Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Flaw in My Anti-Anti-Discrimination Views

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As some of you know, I value property rights in terms of discrimination, as I don't believe you have a right to my services. However, there is one legal argument I cannot reconcile, which, ironically, no one has ever brought up: the right to counsel.

Even before Gideon v. Wainwright, there was a right to counsel, which begs the question: why does a defendant have the right to my services?

Is it because I am a lawyer?
Is it part of the bar association requirement?
What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

How does this apply to businesses in general?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:05:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
As some of you know, I value property rights in terms of discrimination, as I don't believe you have a right to my services. However, there is one legal argument I cannot reconcile, which, ironically, no one has ever brought up: the right to counsel.

Even before Gideon v. Wainwright, there was a right to counsel, which begs the question: why does a defendant have the right to my services?

Is it because I am a lawyer?
Is it part of the bar association requirement?
What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

How does this apply to businesses in general?

BUSINESS, in general, is conducted in the public sphere, NOT on personal property. You seem to be arguing that your services to the GENERAL PUBLIC are subject to property rights. I think not.

Your automobile is your personal property. Does that give you the right to demolish it if you so choose, by crashing it into someone else's car (THEIR personal property) ? I think not.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:05:26 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
As some of you know, I value property rights in terms of discrimination, as I don't believe you have a right to my services. However, there is one legal argument I cannot reconcile, which, ironically, no one has ever brought up: the right to counsel.

Even before Gideon v. Wainwright, there was a right to counsel, which begs the question: why does a defendant have the right to my services?

Is it because I am a lawyer?
Is it part of the bar association requirement?
What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

How does this apply to businesses in general?

BUSINESS, in general, is conducted in the public sphere, NOT on personal property. You seem to be arguing that your services to the GENERAL PUBLIC are subject to property rights. I think not.
The KKK walk around IN PUBLIC and refuse to allow black people to join their group.
What is the difference?
However, this all misses the point of the OP.

Your automobile is your personal property. Does that give you the right to demolish it if you so choose, by crashing it into someone else's car (THEIR personal property) ? I think not.
This doesn't make any sense, since it violates the rights of the other person.
What right to you have to my time, assets, or employment? You don't.
But, if I am a lawyer, you might. What makes lawyers so different?
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer

Some jurisdictions do have a lottery of sorts or some method to obtain counsel.
If there is no available public defender, yes, lawyers are conscripted. Not every area has a need for full time public defenders.

The government MUST provide a lawyer, if you cannot afford one.
On a related note, I do find it odd that lawyers are a right only if it is determined you cannot afford one. If it's a right, it should be afforded to all, if they choose to exercise said right.
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:38:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:34:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer

Some jurisdictions do have a lottery of sorts or some method to obtain counsel.
If there is no available public defender, yes, lawyers are conscripted. Not every area has a need for full time public defenders.
I was not aware of this. These must be really small rural communities or something. In that case, I guess the rationale would be that by choosing to work as a lawyer, you assume the responsibility of having to take some of those cases. I also have to assume these lawyers get paid for their work by the government.
The government MUST provide a lawyer, if you cannot afford one.
On a related note, I do find it odd that lawyers are a right only if it is determined you cannot afford one. If it's a right, it should be afforded to all, if they choose to exercise said right.

I think anyone can request a public defender. It's just that nobody who can afford a personal lawyer would ever do that because the public defenders are much worse.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:48:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
As some of you know, I value property rights in terms of discrimination, as I don't believe you have a right to my services. However, there is one legal argument I cannot reconcile, which, ironically, no one has ever brought up: the right to counsel.

Even before Gideon v. Wainwright, there was a right to counsel, which begs the question: why does a defendant have the right to my services?

If you're a public attorney you should quit your day job.

Is it because I am a lawyer?

That's literally the job of a public attorney. No one is forcing you to be a public attorney.

Is it part of the bar association requirement?

idk about that. But most firms have pro bono divisions to help the needy.

What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

Slave? Are you high? You get paid. They all get paid for working for the government. Gays don't steal cakes, they pay for them.

How does this apply to businesses in general?

Legal counsel is a constitutional right and necessity when dealing with the legal system. For general practice, allowing all people to have access to counsel regardless of economic status keeps consumers on an even playing field; likewise having equal access to business services keeps a veneer of human equality.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:38:40 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:34:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer

Some jurisdictions do have a lottery of sorts or some method to obtain counsel.
If there is no available public defender, yes, lawyers are conscripted. Not every area has a need for full time public defenders.
I was not aware of this. These must be really small rural communities or something. In that case, I guess the rationale would be that by choosing to work as a lawyer, you assume the responsibility of having to take some of those cases. I also have to assume these lawyers get paid for their work by the government.

Oh, I'm sure they get paid. They might not make the "going rate", so they are less inclined to put the work in, though.
But, yes, there is a reason for it, and that is the purpose of the thread. Is it the government can force them? Is it a matter of being a member of the bar? What?

The government MUST provide a lawyer, if you cannot afford one.
On a related note, I do find it odd that lawyers are a right only if it is determined you cannot afford one. If it's a right, it should be afforded to all, if they choose to exercise said right.

I think anyone can request a public defender. It's just that nobody who can afford a personal lawyer would ever do that because the public defenders are much worse.

Look at the Miranda Warning:
they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is quite explicit.
I also knew a woman who was charged with domestic assault and some other level of assault, and she was not provided an attorney, because she made too much. She had no money to pay for one, but she didn't pass the means test issued by the county.
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:48:43 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:38:40 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:34:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer

Some jurisdictions do have a lottery of sorts or some method to obtain counsel.
If there is no available public defender, yes, lawyers are conscripted. Not every area has a need for full time public defenders.
I was not aware of this. These must be really small rural communities or something. In that case, I guess the rationale would be that by choosing to work as a lawyer, you assume the responsibility of having to take some of those cases. I also have to assume these lawyers get paid for their work by the government.

Oh, I'm sure they get paid. They might not make the "going rate", so they are less inclined to put the work in, though.
But, yes, there is a reason for it, and that is the purpose of the thread. Is it the government can force them? Is it a matter of being a member of the bar? What?
Yeah so I think the reasoning is that the government can force them, much like the way they can force citizens to report for jury duty. They pay you, and it probably isn't as much as you make in your day job, but you gotta go.
The government MUST provide a lawyer, if you cannot afford one.
On a related note, I do find it odd that lawyers are a right only if it is determined you cannot afford one. If it's a right, it should be afforded to all, if they choose to exercise said right.

