Just a thought, there is more difficulty in drawing a line in those rights/non-rights you describe for a baker hiring his son in law or a landowner who rents out a house or two. There is a much clearer line when you are talking about a government entity or say a private entity with the government protection provided by “incorporation”. The problem many people may have is in recognizing all the government benefits given under condition of buying in to non-discrimination. For example, a doctor can probably legally discriminate against accepting patients, unless he takes Medicare or Medicaid (as almost all doctors do). Or maybe not, perhaps it is prohibited as part of the state issued license that allows him/her to legally practice and buy malpractice insurance and all the other protections afforded by various public entities. Or maybe it varies by state. Certainly there is an unlicensed doc somewhere who is free to discriminate, if you want to take all the risk and pay out of pocket. That is not, however, a way to build a modern society.
For the record, I started and ran a corporation. No, it wasn't huge, typically just four or five employees. Various kinds of corporations can have tax advantages, and can protect an individual from some lawsuits (the corporation get sued, not the individual, SOMETIMES).
It is not true that not being incorporated allows a private employer or landlord.to discriminate as he chooses. A court would tend to accept a business owner hiring family members instead of a minority. That would probably not be seen as discrimination. Yet, there's no guarantee.
Further, the doctor who works for cash only and is not licensed is, first of all, committing felonies just for practicing without a license. Second, he is STILL required to observe discrimination laws.
Yes, entities that accept government payments for patients, tenants, etc must abide by specific requirements attached to those payments. But those aren't laws, per se, they are contractual conditions. You or I could set our own conditions for contracts just as the government can. We could set as a condition to a contractor, that they must hire our son's plumbing company as the plumber, if they are to build our house. Those sorts of things happen fairly regularly. Not the law, a contractual agreement.
Sure, my point is you get responsibilities when you get rights. Do people go to jail for working “under the table” if they pay taxes? No, or I’ve never heard of it. If a guy rents his house to the nice young white family instead of the black college kids, is he going to get sued? I’m going to guess no. How would you know or prove it!? If you are a big company with lots of high paid employees, people are going to be looking for and notice discrimination far more than at a mom and pop shop. I know the consequence to the mom and pop shop are much worse, though. I also realize not all companies are giant multinational corporations. But the corporation, even a small one, is an advantage the government gives you that protects in more than just from lawsuits. My point is that the government can ask of you to do stuff, because you get something for it. Under your construction, you could look at a license, incorporation, etc as a “contract” with the government and thus they can set their own terms…
The Supreme Court just held that a company can discriminate, even against a protected class, in some cases — explicitly in that case was when it violates the providers first amendments rights. Right?
Also, I think you have a distorted view of how often people sue over discrimination, or how often they win. I too have read idiotic cases with ridiculously large settlements. But having experienced discrimination/ harassment and seen it in workplaces, I have never met a person who sued or seen a person punished for it. It’s kinda one of those empty threats like that waiters will be audited by the IRS about their tips.
PS, that everything comes down to money (from your original post) is that “late stage capitalism” progressives complain about… it seems to me though that is more of our monkey nature… take the side of the big guy so he doesn’t hurt you or the guy whose got something you want and is willing to share…
I totally, absolutely 100% disagree. First and foremost, the constitution states that rights are GOD given, not government given. You may or may not believe in God, but that's not the point. The point is that we are all 100% free, and governments can do nothing but restrict those tights. They can't grant them, because rights aren't theirs to grant.
We all get that there are governments, and governments make laws. We probably also agree that laws against murder, rape, theft etc are worthwhile laws. Still, those are restrictions. Now how about who you or I can rent to? How about who you and I can rent FROM? My point all along has been that, if the government, in its good conscience says that a landlord can discriminate on the base of race, then why can tenants? And they can. Never mind "under the table", a tenant can shout from the rooftops that he refuses to rent from blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever. It's not illegal. Well, why not?
