[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]
Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?
I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.
No qualifications.
You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.
Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]
Interesting. I hadn’t realized how “libertarian” your views are on this point. I think I saw Rand Paul arguing something similar. Eh, given the history of the US, I’ll have to disagree but I understand where you are coming from.
[/quote]
Sorry, I have been completely tied up for the past week and am just now getting to this. Have not read the rest of the thread, either, so this may have been covered, but…
I actually agree with you more than I disagree. I just have a different idea as to the way in which social fairness and equality should be achieved. Forcing businesses and individuals to do things they don’t want to do, to hire and let on people they would prefer not to, is NOT the way to achieve that fairness. It may carry the veneer of effectiveness in the short term, because you are creating a plastic replica of the society would would prefer to have, but it is not real, and there are consequences that stem from doing so. We can see them now, easily.
Indeed, this very case (the OP) is itself a consequence of deciding that the government could “force” equality and fairness, and an example of how slippery the decline really is. We had one interest group, one time, because we needed to correct a problem. And then the other races also needed to be included. For fairness sake. And now we have a group that defines itself based upon sexual preference demanding access to private property where they are not wanted. Basing their demands upon the same basis.
Do you really think it will stop here? Why on earth should it? Should there be a line? If so, how do you draw it?[/quote]
These are interesting and just questions. My personal views are:
Stop here? no
Why? Not sure it should.
Line? Yes
How? The legislative process and discussions in the public square.
I guess I’m not yet sure if a sexual group should be able to rent out a church (or whatever initiated some of this). But I am pretty sure that Blacks in Milwaukee in the late 70s should not have been discriminated against when buying a house because of the color of their skin. I’m also pretty sure Black children should have been allowed to go to public schools in Kansas (separate=/=equal). I’m not sure if I’m making sense here as I’m only halfway through my coffee, but I think that the government was justified in stepping in regarding racial discrimination and is justified in looking at other forms of discrimination. While you and I might agree or disagree about it, where the line is drawn should be dealt with by the legislative process.