to carry every variety of cookie), then the fact that it doesn’t carry chocolate chip cookies tells you exactly nothing about cookies in general. See what I mean? \*\* Yes, I understand that. And I wasn’t trying to submit the Constitution as an exclusive, definitive piece of evidence - just that the trend of the rights that WERE enumerated for protection did not allow private person A to force private person B to do something. ---
**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 17, 2002, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/132 "2002-05-17T21:43:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > > Here: > > And here: > > And again here: > > Conversely, you have never explained how the coercion implicated in the exercise of _these_ rights does not invalidate the rights, which is the argument you are making regarding freedom from discrimination. \*\* In the first two examples, he simply lists restrictions on rights, not conflicts of rights. By this logic, you can say that any restriction whatsoever of rights creates, by default, a positive set of rights. I don’t believe this to be true. With the third, he may have a point. I’m not sure, however, that ‘forcing’ someone to endure your speech on public property is the same as being able to force someone who do not wish to provide a service to you to do so. This relates, back, of course, to the idea that people have the right to be free from discrimination - but only on the basis of age, religion, race, whatever. Again - if the government changes the law so such discrimination is legal, does the right not to be discriminated against still exist? ---
**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 17, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/133 "2002-05-17T21:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*I just would like to point out to **Senor Beef** and **The Ryan** that **Truth Seeker** is being very generous and sporting here in leading you to Nozick’s book which is really, as I recollect it from reading it in college 16 years ago (and just having picked it up again off my bookshelf and browsed the TOC), an attempt to come up with a theory of justice along the lines of your libertarian / minimalist-government thinking. > > \*\* Done. It’s on **The List**. ---
**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 17, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/134 "2002-05-17T21:48:08Z")
To clarify, in general, I now see a more solid basis of discrimination laws, under the justification of economic harm, and Congress’ power to react under the interstate commerce clause. I’m still just sticking around because of my disagreement with the ‘right to be discriminated against’ argument. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/135 "2002-05-17T23:53:57Z")
SENOR BEEF – > [@](#): > > This was, I’m guessing, due to slaves not being considered human. Not that I advocate that in any way, it’s just that it existed in different social conditions. And, of course, the problem you see with discrimination laws “infringing” on property rights also exists because of “different social conditions.” > [@](#): > > The examples you give are examples of government requiring some civil service from each individual. This derives from government powers - not individual rights. I never said that no one can be obligated to do anything, ever - I simply said that I don’t believe a right can force private individual A to be able to force private individual B to do anything. Private individual A pretty clearly doesn’t have the right to make private individual B do anything. It is the _government_ that is compelling Individual B to refrain from discriminating, by imposing penalties if Individaul B continues to do so. So if your hang-up is that the action is undertaken by an individual and not derived from an exercise of governmental power, then you should be okay – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an exercise of governmental power. > [@](#): > > Answered that in my second to last post. No, dodged in your second to last post. And dodged again in this one. Which, of course, you are free to do, just as I am free to assume you couldn’t come up with a good answer. > [@](#): > > That is unfortunate. The same apathy is shared by almost the entirety of the population - and that’s why the government gets little resistance when it tries to push down illegal laws that violate rights - seizure of suspected drug property without trial, PATRIOT act, etc. We don’t think we have any rights, and whatever the government does to us is, by default, what our rights are. I find it amusing that you would consider me apathetic on the issue of constitutional rights. I assume you have your own novel definition of “apathy,” just as you do of “rights.” > [@](#): > > And they could judge confining us to house arrest 24/7 will make society safer. That could meet a rational basis test, depending on who is applying it. Not saying you’re necesarily wrong, but the application of a rational basis test doesn’t automatically justify restriction of rights. But you said IMO, and so I’ll take it at that. But you’ve taken it too far. _Property rights_ generally may be infringed if the government has a rational basis. _Personal liberty_ may not be infringed without a compelling state interest. This is because these rights are not considered equally important. That’s why I was talking about zoning (property) and why you are incorrect to now talk about around-the-clock house arrest. I have never said, and do not believe, that “application of a rational basis test automatically justifies restriction of rights.” It is only applied at all in certain cases (including property rights) and its application is never automatic. > [@](#): > > Yes, I understand that. And I wasn’t trying to submit the Constitution as an exclusive, definitive piece of evidence - just that the trend of the rights that WERE enumerated for protection did not allow private person A to force private person B to do something. Ah. So now it’s a “trend.” Fine, so long as you see that it does not support your assertion that the idea of rights may _not_ include, under some circumstances, allowing person A to force person B to do something. > [@](#): > > With the third, he may have a point. I’m not sure, however, that ‘forcing’ someone to endure your speech on public property is the same as being able to force someone who do not wish to provide a service to you to do so. They are obviously not the same. But they are similar, and they show that you are not strictly correct to assert that the exercise of one right may never “force” someone else to do something he or she does not want to. And speaking of, “he” in this case (meaning me) is a “she.” > [@](#): > > This relates, back, of course, to the idea that people have the right to be free from discrimination - but only on the basis of age, religion, race, whatever. Again - if the government changes the law so such discrimination is legal, does the right not to be discriminated against still exist? That depends on what you mean by “right.” Since you consider it a privilege, since it is legislatively created, I assume you would conclude that, were the law abolished, that privilege would _not_ still exist. But if the government took away every indicia of your right to free speech, would that right still exist? Why? And how could you tell? ---
**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 18, 2002, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662/136 "2002-05-18T04:59:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*SENOR BEEF – > > And, of course, the problem you see with discrimination laws “infringing” on property rights also exists because of “different social conditions.” \*\* And if social conditions make government INFRINGE on rights, then they (the government) are not following their oath. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Private individual A pretty clearly doesn’t have the right to make private individual B do anything. It is the _government_ that is compelling Individual B to refrain from discriminating, by imposing penalties if Individaul B continues to do so. So if your hang-up is that the action is undertaken by an individual and not derived from an exercise of governmental power, then you should be okay – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an exercise of governmental power. \*\* Exactly. This is exactly what I’m saying. And there is no affirmative ‘right not to be discriminated against’, the government is simply enforcing certain standards. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > No, dodged in your second to last post. And dodged again in this one. Which, of course, you are free to do, just as I am free to assume you couldn’t come up with a good answer. \*\* He asked if I was opposed to [insert lots of different laws], when I said that each need to be evaluated on their own basis? How is that dodging? I stated that I don’t think property rights are totally immutable, but each has to be evaluated on it’s own merits, with respect to property rights given. This is consistent with how I’ve been the whole time. What am I dodging? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I find it amusing that you would consider me apathetic on the issue of constitutional rights. I assume you have your own novel definition of “apathy,” just as you do of “rights.” \*\* I believe that if someone doesn’t see the difference between a right and a privilege, or doesn’t care, then they’re pretty apathetic about their rights. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But you’ve taken it too far. _Property rights_ generally may be infringed if the government has a rational basis. _Personal liberty_ may not be infringed without a compelling state interest. This is because these rights are not considered equally important. That’s why I was talking about zoning (property) and why you are incorrect to now talk about around-the-clock house arrest. I have never said, and do not believe, that “application of a rational basis test automatically justifies restriction of rights.” It is only applied at all in certain cases (including property rights) and its application is never automatic. \*\* Fair enough. I didn’t realize you were limiting your statement to property rights. My fault. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Ah. So now it’s a “trend.” Fine, so long as you see that it does not support your assertion that the idea of rights may _not_ include, under some circumstances, allowing person A to force person B to do something. \*\* I guess. I still don’t think being free from private discrimination in any sort of right, and I doubt the Constitution was written with that in mind. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > They are obviously not the same. But they are similar, and they show that you are not strictly correct to assert that the exercise of one right may never “force” someone else to do something he or she does not want to. And speaking of, “he” in this case (meaning me) is a “she.” \*\* Well, one requires one person to actively do something for the other person, whereas the other is simply exposing someone to something that they can avoid (by shutting the window, or whatever). > [@](#): > > \*\* > > That depends on what you mean by “right.” Since you consider it a privilege, since it is legislatively created, I assume you would conclude that, were the law abolished, that privilege would _not_ still exist. \*\* My point was that I don’t think many people believe that the “right” to be free from discrimination is not a natural right, but a “right” created by a legislative body, and in this case, a “right” created simply because other things are restricted. So, if the legislative body stops restricting such things, the ‘default right’ dissapears. This is not in line with natural rights, which are innate. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But if the government took away every indicia of your right to free speech, would that right still exist? Why? And how could you tell? \*\* It would exist, it would just be suppressed. It would only be robbed from those who refused to defend it. And yes, I realize there’s no concrete way of defining and recognizing rights. I guess you just have to ascribe to a certain philosophy or set when determining your beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/someone-tell-me-why-i-cant-descriminate-with-my-business/108662.md?page=6)