You seem to be hung up on corporations, as if being a corporation protects them from discrimination charges or some such. It most certainly does NOT. Would you please just let go of that prejudice?
And, what is "late-stage capitalism"? Clearly, you've taken some sort of course in which they're implanting ideas in you that you decline to question. My rule of thumb is, question EVERYTHING. Yes, question me. Am I faulting you for questioning me? No. Well, while you're at it, question your teachers. If they deflect your challenges, they aren't teachers, they're indoctrinators. There is no late stage capitalism. We aren't at the end of something, about to start something else. That's fantasy. If you want something else, what is it? It takes capitalism to make your computer, your cellphone, your clothes, your home and pretty much everything else you have. Much of that was made in China, a communist country. Do you think that its being communist means there's no capitalism there? Far from it.
Okay, well, this is not a constructive conversation. I’m not sure if you are not a careful reader, if my writing is particularly unclear, or if you just are engaging in some really bad faith.
There is no mention of GOD in the Constitution. “Our creator” is in the Declaration, and since jefferson was deist, that isn’t as specific as you maybe would like it to be. The constitution is also to provide for the common welfare. We can disagree with what that entails, but freedom does practically require an equal footing. Pretty funny to talk about the constitution and rights when in those days only landowning free adult men had them. You think the constitution protected the rights of slaves? Or women? Or the natives? Perhaps they weren’t made by a god in your eyes?
“Late stage capitalism” is a progressive way of saying “ I have no perspective on history” I don’t believe in it, capitalism goes through cycles of over and under regulation. Because we are a democracy (more or less) it has typically reflected issues in the larger economy. You were however describing the situation the most progressive progressives complain about. I was pointing that out by using the quotes. Apparently too subtly.
Corporations are government constructions, paper entities. They aren’t magic. They entitle the company to some rights and protections, but also some responsibilities. Just as being citizens requires something of us. In our country there is a give and take, I don’t always get my way. Neither do you, even if you don’t like it.
Just a thought, there is more difficulty in drawing a line in those rights/non-rights you describe for a baker hiring his son in law or a landowner who rents out a house or two. There is a much clearer line when you are talking about a government entity or say a private entity with the government protection provided by “incorporation”. The problem many people may have is in recognizing all the government benefits given under condition of buying in to non-discrimination. For example, a doctor can probably legally discriminate against accepting patients, unless he takes Medicare or Medicaid (as almost all doctors do). Or maybe not, perhaps it is prohibited as part of the state issued license that allows him/her to legally practice and buy malpractice insurance and all the other protections afforded by various public entities. Or maybe it varies by state. Certainly there is an unlicensed doc somewhere who is free to discriminate, if you want to take all the risk and pay out of pocket. That is not, however, a way to build a modern society.
For the record, I started and ran a corporation. No, it wasn't huge, typically just four or five employees. Various kinds of corporations can have tax advantages, and can protect an individual from some lawsuits (the corporation get sued, not the individual, SOMETIMES).
It is not true that not being incorporated allows a private employer or landlord.to discriminate as he chooses. A court would tend to accept a business owner hiring family members instead of a minority. That would probably not be seen as discrimination. Yet, there's no guarantee.
Further, the doctor who works for cash only and is not licensed is, first of all, committing felonies just for practicing without a license. Second, he is STILL required to observe discrimination laws.
Yes, entities that accept government payments for patients, tenants, etc must abide by specific requirements attached to those payments. But those aren't laws, per se, they are contractual conditions. You or I could set our own conditions for contracts just as the government can. We could set as a condition to a contractor, that they must hire our son's plumbing company as the plumber, if they are to build our house. Those sorts of things happen fairly regularly. Not the law, a contractual agreement.