I think anyone can request a public defender. It's just that nobody who can afford a personal lawyer would ever do that because the public defenders are much worse.

Look at the Miranda Warning:
they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is quite explicit.
I also knew a woman who was charged with domestic assault and some other level of assault, and she was not provided an attorney, because she made too much. She had no money to pay for one, but she didn't pass the means test issued by the county.

That does seem unfair. So in her case, what did they do? Because if she didn't pay for a lawyer and they didnt appoint one, who was her lawyer? I honestly thought that if you said you couldn't afford a lawyer they just appointed you a public defender automatically. I agree with you that that should be the law. I would be shocked if the court just tried her without a lawyer.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:48:25 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Is it because I am a lawyer?

That's literally the job of a public attorney. No one is forcing you to be a public attorney.

"In rural areas and in courts with meager resources, there might not be public defenders on staff with the court to represent you. In that case, the court will usually appoint a private attorney at public expense, or assign a private attorney from a volunteer attorney list to represent you."
http://criminal.lawyers.com...


Is it part of the bar association requirement?

idk about that. But most firms have pro bono divisions to help the needy.
True. It's probably a good tax write-off.
However, this misses the point.

What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

Slave? Are you high? You get paid.
Misses the point of the statement.
They all get paid for working for the government.
See above.
They get paid by the government, but they don't necessarily work for the government.

Gays don't steal cakes, they pay for them.
Um, okay.

How does this apply to businesses in general?

Legal counsel is a constitutional right and necessity when dealing with the legal system. For general practice, allowing all people to have access to counsel regardless of economic status keeps consumers on an even playing field; likewise having equal access to business services keeps a veneer of human equality.

And arresting people for being jackasses and racists would be great, too.
I understand the need for the lawyer, but at issue is the compulsion by the state to act against one's will (assuming they don't want to represent the defendant).
I disagree with the notion, but, then again, I don't. See my delimma?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:58:36 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

That does seem unfair. So in her case, what did they do? Because if she didn't pay for a lawyer and they didnt appoint one, who was her lawyer? I honestly thought that if you said you couldn't afford a lawyer they just appointed you a public defender automatically. I agree with you that that should be the law. I would be shocked if the court just tried her without a lawyer.

I don't remember, and I don't care. She can fvck herself. (she tried to frame me for theft from the company a few months later)
A lawyer is not necessary. You can always represent yourself, you know.
I do know she was handed a list of "reduced fees" lawyers. I'm pretty sure she took a plea bargain without a lawyer.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

There's probably a clause in the bar association that says if you want to practice law you have to agree to public work if called upon, or you must spend X hours annually, idk. It's not slavery, you get paid. But that's besides the point you want to hear. What's important is in this case the common good trumps the individual. The societal need for access to legal counsel trumps the individual lawyer. Why? Subjective morality that you'll disagree with. In regards to business services, the common good of equal economic access trumps the individual store owner. Why? Subjective morality. Some people think bigotry is bad, bigots disagree.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:21:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:10:35 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

There's probably a clause in the bar association that says if you want to practice law you have to agree to public work if called upon, or you must spend X hours annually, idk. It's not slavery, you get paid. But that's besides the point you want to hear. What's important is in this case the common good trumps the individual. The societal need for access to legal counsel trumps the individual lawyer. Why? Subjective morality that you'll disagree with. In regards to business services, the common good of equal economic access trumps the individual store owner. Why? Subjective morality. Some people think bigotry is bad, bigots disagree.

Fix'd the quote for ya ;)

Are you suggesting that a bakery is as important to society as a defense lawyer? That a photographer, babysitter, or deli owner is equivalent to the justice system?
If the morality is subjective, is that the government's purview? After all, the government allows bigotry by giving racists the ability to speak their hate and have a parade.

I have a thread in the society forum you can attack me for my views if you'd like.

I want this thread to be about lawyers being forced to against their will to act (i.e. overriding their rights), and how that applies to business owners being forced to engage in commerce (i.e. overriding their rights).
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:37:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:21:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:10:35 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

There's probably a clause in the bar association that says if you want to practice law you have to agree to public work if called upon, or you must spend X hours annually, idk. It's not slavery, you get paid. But that's besides the point you want to hear. What's important is in this case the common good trumps the individual. The societal need for access to legal counsel trumps the individual lawyer. Why? Subjective morality that you'll disagree with. In regards to business services, the common good of equal economic access trumps the individual store owner. Why? Subjective morality. Some people think bigotry is bad, bigots disagree.

Fix'd the quote for ya ;)

Are you suggesting that a bakery is as important to society as a defense lawyer? That a photographer, babysitter, or deli owner is equivalent to the justice system?

The common goods, that of legal equality and economic access equality, trump the individuals in their respective fields. If you cant buy food or housing, or get a job, or be treated like a human being economic access is a matter of life and death.

You may want to reduce it to "well cake isn't a matter of life or death!" But that's not the point; to define which businesses are to be considered necessary to life allows the government to judge what specifically is necessary. Open access to all is the best policy.

If the morality is subjective, is that the government's purview? After all, the government allows bigotry by giving racists the ability to speak their hate and have a parade.

What do you mean by purview? You mean their reasoning? That can be looked up when reviewing the history of the specific legislation or legal ruling.

I have a thread in the society forum you can attack me for my views if you'd like.

I want this thread to be about lawyers being forced to against their will to act (i.e. overriding their rights), and how that applies to business owners being forced to engage in commerce (i.e. overriding their rights).

Am I not addressing this? Both access to legal resources and economic resources are essential to living in this country. That is why the common good trumps individual preference. If you don't want to give service to all customers no one is forcing you to open a business owner or lawyer, if you engage in either practice you agree to serve all. It's not going against anyone's will.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 9:19:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:37:50 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:21:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:10:35 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

There's probably a clause in the bar association that says if you want to practice law you have to agree to public work if called upon, or you must spend X hours annually, idk. It's not slavery, you get paid. But that's besides the point you want to hear. What's important is in this case the common good trumps the individual. The societal need for access to legal counsel trumps the individual lawyer. Why? Subjective morality that you'll disagree with. In regards to business services, the common good of equal economic access trumps the individual store owner. Why? Subjective morality. Some people think bigotry is bad, bigots disagree.

