People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable.
But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better?
Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better?
In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
Obviously government cannot stop discrimination just as it cannot stop murder, theft, etc. But it can dramatically reduce it by imposing the proper social norms.
Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights.
It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
Violence is only an acceptable response in cases when a person initiates a violation of another's person or property.
Because I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property.
Person A says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property"
Person B says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property or my right to be treated equally".
How do I know who is correct?
It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably lead to politics being turned into a venue through which groups fight to expand their power at the expense of others. This is hugely wasteful.
An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're only entitled to your life, liberty and property. As soon as you assume a right to things others produce, you support the violation of their life, liberty and/or property.
>An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
Private discrimination is not oppression. Using government violence to prevent someone from discriminating is oppression.
Private discrimination is something we all engage in, every day. What you're arguing for is prohibiting certain types of discrimination, in certain areas of private life. For instance, prohibiting racial discrimination but not ideological discrimination, and in one's business interactions, and not sexual interactions.
The whole concept of prohibiting private discrimination is wrong, as it presumes we do not have a total right to determine who we associate and do business with.
I haven't seen evidence that private discrimination leads to revolution.
History is filled with examples of laws being passed to mandate segregation, and to discriminate against minorities, because the authorities were concerned about the fact that in the absence of such intervention, the majority demographic was mixing with a minority group through marriage and commerce.
Another being(assuming we all agree on what a failing is) the rights you need to violate to attempt(and fail, because it will fail) to address that failing.
Better to leave people to themselves than inflict certain misery in a misguided attempt to remould mankind in your own image.
Currently race and sex are nono's but religion and politics is ok.
Why should I face discrimination for my appearance when trying to get laid?
Surely the government should ban women and men from turning me down for sex because I'm not attractive.
Then maybe the government should tell you who you can have sex with an who not to?
It thought you people wanted the government out of your bedroom?
Telling people who people can have in their homes and not is fascist. These are not commercial businesses.
If you want to make a law stating that any flat rented out on an going basis constitutes a 'business' - and subject to regular rules - that's fine. But if they are homes - no way.
No.
I'd argue it changes when you have a flat that is rented out on a near full time basis to others, i.e. 'a business'.
Until you have a little business in that home and are now refusing paying customers.
Getting a roommate is different. You can still be a piece of garbage and discriminate, but that's your business.
https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates
Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to all situations except the following:
Shared Housing Exemption -- If you are advertising a shared housing unit, in which tenants will be sharing a bathroom, kitchen, or other common area, you may express a preference based upon sex only. Private Club and Religious Exemptions -- A religious community or private club whose membership is not restricted based upon race, color, or national origin may restrict tenancy only to its members in a property that it owns, and may advertise to that effect. Housing for Older Persons Exemption -- As discussed below, certain complexes for elderly persons are exempt from prohibitions on familial status discrimination, including the prohibitions on discriminatory advertising.
Crazy, I know, but that's the world most wanted.
Enough with this rubbish - your comment is that of the totalitarian.
Homes are not businesses, and people have a right to decide who they let it - and not.
It's not a simplistic decision, and there are probably many factors. Personally - if someone looked like a scruffy bum, I don't think I'd want them renting my AirBnB if I had a place. Frankly, I don't care if it's 'discriminatory'.
More importantly - shutting down the discussion with political y loaded ideology is just wrong. These are nuanced issues, you don't get to win by saying the word 'racist'.
I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread discrimination, unable to get jobs, housing, health care, and even dinner and hotel rooms are not free, but oppressed. Also, it's long been part of US history, it's not a new trend. Anti-discrimination laws are one example.