Sure, my point is you get responsibilities when you get rights. Do people go to jail for working “under the table” if they pay taxes? No, or I’ve never heard of it. If a guy rents his house to the nice young white family instead of the black college kids, is he going to get sued? I’m going to guess no. How would you know or prove it!? If you are a big company with lots of high paid employees, people are going to be looking for and notice discrimination far more than at a mom and pop shop. I know the consequence to the mom and pop shop are much worse, though. I also realize not all companies are giant multinational corporations. But the corporation, even a small one, is an advantage the government gives you that protects in more than just from lawsuits. My point is that the government can ask of you to do stuff, because you get something for it. Under your construction, you could look at a license, incorporation, etc as a “contract” with the government and thus they can set their own terms…
The Supreme Court just held that a company can discriminate, even against a protected class, in some cases — explicitly in that case was when it violates the providers first amendments rights. Right?
Also, I think you have a distorted view of how often people sue over discrimination, or how often they win. I too have read idiotic cases with ridiculously large settlements. But having experienced discrimination/ harassment and seen it in workplaces, I have never met a person who sued or seen a person punished for it. It’s kinda one of those empty threats like that waiters will be audited by the IRS about their tips.
PS, that everything comes down to money (from your original post) is that “late stage capitalism” progressives complain about… it seems to me though that is more of our monkey nature… take the side of the big guy so he doesn’t hurt you or the guy whose got something you want and is willing to share…
I totally, absolutely 100% disagree. First and foremost, the constitution states that rights are GOD given, not government given. You may or may not believe in God, but that's not the point. The point is that we are all 100% free, and governments can do nothing but restrict those tights. They can't grant them, because rights aren't theirs to grant.
We all get that there are governments, and governments make laws. We probably also agree that laws against murder, rape, theft etc are worthwhile laws. Still, those are restrictions. Now how about who you or I can rent to? How about who you and I can rent FROM? My point all along has been that, if the government, in its good conscience says that a landlord can discriminate on the base of race, then why can tenants? And they can. Never mind "under the table", a tenant can shout from the rooftops that he refuses to rent from blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever. It's not illegal. Well, why not?
You seem to be hung up on corporations, as if being a corporation protects them from discrimination charges or some such. It most certainly does NOT. Would you please just let go of that prejudice?
And, what is "late-stage capitalism"? Clearly, you've taken some sort of course in which they're implanting ideas in you that you decline to question. My rule of thumb is, question EVERYTHING. Yes, question me. Am I faulting you for questioning me? No. Well, while you're at it, question your teachers. If they deflect your challenges, they aren't teachers, they're indoctrinators. There is no late stage capitalism. We aren't at the end of something, about to start something else. That's fantasy. If you want something else, what is it? It takes capitalism to make your computer, your cellphone, your clothes, your home and pretty much everything else you have. Much of that was made in China, a communist country. Do you think that its being communist means there's no capitalism there? Far from it.
Okay, well, this is not a constructive conversation. I’m not sure if you are not a careful reader, if my writing is particularly unclear, or if you just are engaging in some really bad faith.
There is no mention of GOD in the Constitution. “Our creator” is in the Declaration, and since jefferson was deist, that isn’t as specific as you maybe would like it to be. The constitution is also to provide for the common welfare. We can disagree with what that entails, but freedom does practically require an equal footing. Pretty funny to talk about the constitution and rights when in those days only landowning free adult men had them. You think the constitution protected the rights of slaves? Or women? Or the natives? Perhaps they weren’t made by a god in your eyes?
“Late stage capitalism” is a progressive way of saying “ I have no perspective on history” I don’t believe in it, capitalism goes through cycles of over and under regulation. Because we are a democracy (more or less) it has typically reflected issues in the larger economy. You were however describing the situation the most progressive progressives complain about. I was pointing that out by using the quotes. Apparently too subtly.
Corporations are government constructions, paper entities. They aren’t magic. They entitle the company to some rights and protections, but also some responsibilities. Just as being citizens requires something of us. In our country there is a give and take, I don’t always get my way. Neither do you, even if you don’t like it.
I really don't understand your sense of resentment. What did I do?
Little of what you say here contradicts what I said.
You seem quite strong on rights, but very passive concdrning responsibilities. I think that's where we differ.