Fix'd the quote for ya ;)

Are you suggesting that a bakery is as important to society as a defense lawyer? That a photographer, babysitter, or deli owner is equivalent to the justice system?

The common goods, that of legal equality and economic access equality, trump the individuals in their respective fields. If you cant buy food or housing, or get a job, or be treated like a human being economic access is a matter of life and death.
First, you are aware the Maranda Warning explicitly states the right to an attorney is based on affordability (i.e. circumstance). It is not equally applied.
Second, if your contention that EVERY PERSON is entitled to business access, then the same logic must apply to arguments. For example, CostCo's and Sam's Club's membership requirement is racist, just as Voter ID laws are. Further, since everyone is entitled to the business, anti-discrimination laws are actually redundant, since there is no need for a protected class, because everyone has equal entitlement.
Third, lawyers can refuse business if there is a conflict of interest, so why not businesses?

To your concern about housing, food, and employment. These can be addressed by government quite simply, and I am more concerned with services, which are non-essential. And, careful with the employment. Are you suggesting that a lazy person, who uses drugs on a daily basis, has no skills, and a third grade education has a right to a job? Surely, then, those with criminal records have a right as well, but, they don't, do they?


You may want to reduce it to "well cake isn't a matter of life or death!" But that's not the point; to define which businesses are to be considered necessary to life allows the government to judge what specifically is necessary. Open access to all is the best policy.
Except, the government does precisely this. They say "you make too much, ergo, your right to counsel does not exist". Lawyers can, and do, refuse to represent clients for a host of reason, ranging from "I do not represent guilty clients", my client demands I let him perjure himself, or I have a personal issue that prevents me from doing my best to represent him.
Further, the government may not define what business is necessary, but they certainly define what reasons for refusal are necessarily unusable, which implies others are. This is thought policing, since I can refuse to hire X based on X, Y, and Z, but not W.

If the morality is subjective, is that the government's purview? After all, the government allows bigotry by giving racists the ability to speak their hate and have a parade.

What do you mean by purview? You mean their reasoning? That can be looked up when reviewing the history of the specific legislation or legal ruling.
Purview - the scope of the influence or concerns of something.
I do not believe the American government should be legislating morality.
Do you? If so, let's jail those that are racists, like the KKK.

I have a thread in the society forum you can attack me for my views if you'd like.

I want this thread to be about lawyers being forced to against their will to act (i.e. overriding their rights), and how that applies to business owners being forced to engage in commerce (i.e. overriding their rights).

Am I not addressing this? Both access to legal resources and economic resources are essential to living in this country. That is why the common good trumps individual preference. If you don't want to give service to all customers no one is forcing you to open a business owner or lawyer, if you engage in either practice you agree to serve all. It's not going against anyone's will.

I guess they are tied too close together.
I work at a place that does not take checks. Many places do not take certain credit cards. Some restaurants do not allow children. Battered women shelters do not accept men. Dance clubs don't let in people that are ugly/uncool. People who do drugs are denied employment, and people who are rude are denied service. Lawyers who have a conflict of interest are excused from representing clients.

Clearly, businesses are not required to serve ALL.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 9:19:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:37:50 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

First, you are aware the Maranda Warning explicitly states the right to an attorney is based on affordability (i.e. circumstance). It is not equally applied.

Because the government can't afford to provide for all peoples attorneys (essentially monopolizing legal practice) it goes to the most needy. These libertarian arguments that complain that the poor get access to resources the rich don't is so ignorant. As if they think the poor are somehow better off than the rich in the end.

Second, if your contention that EVERY PERSON is entitled to business access, then the same logic must apply to arguments. For example, CostCo's and Sam's Club's membership requirement is racist, just as Voter ID laws are.

Everyone has the ability to become a member of costco or sam club. No one will be turned down based on who they are as a person. Just as voter ID laws don't turn people down specifically based on race.

Further, since everyone is entitled to the business, anti-discrimination laws are actually redundant, since there is no need for a protected class, because everyone has equal entitlement.

Are you kidding me? Do you know why the civil rights act of 1964 was passed?

Third, lawyers can refuse business if there is a conflict of interest, so why not businesses?

Because it is in the interest of the business to do business. The interest of lawyers is to practice law, although they do it for money, conflicts of interest corrupt the primary function of a lawyer and are illegal. A cake shops primary function is to make/sell cakes. What conflict of interest is there to sell to a person you don't like?

To your concern about housing, food, and employment. These can be addressed by government quite simply, and I am more concerned with services, which are non-essential.

What do you define as non-essential? This is judgement based on your own moral scope. Do you expect people to live a bare minimum life? When do non-essentials become essential in pursuing happiness?

And, careful with the employment. Are you suggesting that a lazy person, who uses drugs on a daily basis, has no skills, and a third grade education has a right to a job? Surely, then, those with criminal records have a right as well, but, they don't, do they?

You do know that there are laws that make it illegal to discriminate against felons right? They have the right to opportunity. Also, would it not be better for society to give that person a job so that person doesn't turn to crime to survive?

You may want to reduce it to "well cake isn't a matter of life or death!" But that's not the point; to define which businesses are to be considered necessary to life allows the government to judge what specifically is necessary. Open access to all is the best policy.
Except, the government does precisely this. They say "you make too much, ergo, your right to counsel does not exist". Lawyers can, and do, refuse to represent clients for a host of reason, ranging from "I do not represent guilty clients", my client demands I let him perjure himself, or I have a personal issue that prevents me from doing my best to represent him.

Economic status is not an intrinsic human trait like race, gender, age, & sexual orientation. Lawyers by the way can't refuse clients because they think the client is guilty "Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent." (http://www.nolo.com...), perjury is illegal and thus the lawyer is not responsible, and what kind of personal issues are acceptable? "Sorry judge my client is a n*gger, I can't defend him, something something conflict of interest!"

Further, the government may not define what business is necessary, but they certainly define what reasons for refusal are necessarily unusable, which implies others are. This is thought policing, since I can refuse to hire X based on X, Y, and Z, but not W.

lol Thought policeing? If the actions of these business owners remained in thought then there would be no problem. But they take ACTION by actively discriminating. Do you think racist actions should be curbed by the gov? What about treasonous actions? How dare the government thought police me! If I want to over throw the government that's my right!

If the morality is subjective, is that the government's purview? After all, the government allows bigotry by giving racists the ability to speak their hate and have a parade.

