John Yoo - Do Individual Rights End When They Become Discriminatory? Ch.2 | HISPBC

Free speech and equal protection under the law are core American ideals with legitimate moral foundations. Navigating the fine line between these first principles, as explored through the US Supreme Court case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, proves difficult. Despite the court’s ruling, definitional tensions around public accommodation and free-speech exemptions are likely to continue.

[@thanksfernuthin]

An individual right cannot be discriminatory. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional as it violates free association. A natural or god given right requires nothing from any other individual. As soon as a "right" demands the use of force to compel another individual, it's not a right. I agree whole heartedly with Milton Friedman. The Civil Rights Act should have made it illegal for the government to discriminate in any way and stopped there. Human beings must be allowed to discriminate as they see fit for good or ill.

[@pdgarciac]

an individual has absolute rights to discriminate who he talks to, who he listens to, who hires him and to who he sells his products and services to (freedom to choose and responsible for the consequences). By selling his product to client A, he is discriminating (not selling his product/that same product to other people) (so he discriminates by the amount of product that he can manufacture or sell). An individual also discriminates by the price that potential consumers are willing to pay (he will not sell to those that are trying to get his products free, or at a loss, or at a discount). An individual also discriminates his products and services from the people that can't purchase his product (because of allergies, physical, emotional or preference-based conditions) A customer is allergic to sea-food, then the individual has an "ethical duty" not to sell sea-food to a client who could endanger his life by eating his products. An individual sells tennis shoes for toddlers (anyone that is not a toddler is excluded from being able to purchase those shoes for themselves). An individual just sells regular sized clothing (s-m-l) and not over-sized clothing, they must discriminate on the customers that physically do not fit into their apparel. Let's say its about language/religion/political views: An individual speaks only English, and must explain what his product does, to foreigners (this English only limitation) discriminates on customers who speak other languages. An individual sells only old testament Bibles, so he discriminates on customers who's religious beliefs are based upon later "bibles published" or other religions that use other books or traditions to practice their faith. An individual sells "make America great caps and t-shirts", people that do not support or believe in that political movement are discriminated from purchasing those products (because it opposes their political views). Equal opportunity under the law is directed to public officials and elected officials and public institutions or entities that receive public funds. While private individuals do not have to cater to everyone (most of the time it is impossible). