toldailytopic: Racism. Should people have the right to be racist?

[Punisher1984]

Is it really irrational fear???

Yes.

You are into self preservation aren't you?

Yes.

If you owned a apartment building would you possibly consider NOT renting to three Muslim guys because you feared they might be the next Nadal Malik Hasan??

Have you considered NOT renting an apratment to a couple of Irish guys because they *might* be agents of the UFF or IRA? Or how about a couple of white guys from the deep South because they *might* be KKK? Or a couple of black guys from the South because they *might* be Black Panthers?

The scenarios can go on and on - and in the absence of any evidence for their affiliations all of those scenarios are equally likely.

You can either rent to three "Joe average" college students or three Muslim guys in their late 20's.

How do you know that the "average joe" students are just students and not members of some terrorist group and that the Muslim guys are just looking for a place to crash after work?

Your judgment could prove to be wrong (the college kids might destroy the place and the Muslim guys might be great renters) but even still, your judgment is certainly not irrational.

Yes it is - as there's no more likelyhood for the Muslims to be dangerous than the "average joes" in your example. Hence your fear is irrational.

 

[Granite]

If people don't have the right to be racist, what should be done about racists?

They should be confronted and challenged when they lie, insult, and disparage. No free passes.

I don't think we'll ever be free the scourge of racism (as a species we just love forming groups and deciding which ones we really hate and which ones we'll tolerate), but as time has gone on and exposed the real ignorance and pointlessness of so much hatred in this country, we've made great strides towards seeing it wither on the vine.

 

[DocJohnson]

The main problem here is confusing the definition.

Racism refers to a feeling of irrational superiority or hatred toward another race or nationality. This is immoral.

Discrimination refers to distinguishing among different races and nationalities. This is not immoral.

 

[bybee]

With respect

With respect

They should be confronted and challenged when they lie, insult, and disparage. No free passes.

I don't think we'll ever be free the scourge of racism (as a species we just love forming groups and deciding which ones we really hate and which ones we'll tolerate), but as time has gone on and exposed the real ignorance and pointlessness of so much hatred in this country, we've made great strides towards seeing it wither on the vine.

Doesn't this beg the question of our "Right of Assembly"? Rental property may be thought of as a place of assembly. There have certainly been more egregious stretches in the other direction by the ACLU and ilk. I agree that hate as an activity must be reserved for that which is evil. And yes, the community must have laws which protect it's citizens from harm, dispenses resources and provides for the general welfare of it's citizens. However, maximizing individual freedom is also one of the basic tenets of our Founding Fathers intentions. peace, bybee

 

[Four O'Clock]

No. Racists should be punished.

Especially the smelly black ones. :devil:

K, I hope your tongue is in your cheek when you make comments like this but, if not, you are a part of the problem. I've heard a few black folks say that us "whities" smell like boloney. That always cracked me up!!!

 

[Four O'Clock]

If people don't have the right to be racist, what should be done about racists?

If they simply hold to their opinion, and don't act on it, then...nothing.
If white business's refuse to hire black folks, or hispanics, etc or black(or other ethnic group's) business's...because of their creed/color, then yes, I think a govt. has a right to step in and stop their nonsense.

 

[Poly]

I wouldn't want anyone else making my Mexican food.

You've obviously never tried my mexican casserole.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If they simply hold to their opinion, and don't act on it, then...nothing.
If white business's refuse to hire black folks, or hispanics, etc or black(or other ethnic group's) business's...because of their creed/color, then yes, I think a govt. has a right to step in and stop their nonsense.

OK, so you believe that I should be forced to hire a minority at my restaurant.... the obvious follow-up question is....

How many minorities do I have to hire before it's legal for me to hire a white person?

And what if I don't hire a minority? Are ya gonna throw me in jail?

Do you also believe that a Mexican restaurant should have to hire a certain percentage of non-mexicans?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Have you considered NOT renting an apratment to a couple of Irish guys because they *might* be agents of the UFF or IRA? Or how about a couple of white guys from the deep South because they *might* be KKK? Or a couple of black guys from the South because they *might* be Black Panthers?

The scenarios can go on and on - and in the absence of any evidence for their affiliations all of those scenarios are equally likely.

BINGO!!! You just proved my point. Different people discriminate for different reasons and it's not always irrational.

I love it when the guy I am debating concedes without realizing it. :chuckle:

Yes it is - as there's no more likelyhood for the Muslims to be dangerous than the "average joes" in your example. Hence your fear is irrational.

Ever hear of Ft Hood? :idunno:

 

[Rusha]

If they simply hold to their opinion, and don't act on it, then...nothing.
If white business's refuse to hire black folks, or hispanics, etc or black(or other ethnic group's) business's...because of their creed/color, then yes, I think a govt. has a right to step in and stop their nonsense.

I disagree completely. Private business owners have the right, IMO, to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose.

I see a private business owner as being very similar to a homeowner as far as the business being the owners own personal haven.

It's their money and time that is invested into their place of business and whether or not I agree with or approve of their decision, they STILL have the right to make it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I disagree completely. Private business owners have the right, IMO, to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose.

I see a private business owner as being very similar to a homeowner as far as the business being the owners own personal haven.

It's their money and time that is invested into their place of business and whether or not I agree with or approve of their decision, they STILL have the right to make it.

That's right!

A racist business presents a golden opportunity for a NON-RACIST business.

People often say... you can't legislate morality! Which of course is totally false. You CAN and SHOULD legislate morality. What you can't legislate is civility.

 

[lowerlevel]

so you dont see a problem allowing greyhoud to require blacks sit in the back of the bus?
Or a Walmart that requires blacks to use drinking fountains in the "black section" of the store?

 

[Lighthouse]

The main problem here is confusing the definition.

Racism refers to a feeling of irrational superiority or hatred toward another race or nationality. This is immoral.

Discrimination refers to distinguishing among different races and nationalities. This is not immoral.

The highlighted word does have a negative connotation to it, though.

 

[Four O'Clock]

so you dont see a problem allowing greyhoud to require blacks sit in the back of the bus?
Or a Walmart that requires blacks to use drinking fountains in the "black section" of the store?

I wanted to bump this one. To reword the above.
Some seem to be saying a shuttlebus service has a right to pickup and transport anyone they please (OR) deny anyone they please. Since it's their business, as some of you say, do they have the right to pick up blacks, hispanics, whoever, and tell them to sit in the back?
Or, as a resturant/hotel owner, you can elect to serve blacks, hispanics, etc.. and require them to sit/sleep in a certain area or use a certain restroom, swimming pool?
Of course, the same examples can be asked of minority business owners as well.

Actually, to throw a little humor into this, forty years ago my uncle in Dallas, an apartment owner, had problems with two Cowboys who were rowdy and destructive in their short time there. Several months later, a black Cowboy attempted to move in only to be denied by my uncle. He took him to court over a charge of racial discrimination. My uncle stated in the pre-trial deposition that he didn't refuse to rent to the football player because he was black, it was because he was a Dallas Cowboy. I forget all the subsequent details, but the player dropped the suit and moved elsewhere...

 

[Traditio]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 19th, 2009 10:05 AM

toldailytopic: Racism. Should people have the right to be racist? If so, how far should those rights extend?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. No man should be compelled to act either against his own interests or preferences. If a man doesn't want to hire a black guy (and he owns the place of employment), then he shouldn't have to. The black guy shouldn't be able to sue him. Every man has a right to life, liberty, and property...and I suppose, by extention, to speech, thought, etc. Insofar as I am exercising these rights and only things, I ought not to be able to be compelled to relinquish them to any man (regardless of his color), and I ought to be able to exercise them for any reason (including reasons of race).

That is, if I don't want to give my money to the black guy, then I darned well shouldn't have to.

 

[Granite]

Doesn't this beg the question of our "Right of Assembly"? Rental property may be thought of as a place of assembly. There have certainly been more egregious stretches in the other direction by the ACLU and ilk. I agree that hate as an activity must be reserved for that which is evil. And yes, the community must have laws which protect it's citizens from harm, dispenses resources and provides for the general welfare of it's citizens. However, maximizing individual freedom is also one of the basic tenets of our Founding Fathers intentions. peace, bybee

I don't think I implied individual freedom should be suppressed by the government--I suggested (and believe) that such ugly attitudes will be best and most effectively snuffed out by the pressure and wisdom applied to a racist by those around them, or by the simple passage of time.

Sooner or later, bigots die off.

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 19th, 2009 10:05 AM

toldailytopic: Racism. Should people have the right to be racist? If so, how far should those rights extend?

Yes.

Yes.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "...the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions..."

Opinions, whether right or wrong, cannot be controlled, regulated, or outlawed. When those opinions turn to actions, however, only then can we hold the individual accountable.

What if those actions are refusing to serve someone in a business? Would you say the government should regulate that?

 

[koban]

Should people have the right to be racist?

****** please!

 

[koban]

Apparently the answer is no.