What do you mean by purview? You mean their reasoning? That can be looked up when reviewing the history of the specific legislation or legal ruling.
Purview - the scope of the influence or concerns of something.
I do not believe the American government should be legislating morality.
Do you? If so, let's jail those that are racists, like the KKK.

If the KKK takes violent action then yes, jail them. However hate speech is under another legal jurisdiction, free speech. However if a KKK bakery were to refuse black people service, that action should be illegal.

As for legislating morality, do you think child porn should be illegal? Should forced marriages be illegal? Should the concept of consent hold any legal meaning? These are all moral questions. All laws are based on morality, from traffic to civil with the idea of the common good in mind.

Am I not addressing this? Both access to legal resources and economic resources are essential to living in this country. That is why the common good trumps individual preference. If you don't want to give service to all customers no one is forcing you to open a business owner or lawyer, if you engage in either practice you agree to serve all. It's not going against anyone's will.

I guess they are tied too close together.
I work at a place that does not take checks. Many places do not take certain credit cards.

This is silly and I work at a place that doesn't accept euros or gold doubloons. Besides, they all accept payment regardless of the human being making the payment. You libertarians always conflate money with humanity. It's kinda sickening.

Some restaurants do not allow children.

That is their function, to provide adult entertainment in a restaurant setting. You can't walk into a strip club and complain that it's a terrible chuck-e-cheese.

Battered women shelters do not accept men.

That is their function, to accept battered women. Although I agree it would be more civil if they had a mens ward, but the demand may not be great enough.

Dance clubs don't let in people that are ugly/uncool.

This is interesting. But uncool is not an intrinsic factor to a persons being.

People who do drugs are denied employment,

There's a legitimate safety reason to reject such employment. Gays buying cakes is not a matter of safety.

and people who are rude are denied service.

Attitude is not an intrinsic trait of personhood. Please read this. You really need to understand how denial of service works. (https://www.legalzoom.com...)

Lawyers who have a conflict of interest are excused from representing clients.

Again this is a matter of legality and ethics.

Clearly, businesses are not required to serve ALL

All as in all factors that are intrinsic to personhood. Money, clothes, attitude etc. are not ingrained into people like race, sex, disability and orientation.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:51:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 9:19:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:37:50 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

First, you are aware the Maranda Warning explicitly states the right to an attorney is based on affordability (i.e. circumstance). It is not equally applied.

Because the government can't afford to provide for all peoples attorneys (essentially monopolizing legal practice) it goes to the most needy. These libertarian arguments that complain that the poor get access to resources the rich don't is so ignorant. As if they think the poor are somehow better off than the rich in the end.

Second, if your contention that EVERY PERSON is entitled to business access, then the same logic must apply to arguments. For example, CostCo's and Sam's Club's membership requirement is racist, just as Voter ID laws are.

Everyone has the ability to become a member of costco or sam club. No one will be turned down based on who they are as a person. Just as voter ID laws don't turn people down specifically based on race.

Further, since everyone is entitled to the business, anti-discrimination laws are actually redundant, since there is no need for a protected class, because everyone has equal entitlement.

Are you kidding me? Do you know why the civil rights act of 1964 was passed?

Third, lawyers can refuse business if there is a conflict of interest, so why not businesses?

Because it is in the interest of the business to do business. The interest of lawyers is to practice law, although they do it for money, conflicts of interest corrupt the primary function of a lawyer and are illegal. A cake shops primary function is to make/sell cakes. What conflict of interest is there to sell to a person you don't like?

To your concern about housing, food, and employment. These can be addressed by government quite simply, and I am more concerned with services, which are non-essential.

What do you define as non-essential? This is judgement based on your own moral scope. Do you expect people to live a bare minimum life? When do non-essentials become essential in pursuing happiness?

And, careful with the employment. Are you suggesting that a lazy person, who uses drugs on a daily basis, has no skills, and a third grade education has a right to a job? Surely, then, those with criminal records have a right as well, but, they don't, do they?

You do know that there are laws that make it illegal to discriminate against felons right? They have the right to opportunity. Also, would it not be better for society to give that person a job so that person doesn't turn to crime to survive?

You may want to reduce it to "well cake isn't a matter of life or death!" But that's not the point; to define which businesses are to be considered necessary to life allows the government to judge what specifically is necessary. Open access to all is the best policy.
Except, the government does precisely this. They say "you make too much, ergo, your right to counsel does not exist". Lawyers can, and do, refuse to represent clients for a host of reason, ranging from "I do not represent guilty clients", my client demands I let him perjure himself, or I have a personal issue that prevents me from doing my best to represent him.

Economic status is not an intrinsic human trait like race, gender, age, & sexual orientation. Lawyers by the way can't refuse clients because they think the client is guilty "Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent." (http://www.nolo.com...), perjury is illegal and thus the lawyer is not responsible, and what kind of personal issues are acceptable? "Sorry judge my client is a n*gger, I can't defend him, something something conflict of interest!"

Further, the government may not define what business is necessary, but they certainly define what reasons for refusal are necessarily unusable, which implies others are. This is thought policing, since I can refuse to hire X based on X, Y, and Z, but not W.

lol Thought policeing? If the actions of these business owners remained in thought then there would be no problem. But they take ACTION by actively discriminating. Do you think racist actions should be curbed by the gov? What about treasonous actions? How dare the government thought police me! If I want to over throw the government that's my right!

If the morality is subjective, is that the government's purview? After all, the government allows bigotry by giving racists the ability to speak their hate and have a parade.

What do you mean by purview? You mean their reasoning? That can be looked up when reviewing the history of the specific legislation or legal ruling.
Purview - the scope of the influence or concerns of something.
I do not believe the American government should be legislating morality.
Do you? If so, let's jail those that are racists, like the KKK.

If the KKK takes violent action then yes, jail them. However hate speech is under another legal jurisdiction, free speech. However if a KKK bakery were to refuse black people service, that action should be illegal.

As for legislating morality, do you think child porn should be illegal? Should forced marriages be illegal? Should the concept of consent hold any legal meaning? These are all moral questions. All laws are based on morality, from traffic to civil with the idea of the common good in mind.

Am I not addressing this? Both access to legal resources and economic resources are essential to living in this country. That is why the common good trumps individual preference. If you don't want to give service to all customers no one is forcing you to open a business owner or lawyer, if you engage in either practice you agree to serve all. It's not going against anyone's will.

I guess they are tied too close together.
I work at a place that does not take checks. Many places do not take certain credit cards.

This is silly and I work at a place that doesn't accept euros or gold doubloons. Besides, they all accept payment regardless of the human being making the payment. You libertarians always conflate money with humanity. It's kinda sickening.

Some restaurants do not allow children.

That is their function, to provide adult entertainment in a restaurant setting. You can't walk into a strip club and complain that it's a terrible chuck-e-cheese.

Battered women shelters do not accept men.

That is their function, to accept battered women. Although I agree it would be more civil if they had a mens ward, but the demand may not be great enough.

Dance clubs don't let in people that are ugly/uncool.

This is interesting. But uncool is not an intrinsic factor to a persons being.

People who do drugs are denied employment,

There's a legitimate safety reason to reject such employment. Gays buying cakes is not a matter of safety.

and people who are rude are denied service.

Attitude is not an intrinsic trait of personhood. Please read this. You really need to understand how denial of service works. (https://www.legalzoom.com...)


EXCELLENT REFERENCE !!!!!

Lawyers who have a conflict of interest are excused from representing clients.

Again this is a matter of legality and ethics.

Clearly, businesses are not required to serve ALL

All as in all factors that are intrinsic to personhood. Money, clothes, attitude etc. are not ingrained into peop
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 12:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 9:19:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


First, you are aware the Maranda Warning explicitly states attorney is based on affordability

Because the government can't afford to provide....
So, a right is not a right...

Second, if your contention that EVERY PERSON is entitled to business access, then the same logic must apply to arguments. For example, CostCo's and Sam's Club's membership requirement is racist, just as Voter ID laws are.

Everyone has the ability to become a member of costco or sam club. No one will be turned down based on who they are as a person. Just as voter ID laws don't turn people down specifically based on race.
Yet, they are challenged for their disparate impact.

Further, since everyone is entitled to the business, anti-discrimination laws are actually redundant, since there is no need for a protected class, because everyone has equal entitlement.

Are you kidding me? Do you know why the civil rights act of 1964 was passed?
Um, because of GOVERNMENT discrimination? You know, something like segregated PUBLIC drinking fountains.

Third, lawyers can refuse business if there is a conflict of interest, so why not businesses?

Because it is in the interest of the business to do business. The interest of lawyers is to practice law, although they do it for money, conflicts of interest corrupt the primary function of a lawyer and are illegal. A cake shops primary function is to make/sell cakes. What conflict of interest is there to sell to a person you don't like?
Which is why it isn't likely to happen.

To your concern about housing, food, and employment. These can be addressed by government quite simply, and I am more concerned with services, which are non-essential.

What do you define as non-essential? This is judgement based on your own moral scope. Do you expect people to live a bare minimum life? When do non-essentials become essential in pursuing happiness?
If I want to be accepted, and everyone says fvck off, and I live alone, you all hindered my happiness. Is that illegal?

And, careful with the employment.

You do know that there are laws that make it illegal to discriminate against felons right? They have the right to opportunity. Also, would it not be better for society to give that person a job so that person doesn't turn to crime to survive?
Oh, is that why I've been told numerous times that I didn't get the job because of my felony? And others have surely lied about the reason.
Yes, it would be best, but this is about the law and rights, not what is best.

You may want to reduce it to "well cake isn't a matter of life or death!"
Except, the government does precisely this.

Economic status is not an intrinsic human trait like race, gender, age, & sexual orientation.
Or religion, welfare status, or marriage or having kids?
Regardless, this is government issue, not business.
Lawyers by the way can't refuse clients because they think the client is guilty "Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent."
Knowing a client is guilty (not thinking, but KNOWING) creates a conflict. However, I could be wrong. I would assume the DA does not have to prosecute if they KNOW the man is innocent, even if they could convict him. (like, they know his alibi checks out)
perjury is illegal and thus the lawyer is not responsible,
If they KNOW the client will lie, they are supporting perjury. That is not illegal, but it can result in disbarment.
and what kind of personal issues are acceptable? "Sorry judge my client is a n*gger, I can't defend him, something something conflict of interest!"
The rapist of my daughter.
Again, it all boils down to how you rationalize the THOUGHT's relevance.



lol Thought policeing? If the actions of these business owners remained in thought then there would be no problem. But they take ACTION by actively discriminating. Do you think racist actions should be curbed by the gov? What about treasonous actions? How dare the government thought police me! If I want to over throw the government that's my right!
People can be discriminated against by race if the reason is sound. Like Tom Hanks cannot play Malcolm X. That means the thought is key.
People can be discriminated against for other reasons, just not X, Y, or Z. That, again, is an issue of thought. And one that can be lied about.

Do you? If so, let's jail those that are racists, like the KKK.

If the KKK takes violent action then yes, jail them. However hate speech is under another legal jurisdiction, free speech. However if a KKK bakery were to refuse black people service, that action should be illegal.
Obviously the first.
"Hate speech" is not protected speech, so I assume you mean speech that is hateful.
You agree that the rights of the Klansman allows them to discriminate.
I believe that right extend to businesses, ergo, no, it should not be illegal to not serve.

All laws are based on morality, from traffic to civil with the idea of the common good in mind.
No, they are based on other concepts, and morality overlaps generally.

I work at a place that does not take checks. Many places do not take certain credit cards.

This is silly and I work at a place that doesn't accept euros or gold doubloons. Besides, they all accept payment regardless of the human being making the payment. You libertarians always conflate money with humanity. It's kinda sickening.
The fact is we turn away business because of this. It is acceptable.
Now, if I told you the owner did this because he believes blacks who write checks will bounce, is that still acceptable?

Some restaurants do not allow children.

That is their function, to provide adult entertainment in a restaurant setting. You can't walk into a strip club and complain that it's a terrible chuck-e-cheese.
So, a fancy steakhouse can deny service to a family with children, based on nothing more than their age, an inherent trait? For shame!!!

Battered women shelters do not accept men.

That is their function, to accept battered women. Although I agree it would be more civil if they had a mens ward, but the demand may not be great enough.

Yes, rationalize it. It's okay because of the reason.
But, a business doing X is NOT okay, because the reason isn't good enough. That has nothing to do with policing thought at all...

Dance clubs don't let in people that are ugly/uncool.

This is interesting. But uncool is not an intrinsic factor to a persons being.
No, just because they want a certain atmosphere. But, if I want a workplace free of X, or my clients want a Y-free zone, that is not legal.

People who do drugs are denied employment,

There's a legitimate safety reason to reject such employment. Gays buying cakes is not a matter of safety.
Right, because alcoholics and no smoke breaks don't cause concern.

and people who are rude are denied service.

Attitude is not an intrinsic trait of personhood. Please read this. You really need to understand how denial of service works.
No, I don't, because I DISAGREE WITH THE LAW.
All you do, is tell me it is illegal. I disagree. You are appealing to authority. Is/ought.
You do not address the arguments.

Lawyers who have a conflict of interest are excused from representing clients.

Again this is a matter of legality and ethics.
See above.

Clearly, businesses are not required to serve ALL

All factors that are intrinsic. Money, clothes, attitude etc. are not ingrained into people like race, sex, disability and orientation.
Or creed, class, religion, welfare status, etc, right
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 12:56:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

One more thing:
There is zero legal distinction between me and my sole proprietorship (business).
So, if I can do X because I am an individual, I should be able to do X as a business, right?
Or, if I cannot be X as a business, then I cannot do X as an individual, as there is no legal distinction between me and the business.

Its name is my name. Its assets are my assets. My assets are its assets.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 1:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 12:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, a right is not a right...

How the hell did you reach that conclusion? Lets break down the sentence "You have the right to an attorney, if you can afford one, one will be provided"

You have the right to an attorney: The government can't stop you from seeking legal counsel.

If you cant afford one, one will be provided: Because it's your right to have counsel, economic barriers should no limit this right. You will be given an attorney if you can't afford one.

Everyone has the ability to become a member of costco or sam club. No one will be turned down based on who they are as a person. Just as voter ID laws don't turn people down specifically based on race.

Yet, they are challenged for their disparate impact.

Oh so you're aware of disparate impact? Yet you don't see how disparate impact applies to economics. Hilarious. Also those voter ID laws may be challenged but they are not unconstitutional.

Are you kidding me? Do you know why the civil rights act of 1964 was passed?

Um, because of GOVERNMENT discrimination? You know, something like segregated PUBLIC drinking fountains.

Hahahahahaha yea it was just government segregation that the act was concerned with. HAHAHAHAHAH Title II "Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private" http://en.wikipedia.org... Man you're ignorant.

Which is why it isn't likely to happen.

What isn't likely to happen?

If I want to be accepted, and everyone says fvck off, and I live alone, you all hindered my happiness. Is that illegal?

Clearly if everyone is telling you to fvck off it's you who is the problem. If you hinder their happiness first with your d bag attitude then they have no obligation to abide by you d bag version of happiness.

Oh, is that why I've been told numerous times that I didn't get the job because of my felony? And others have surely lied about the reason.
Yes, it would be best, but this is about the law and rights, not what is best.

It's against the law to discriminate against felons plain and simple. If you have evidence that a business discriminated against you on that basis then you can sue.

Economic status is not an intrinsic human trait like race, gender, age, & sexual orientation.

Or religion, welfare status, or marriage or having kids?

As an atheist idgaf about religious claims. welfare is an econ status, not an intrinsic human status, thus it's subject to differentiation, like rich and poor are treated differently com tax season. Marriage and family are fundamental rights and there is good reason to give them benefits. I don't understand why you think the government should reject common sense. There are differences among peoples that a 1 size fits all system would ignore in favor of the rich.

Regardless, this is government issue, not business.

Then why bring it up? You're the one conflating class with human dignity.

Knowing a client is guilty (not thinking, but KNOWING) creates a conflict. However, I could be wrong. I would assume the DA does not have to prosecute if they KNOW the man is innocent, even if they could convict him. (like, they know his alibi checks out)

You are wrong. You didn't even read the fist link did you? Didn't even read what I quoted .. great.

If they KNOW the client will lie, they are supporting perjury. That is not illegal, but it can result in disbarment.

They can advise against it and then that lawyer can step down and a new one can be appointed. You try to make everything seem so difficult when it's simple.

The rapist of my daughter. Again, it all boils down to how you rationalize the THOUGHT's relevance.

They'd get another lawyer to defend him. How do your hands feel? Do they hurt from grasping at all those straws?

People can be discriminated against by race if the reason is sound. Like Tom Hanks cannot play Malcolm X. That means the thought is key.

lol wow. Are you high? For a libertarian you really don't understand how capitalism works. Tom hanks can play Malcolm X. The government won't stop him. His movie might bomb or no company will produce it because they think it's not a worthy investment, but Tom hanks could make that movie. But I see what you're trying to do. So tell me, how does not making a cake constitute a risky investment? The gay couple can pay just like everyone else.

People can be discriminated against for other reasons, just not X, Y, or Z. That, again, is an issue of thought. And one that can be lied about.

Lol I love this logic. People can be petty, so we should let racism, sexism and homophobia dictate peoples lives and opportunities and recreate what life was like in the 1930's.

You agree that the rights of the Klansman allows them to discriminate.

Where did I say this? If groups are private and not of economic interest, then yes they have freedom of association. But the KKK bakery is not just a simple social club like the real KKK. If there is federal funding going into a group, they can't discriminate. This is why the boy scouts are allowed to discriminate against gays.

No, they [laws] are based on other concepts, and morality overlaps generally.

No, morality is fundamental to law. If you're going to argue property rights are the most important part of law that is a moral claim of the common good. I've noticed libertarians have a nasy habit of conflating monetary worth with human worth, that the value of a persons bank account equals that persons value. It's really sad.

The fact is we turn away business because of this. It is acceptable.

Your point? Again you conflate money with human dignity. The government doesn't care what form of tender you pay in, so long as it is US dollars. You care more about the money than the human transaction. What do you think about that?

Now, if I told you the owner did this because he believes blacks who write checks will bounce, is that still acceptable?

Again the gov doesn't care what tender is used. So long as he accepts money in some form from blacks he isnt breaking the law.

So, a fancy steakhouse can deny service to a family with children, based on nothing more than their age, an inherent trait? For shame!!!

lol children aren't the ones doing the business transaction. Also why are so ignorant? Jesus you should open a straw factory because you're really grasping at so many! Do you think age is the only factor? Did you read the 2nd link I provided? Why are you so ignorant? But also did you know the Constitution discriminates by age too? Are you know against the constitution?!

