• Yes they are - but not because of freedom of association

    The 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    Anti-discrimination laws involuntarily require one citizen to serve another, under the THREAT OF COMPULSORY FORCE. No social objective is worth slavery - not for a lifetime, not for a year, not for a day, NOT FOR ONE MINUTE.

  • Yes, they are

    I think that we have reached a point as a people and as a nation where we no longer need laws that outlaw discrimination. I say this because I believe that discrimination in this country really is no longer much of problem, at least not on the level as when the laws were first passed.

  • Freedom of speech.

    I am not saying that I agree with people discriminating against others, but United States citizens have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Our founding fathers created the Constitution to give us certain freedoms that our government is now trying to take away from us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and should have the right to be able to vocalize those opinions without fear of being thrown in jail.

  • The right of association encompasses the right of disassociation

    The queers thought they found the golden loop-hole with their "keep it in their faces" tactic; until they found themselves facing the back of their victims heads. Non-discrimination laws are intended to deny you your right to have nothing to do with those who embrace ACTIVITY that exists in direct opposition to your faith by force of law.

  • The right of association encompasses the right of disassociation.

    The queers believed they found the magic bullet with their "keep it in their face" tactic; that is until they came up against the right to have nothing to do with them; which is why they are now demanding people not be allowed to have nothing to do with them, by force of law.

    The principle goal of a sociopath is to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them. Their current weapon of choice, for the realization of their wants, is non-discrimination laws - that; and Newspeak.

  • It is basic freedom

    If you own a business, or a rental property, or anything else, then that is your property. Everyone should have the right to choose with whom they associate with, whether it be who they choose as friends and/or acquaintances, or whether it is who they choose as employees or tenants.

  • Yes, anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional

    The constitution provides no basis for laws regarding discrimination. The closest thing is the 14th Amendment, but it only insures that the laws treat everyone equally. The government has no power to regulate equality in anything not apart of the government. Business have a right to express their opinion, no matter how short-sighted or bias it might be.

  • Yes, they are

    The constitution does not give you a right to not be offended. If I own an establishment I can refuse service to whomever I please, it's MY business. It is unconstitutional to imprison for someone for having an opinion or expressing that opinion, we have something called the first amendment.

  • Anti-Discrimination laws means you believe people are born better than others.

    Anti-discrimination laws give advantages to select groups of people. Giving groups of people handicap advantages suggests that they must naturally be unequal or inferior to the majority. When it comes to voting and constitutional rights, they should be distributed evenly. So women, blacks, gays, white men, etc... Can all vote, marry, own property and businesses like everybody else. But laws that make it mandatory to have a percentage of black employees, or women must be paid a fraction higher are both discriminatory and morally bad. In fact I believe they have the opposite effect they were intended to solve. If a business man refuses to hire someone because he is a racist or sexist or whatever, then he is going to lose money for missing out on valuable employees.

    People are forgetting we live in a free country which means arrogant people have the right to be prejudice.

  • Yes, anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional

    The Constitution exists to protect your right to be free, your right to pursue happiness. Your freedom and happiness are not contingent upon whether or not someone else agrees with you or whether or not some one likes you. You freedom is yours, if you do not like something then you're free to do something else. You're free to support someone else or any business you choose. If your not happy, then you're free to do something about it. Change jobs, start your own business, move to another place, be around like minded people. The Constitution does not state or even suggest that life is fair and that everyone is the same. The 14th amendment has to due with equal treatment under the law, it does not mean make laws to force people to treat others equally. For example, there is a law against murder. The fourteenth amendment protects people by making it illegal for one person to receive a harsher sentence than another simply because they are of a different race, color, creed, etc... The fourteenth amendment does not protect people against discrimination by another individual. Plain and simple. Freedom and happiness are yours and yours alone. The government has no right to force anyone to treat anyone else a certain way because then the government has taken away your right to freedom and your right to pursue happiness. Anti-discrimination Laws infringe on an individuals freedom to choose whom to associate with, whom to do business with etc. Therefore Anti-discrimination Laws are Unconstitutional.

  • Simple: Look to the SCOTUS

    OK internet constitutional scholars; if anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, why haven't they been struck down by the US Supreme Court? It's because the constitution was meant, among other things, to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Eight more words needed. Now only four. Done.

  • Minority rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" trump the rights of businesses to discriminate.

    There was a time in America when systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce.

    It's very easy for people growing up in the last couple generations to suggest that minorities simply "take their business someplace else", but the only reason this suggestion even seems plausible is because we've they've grown up in a society protected by anti-discrimination laws.

  • No, they are not unconstitutional

    No, they absolutely are not unconstitutional. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to treat others differently or favor a certain group. These laws remind people to not use race, religion, culture, disability, sex, etc. as an excuse to discriminate against others. People should be given or denied opportunity based on merit and nothing more or less.

  • They are not

    I don't think anyone can seriously argue that a law meant to outlaw discrimination is not within the confines of the United States constitution. Discrimination in general is something that we as a nation should never tolerate, and these laws ensure that we stay within the bounds of what is right.

  • Anti-discrimination laws are not unconstitutional.

    Discrimination runs rampant in our time. Laws are made to make lives more agreeable, and pleasant to live. If you took away laws, we would live in a bigoted and angry world. There is not a single person whom deserves to be discriminated against, whether it is in the workplace or the grocery store, or even school.

  • Anti-discrimination laws are not unconstitutional

    When discrimination against any person(s) or a class of people is evident and so consistent. The as a society we need to make sure that every one understands that discrimination is not tolerated or welcomed in public and professional life.

    This is consistent with the Constitution. As it not protects groups as well as the individual. Rights

  • Idk idk idk

    I haven't really read into this subject much but i think that we do have the freedom of speech while it might offend some people or not. However, the government does have the power to outlaw forms of discrimination such as refusing service to the LGBT community. Some forms of discrimination they have already outlawed, such as segregated schools. We should live in a country that while you can speak your opionion, there is no excuse for discrimination.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.