Quote:You said it wasn't ACTUAL discrimination. I'm saying it is discrimination the man can't put on a pair of eyes and all of the sudden have access to the drive-thru. On the surface it's absolutely ridiculous he's suing McDonald's over this I agree, but when we've established as a society that inclusion is going to be mandatory then why do we all find it ridiculous this man wants inclusion?
someone early said this is like the no shirt, no shoes situation where he can still be reasonably accommodated, but I thought about it more and the no shirt no shoes isn't the same. Anyone can put on a pair of shoes or a shirt and get service, this man can't put on a pair of eyes. Because of his disability he's excluded, that's discrimination.
My point isn't to argue that McDonald's should be forced to do something about this, my point is that attempting to correct discrimination at the state level leads to all kinds of problems. It's just an illustration of why I'm against "discrimination laws" not because I support discrimination, but because it's a private property rights issue.
And leaving it to the free market to cure everything... that causes no problems?
Quote:And leaving it to the free market to cure everything... that causes no problems?
No it creates less problems.
Quote:No it creates less problems.
Not really, which is why the Civil Rights Act happened.
Quote:Not really, which is why the Civil Rights Act happened.
Segregation was first started by government, had it not been instituted by the state from the start there would have been no need to create legislation to undo what the state created.
Do you believe that if not for discrimination laws we would still have racially divided business today? They would be protested and eventually ran out of business by competitors that don't exclude customers, it's simple economics.
If you do believe that without laws regarding discrimination today we would still be a segregated society then me and you just live in a different world.
Quote:Segregation was first started by government, had it not been instituted by the state from the start there would have been no need to create legislation to undo what the state created.
Do you believe that if not for discrimination laws we would still have racially divided business today? They would be protested and eventually ran out of business by competitors that don't exclude customers, it's simple economics.
If you do believe that without laws regarding discrimination today we would still be a segregated society then me and you just live in a different world.
That's kinda like saying outlawing slavery wasn't necessary and just a power grab by the state because people would have "wised up" eventually and slavery would phase out on it's own. No, it doesn't work like that.
Quote:That's kinda like saying outlawing slavery wasn't necessary and just a power grab by the state because people would have "wised up" eventually and slavery would phase out on it's own. No, it doesn't work like that.
who created the system of slavery? it was state powers that decided some men where only a 1/3rd of a man. I've argued against slavery on the principle it was a violation of property rights in the worse possible way. Now I will argue with you we didn't need a "War" to end slavery, that's exclusive to America the rest of the world did eventually "wise up" and end slavery on it's own.
Quote:who created the system of slavery? it was state powers that decided some men where only a 1/3rd of a man. I've argued against slavery on the principle it was a violation of property rights in the worse possible way. Now I will argue with you we didn't need a "War" to end slavery, that's exclusive to America the rest of the world did eventually "wise up" and end slavery on it's own.
Slavery is not some creation by government. Its part of the depravity of man. It existed long before complex governments ever did.
There is an argument that slavery was on the way to be outlawed in the South. Notice the distinction; "outlawed". They weren't gonna just say "hey, gentleman's agreement: let's cut this out." same goes for other countries. Laws were required.
Laws are needed to prevent people from doing wrong, which you agree includes discrimination. If we just go to a wild West approach then that will result in a lot of shenanigans. No way around that.
Quote:Slavery is not some creation by government. Its part of the depravity of man. It existed long before complex governments ever did.
There is an argument that slavery was on the way to be outlawed in the South. Notice the distinction; "outlawed". They weren't gonna just say "hey, gentleman's agreement: let's cut this out." same goes for other countries. Laws were required.
Laws are needed to prevent people from doing wrong, which you agree includes discrimination. If we just go to a wild West approach then that will result in a lot of shenanigans. No way around that.
Not quite, the law doesn't prevent anything, it merely punishes it when it occurs.
Quote:Not quite, the law doesn't prevent anything, it merely punishes it when it occurs.
If theft had no penalty, you would certainly see a lot more of it.