Yes, rationalize it. It's okay because of the reason.

Yes that's how rationalization works. You're doing it too.

But, a business doing X is NOT okay, because the reason isn't good enough. That has nothing to do with policing thought at all...

lol is this what you guys tell yourselves at your john birch circle jerk meetings?

No, just because they want a certain atmosphere. But, if I want a workplace free of X, or my clients want a Y-free zone, that is not legal.

Just as the restaurant that doesn't want kids for atmosphere reasons. So long as those X's and Y's aren't protected classes it's legal.

Right, because alcoholics and no smoke breaks don't cause concern.

You can be fired for being drunk on the job. duh. I don't agree with drug laws either, but you're grasping at straws. you refuse to see minutia.

No, I don't, because I DISAGREE WITH THE LAW.
All you do, is tell me it is illegal. I disagree. You are appealing to authority. Is/ought.
You do not address the arguments.

lol just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm not addressing your po
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:04:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 12:56:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

One more thing:
There is zero legal distinction between me and my sole proprietorship (business).
So, if I can do X because I am an individual, I should be able to do X as a business, right?

Or, if I cannot be X as a business, then I cannot do X as an individual, as there is no legal distinction between me and the business.

Its name is my name. Its assets are my assets. My assets are its assets.

Are you trying to say "If im a racist as a person, my business should be racist too"? You want to conflate your property with your personhood, in more than just a legal sense. You confuse the legal world with reality.

You can be racist all you want. But your business can't be racist. Why? Look up the reasonings behind the civil rights act of 1964 and the SCOTUS ruling Heart of Atlanta motel vs. US
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:04:22 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 12:56:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

One more thing:
There is zero legal distinction between me and my sole proprietorship (business).
So, if I can do X because I am an individual, I should be able to do X as a business, right?

Or, if I cannot be X as a business, then I cannot do X as an individual, as there is no legal distinction between me and the business.

Its name is my name. Its assets are my assets. My assets are its assets.

Are you trying to say "If im a racist as a person, my business should be racist too"? You want to conflate your property with your personhood, in more than just a legal sense. You confuse the legal world with reality.
So, if you sue my business for racial discrimination, you can take my house and pension. How is that conflating anything?

You can be racist all you want. But your business can't be racist. Why? Look up the reasonings behind the civil rights act of 1964 and the SCOTUS ruling Heart of Atlanta motel vs. US

The Heart of Atlanta deals with interstate commerce, the local bakery does not.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act deals with interstate commerce, this does not apply to a wedding photographer.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to businesses of 15 employees or more, so again, does not apply to sole proprietorships. (plus, it specifically allows for discrimination based on one being a communist)

So, nothing I propose is against Federal law to my knowledge.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:47:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 1:57:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you cant afford one, one will be provided: Because it's your right to have counsel, economic barriers should no limit this right. You will be given an attorney if you can't afford one.
So, the right only applies if the government decides I cannot afford one, regardless if, in actuality, I can.

Oh so you're aware of disparate impact?
I don't agree with disparate impact.

Hahahahahaha yea it was just government segregation that the act was concerned with. HAHAHAHAHAH Title II "Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private" http://en.wikipedia.org... Man you're ignorant.
There are plenty of businesses that do not engage in interstate commerce. Are you aware the federal government does not have purview of intrastate issues?
Regardless, as I said, I disagree with the law, so, again, feel free to address the issue at hand.

What isn't likely to happen?
Businesses discriminate. It's bad for business.

Clearly if everyone is telling you to fvck off it's you who is the problem. If you hinder their happiness first with your d bag attitude then they have no obligation to abide by you d bag version of happiness.
You mean like, you don't have to shop at my store or work for me?

It's against the law to discriminate against felons plain and simple. If you have evidence that a business discriminated against you on that basis then you can sue.
Sue for what? A job that doesn't want me so I can be watched like a hawk? YEAH!!!
Further, it is their decision to not hire me. I don't have a legal problem with it. I think they are generalizing and stupid, but whatever.

As an atheist idgaf about religious claims...
That's great, but as a matter of law and rights and principles, you have to address it. (typical of a liberal, see, I can generalize, too)
It is illegal to discriminate based on religion, welfare status, and marriage status in my state.
Subd. 2.Employer.Except when based on a bona fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer, because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age to:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
These are not inherent traits, so you must defend them as well.

Regardless, this is government issue, not business.

Then why bring it up? You're the one conflating class with human dignity.
I don't think you know what I am even talking about at this point.



You are wrong. You didn't even read the fist link did you? Didn't even read what I quoted .. great.
Umm, you realize there is a difference between knowing and believing, right?

If they KNOW the client will lie, they are supporting perjury. That is not illegal, but it can result in disbarment.

They can advise against it and then that lawyer can step down and a new one can be appointed. You try to make everything seem so difficult when it's simple.
Oh, wait, the lawyer can no longer be forced to serve his client?
The issue isn't the complexity, it is of compulsion to serve.

The rapist of my daughter. Again, it all boils down to how you rationalize the THOUGHT's relevance.

They'd get another lawyer to defend him. How do your hands feel? Do they hurt from grasping at all those straws?
You admit there are valid reason to discriminate and NOT BE FORCED to serve. Thus, the only difference is the validity. That is the thought police.

People can be discriminated against by race if the reason is sound. Like Tom Hanks cannot play Malcolm X. That means the thought is key.

lol wow. Are you high? For a libertarian you really don't understand how capitalism works. Tom hanks can play Malcolm X. The government won't stop him. His movie might bomb or no company will produce it because they think it's not a worthy investment, but Tom hanks could make that movie. But I see what you're trying to do. So tell me, how does not making a cake constitute a risky investment? The gay couple can pay just like everyone else.
Wow, you are dense or stupid at this point. I'm done with you.
The issue is that Tom Hanks can be denied the role BASED SOLELY ON HIS RACE!!!!

People can be discriminated against for other reasons, just not X, Y, or Z. That, again, is an issue of thought. And one that can be lied about.

Lol I love this logic. People can be petty, so we should let racism, sexism and homophobia dictate peoples lives and opportunities and recreate what life was like in the 1930's.

You agree that the rights of the Klansman allows them to discriminate.

Where did I say this? If groups are private and not of economic interest, then yes they have freedom of association. But the KKK bakery is not just a simple social club like the real KKK. If there is federal funding going into a group, they can't discriminate. This is why the boy scouts are allowed to discriminate against gays.

