OK fine. What do you think SHOULD be?

You go into a private business of some sort (retail or whatever) and for SOME goofy reason the proprietor determines they think you are a JERK 1st class and THEY decide they don't want to serve you. Tell you to leave and tell you they think you're an ******* 1st class..........."Get the F out of my business jerkface!"............ Does that proprietor have the legal RIGHT to do that?

That's kind of muddy and honestly it depends on the reason why. If the owner is just calling you a jerk because you're black, that would be wrong. If you've actually done some act that hurts the business, then that's probably fine.

This **** is almost impossible to regulate in reality.

Posted by tangplay on 9/21/2020 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I agree that the line gets a bit blurry here, but I do think we should draw a distinction between gender and political identity.

Serious question.

Do you actually think it's significantly more likely that a little boy born today in rural Montana to a conservative family will vote Democrat in 30 years than that a little girl born today in NYC to a liberal family will exhibit some sort of gender dysphoria in 30 years? Because I'm not all that convinced that it is. We're experiencing an exponential growth in people identifying as trans-gendered or non-binary. I suspect there will be a hard ceiling at a reasonably small proportion of the population, but will that be a smaller proportion of liberal New Yorkers than the share of white male Montanans from conservative families that grow up to be Democrats?

If this is even a question, then is one really a choice and the other intrinsic, or are they both heavily influenced by environment?

I could just as easily argue that the little white boy never really had a chance to be a Democrat, and anyone discriminating against him based on his political affiliation is discriminating based on intrinsic characteristics.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/21/2020 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/21/2020 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I agree that the line gets a bit blurry here, but I do think we should draw a distinction between gender and political identity.

Serious question.

Do you actually think it's significantly more likely that a little boy born today in rural Montana to a conservative family will vote Democrat in 30 years than that a little girl born today in NYC to a liberal family will exhibit some sort of gender dysphoria in 30 years? Because I'm not all that convinced that it is. We're experiencing an exponential growth in people identifying as trans-gendered or non-binary. I suspect there will be a hard ceiling at a reasonably small proportion of the population, but will that be a smaller proportion of liberal New Yorkers than the share of white male Montanans from conservative families that grow up to be Democrats?

If this is even a question, then is one really a choice and the other intrinsic, or are they both heavily influenced by environment?

I could just as easily argue that the little white boy never really had a chance to be a Democrat, and anyone discriminating against him based on his political affiliation is discriminating based on intrinsic characteristics.

This is a fair point.

You can have an intrinsic trait that's less likely to show up than a non-intrinsic trait. So your comparison is largely irrelevant. As a left-leaning person, I completely agree that we're bound to our environment in a lot of ways. I don't know that the Montana boy vs the liberal girl will be any less or more likely to have gender dysphoria. The Montana boy is substantially less likely to identify as trans because of social pressures.

I think that in most cases it's *wrong* to discriminate against people based on political opinion because of your reasoning above. However, I don't think it should be illegal. We could apply this same rationale to a wide variety of things.

"This **** is almost impossible to regulate in reality."

Exactly! I couldn't have said it any better Tangy!

Government has no business attempting to "police" interpersonal interactions and relationships!!
EXCEPT that our society (mostly as a whole) has determined that it be ILLEGAL to "discriminate" based on certain identified characteristics........like the color of one's skin.

Thus the rub. Few of us have trouble agreeing that "skin color" as a "characteristic" of a person being used as the BASIS for "denial" (or acceptance) is abhorrent and thus a Law was enacted.
Problem is, some folks will always just disagree with THAT very societal determination because they, themselves harbor racism towards coloreds. AND, the Government's "attempt" to enforce (what most would just call justice and decency) a Law limiting some interpersonal behavior begat a very slippery slope!

Just HOW do you go about encoding decency and a certain level of enlightened thought (education).???
There's always NITWITS.

Posted by laramiebob on 9/21/2020 11:55:00 AM (view original):
OK fine. What do you think SHOULD be?

You go into a private business of some sort (retail or whatever) and for SOME goofy reason the proprietor determines they think you are a JERK 1st class and THEY decide they don't want to serve you. Tell you to leave and tell you they think you're an ******* 1st class..........."Get the F out of my business jerkface!"............ Does that proprietor have the legal RIGHT to do that?

Yes.
like employment at will.

Posted by laramiebob on 9/21/2020 12:55:00 PM (view original):
"This **** is almost impossible to regulate in reality."

Exactly! I couldn't have said it any better Tangy!

Government has no business attempting to "police" interpersonal interactions and relationships!!
EXCEPT that our society (mostly as a whole) has determined that it be ILLEGAL to "discriminate" based on certain identified characteristics........like the color of one's skin.

Thus the rub. Few of us have trouble agreeing that "skin color" as a "characteristic" of a person being used as the BASIS for "denial" (or acceptance) is abhorrent and thus a Law was enacted.
Problem is, some folks will always just disagree with THAT very societal determination because they, themselves harbor racism towards coloreds. AND, the Government's "attempt" to enforce (what most would just call justice and decency) a Law limiting some interpersonal behavior begat a very slippery slope!

Just HOW do you go about encoding decency and a certain level of enlightened thought (education).???
There's always NITWITS.

I don't think that skin color as a basis for acceptance is something that most would agree is abhorrent.

Lots of people are fine with affirmative action.

When black business leaders publicly announce that they are emphasizing providing opportunities for people of color, they are generally applauded, not maligned.

etc.

So you are changing the subject to affirmative action? argument clinic guy ?

"I don't think that skin color as a basis for acceptance is something that most would agree is abhorrent."

what?
YOU don't think using the color of one's skin to (either) deny someone or reject another someone is abhorrent?
OR, you think that "most" people don't think using skin color is abhorrent?

I kinda thought MOST people were past that........... that MOST "people" these days understood that a human's measure/worth has NOTHING THE F*CK TO DO with skin color/tone.
Clarify me!
what's wrong my with take on it?? are you saying that the globe is still mostly populated by ignorant doofusses that think skin color/tone is a measure of a man/woman??
Here in the supposed "modern age" within a global 1st world so-called civilized society?
Really?
Whom do you live amongst IF that's the case?
Maybe time to move?

Did you read the rest of my post?

Do you disagree that a large number of Americans are accepting of providing opportunities only to minorities?

You speak in forked tongue.

Posted by dino27 on 9/21/2020 2:24:00 PM (view original):
So you are changing the subject to affirmative action? argument clinic guy ?

No. The point is that I don't really think most Americans agree that we should treat everyone the same way. Most Americans will say that they think we should treat everyone the same way, but in practice they support lots of things that undermine the credibility of the statement.

Tying back in to the question of the responsibility of businesses to serve clients, I would personally say the only clearly-delineated way of handling things is to require all people to be served until they disqualify themselves by their own actions within the place of business. That means you have to serve the gay, trans, safe spacers, anti-vaxxers, and even white supremacists. However, if any of those groups do things outside the normal bounds of society to make your other customers/potential customers uncomfortable, you could give them the boot. That's where I think protected categories should come into play. You can't boot people for kissing while being, say, interracial or same-sex if you don't do the same for single-race heterosexual couples. But I'd protect absolutely everything when it comes to getting in the door.

Affirmative action is a different thing.
just because it is about minority status does not mean it is related to getting service at a business or could be compared to it.

you are just trying to stir up trouble.

Your second paragraph was a statement of the obvious.