Quote:If theft had no penalty, you would certainly see a lot more of it.
Sure, it's just that the law is reactive, it holds no real power unless you choose to accept it.
Quote:I'll try and find the link latter but I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard a news blimp about a man who is sueing McDonald's for discrimination. This particular suit is by a blind man who is arguing that mcdonalds only having their drive thru open late is discriminating against blind people and other people who can't drive and have access to their drive thru during late hours. Now before we all ridicule the man he has a point, he is being denied access to a product based on his disability. Anyone that has any business experience understands why mcdonalds would limit access during later hours for safety and cost control but in doing so they are discriminating or excluding some people access.
I just thought this really illustrates the problem with discrimination laws, heres a company attempting to provide extended services but because they can't provide them to everyone they are technically commiting discrimination.
No it's not the same as the discrimination problems we had in the 60s but why is one form of discrimination legal or ok and another not? Is the minority being discriminated against so small that it should be ignored? Or should we accept that private business has the right to select who they will serve and when they will serve?
Ultimately the question is who controls how businesses is conducted the owners or the state?
You're really defending the lawsuit in this instance? McDonalds truly discriminating against him would be him going through the drive thru as a passenger and being denied service because he was blind.
If you're defending this man's lawsuit, why are you not at the same time railing against the government for not issuing him a driver's license?
Quote:You're really defending the lawsuit in this instance? McDonalds truly discriminating against him would be him going through the drive thru as a passenger and being denied service because he was blind.
If you're defending this man's lawsuit, why are you not at the same time railing against the government for not issuing him a driver's license?
The point is that discrimination is whatever whoever says it is. There's no real limit to what can be considered discrimination and this guy has a legitimate beef since we've chosen to let the government involve itself in our freedom of association.
Quote:You're really defending the lawsuit in this instance? McDonalds truly discriminating against him would be him going through the drive thru as a passenger and being denied service because he was blind.
If you're defending this man's lawsuit, why are you not at the same time railing against the government for not issuing him a driver's license?
No you missed my point, the suit is an example of the problem with discrimination laws. He is being excluded based on his disability so it is technically discrimination, however it's obvious to everyone that mcdonalds cant be expected to cover the cost of not discriminating against non driving blind customers.
Ultimately its up to the owners of individual mcdonalds who and how and when they will serve their products as it should be.
Quote:No you missed my point, the suit is an example of the problem with discrimination laws. He is being excluded based on his disability so it is technically discrimination, however it's obvious to everyone that mcdonalds cant be expected to cover the cost of not discriminating against non driving blind customers.
Ultimately its up to the owners of individual mcdonalds who and how and when they will serve their products as it should be.
No I got it, but I think the way you're describing it as a form of discrimination is, to some extent, legitimizing the man's arguement and you'd have to have a very loose and liberal definition of what discrimination is to consider a drive thru being open to only patrons in cars as discriminatory. And again, he's not being discriminated against because he's blind like you are saying. A blind person could be a passenger in a vehicle and get served. If he's being discriminated against, it's him and every other person who walks up to McDonalds at 2 am blind or not. "Random guy on the sidewalk at 2 am" isn't and will never be a protected class. If he's trying to attach his disability to the case, he should then direct it at the government for not issuing him a driver's license instead of McDonalds for not allowing him to walk blindly through a drive thru.
He just needs to find a friend with a car who is up late enough to take him when he's having his Big Mac attack at 2 am. How does he even know he's at a McDonalds or where the door is unless he lives right behind it or someone who isn't blind took him there? This sounds more like a lawyer concocted case that was just waiting for the right plaintiff to come along rather than a legitimate gripe.
Idiocy. He would be denied service even if he had vision. He is being denied service because he isn't driving a car. :no:
Thinking about those commercials where they say "If you've got a phone, you've got a laywer!" are they discriminating against people without phones?
Quote:Thinking about those commercials where they say "If you've got a phone, you've got a laywer!" are they discriminating against people without phones?
According to our government yes, that's why we have obamaphones so the poor have access to the rest of the world and avoid discrimination.