No, they [laws] are based on other concepts, and morality overlaps generally.

No, morality is fundamental to law. If you're going to argue property rights are the most important part of law that is a moral claim of the common good. I've noticed libertarians have a nasy habit of conflating monetary worth with human worth, that the value of a persons bank account equals that persons value. It's really sad.
Guilt by association, huh?



Your point? Again you conflate money with human dignity. The government doesn't care what form of tender you pay in, so long as it is US dollars. You care more about the money than the human transaction. What do you think about that?
I challenge the notion you have a right to my services. I speak nothing of money, but you keep bringing it up. Property rights extend from individual rights. I am free to run the business as I see fit, and you are free to complain. You are not compelled, so why am I?



Again the gov doesn't care what tender is used. So long as he accepts money in some form from blacks he isnt breaking the law.
Ahem, disparate impact makes it illegal.

So, a fancy steakhouse can deny service to a family with children, based on nothing more than their age, an inherent trait? For shame!!!

lol children aren't the ones doing the business transaction. Also why are so ignorant? Jesus you should open a straw factory because you're really grasping at so many! Do you think age is the only factor? Did you read the 2nd link I provided? Why are you so ignorant? But also did you know the Constitution discriminates by age too? Are you know against the constitution?!
They can deny a 10 year old from dining alone, can't they?
I can defend some things, and others not. It goes down to purview, a concept you are unfamiliar with.

Yes, rationalize it. It's okay because of the reason.

Yes that's how rationalization works. You're doing it too.
More insults.

lol is this what you guys tell yourselves at your john birch circle jerk meetings?
What guys?


Just as the restaurant that doesn't want kids for atmosphere reasons. So long as those X's and Y's aren't protected classes it's legal.
Using the law to defend someone who challenges the law...
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:47:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:17:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:04:22 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 12:56:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:01:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

One more thing:
There is zero legal distinction between me and my sole proprietorship (business).
So, if I can do X because I am an individual, I should be able to do X as a business, right?

Or, if I cannot be X as a business, then I cannot do X as an individual, as there is no legal distinction between me and the business.

Its name is my name. Its assets are my assets. My assets are its assets.

Are you trying to say "If im a racist as a person, my business should be racist too"? You want to conflate your property with your personhood, in more than just a legal sense. You confuse the legal world with reality.

So, if you sue my business for racial discrimination, you can take my house and pension. How is that conflating anything?

Just because you put your life savings into your business does not give you the right to use your business as a tool to treat me as a lesser being. The conflation is you are defined as a person by your job.

You can be racist all you want. But your business can't be racist. Why? Look up the reasonings behind the civil rights act of 1964 and the SCOTUS ruling Heart of Atlanta motel vs. US

The Heart of Atlanta deals with interstate commerce, the local bakery does not.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act deals with interstate commerce, this does not apply to a wedding photographer.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to businesses of 15 employees or more, so again, does not apply to sole proprietorships. (plus, it specifically allows for discrimination based on one being a communist)

So, nothing I propose is against Federal law to my knowledge.

Did you check state laws? Because they may apply depending on your state. But regardless of jurisdiction, I find it morally acceptable to make certain types of discrimination illegal.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bennett, if you are going to ride that high horse and be condescending and be insulting, maybe you should understand the simple point I make in a response to you.

The fact that you missed the obvious Tom Hanks example, given the context, puts all your analysis on even the simplest logical conclusion as suspect. The law is very nuanced, and clearly you cannot see this.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:47:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Just because you put your life savings into your business does not give you the right to use your business as a tool to treat me as a lesser being. The conflation is you are defined as a person by your job.

Sole proprietors = individuals.
There is no legal distinction.
If you sue my company, you can take my personal assets, and vice versa.
If my business has a name other than my name, I need to have an assumed name, which means I have two legal names. (you know, the DBA (doing business as))

There is no conflation because there is no distinction.

Did you check state laws? Because they may apply depending on your state. But regardless of jurisdiction, I find it morally acceptable to make certain types of discrimination illegal.

Oh, I guess I must be a fool and ignorant and stupid because I don't understand that the federal government does not have purview over my business. Oh, wait, that is you.

The fact of the matter is, the businesses that are likely to discriminate:
1. The Civil Rights Act does not pertain to them, so you cannot use it as a defense
2. Is not likely to have an egregious effect on the economy

But, whatever. I'm done with you.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:58:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:56:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

But, whatever. I'm done with you.

Ditto. Of everything you've written this is the only thing I agree with. I'm tired of your conflation that every act of discrimination on every level is the same thing. It's not, get over it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:18:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:45:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
As some of you know, I value property rights in terms of discrimination, as I don't believe you have a right to my services. However, there is one legal argument I cannot reconcile, which, ironically, no one has ever brought up: the right to counsel.

Even before Gideon v. Wainwright, there was a right to counsel, which begs the question: why does a defendant have the right to my services?

Is it because I am a lawyer?
Is it part of the bar association requirement?
What makes my services to you more important then my individual rights? Why am I your "slave"? In the same vein, what about judges, police, and jailers?

How does this apply to businesses in general?

not sure if someone posted this already, but if the service you provide is a societal need, that needs outweighs your rights. For example. If you own the power plant that provides electricity to everyone, you can't just turn off the power to all the blacks saying "it is a violation to force me to sell them electricity." Likewise, if you own the water supply, or a hospital, or a law firm. However, things like wedding cakes, or bars, are not "societal needs" and so do not outweigh your private property rights.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:34:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:27:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Public defenders aren't conscripted or anything, they take the job willingly. And they get paid. When you go to court and request free counsel, the lawyer you get isn't pulled at random from a pool of all possible lawyers, you get the guy whose job it is to represent people who can't afford an attorney. So nobody's entitled to a specific lawyers service, they're entitled to the services of *a* lawyer

Some jurisdictions do have a lottery of sorts or some method to obtain counsel.
If there is no available public defender, yes, lawyers are conscripted. Not every area has a need for full time public defenders.

The government MUST provide a lawyer, if you cannot afford one.
On a related note, I do find it odd that lawyers are a right only if it is determined you cannot afford one. If it's a right, it should be afforded to all, if they choose to exercise said right.

Isn't it that all lawyers have to do X number of public service cases, or X number of hours doing them or something?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"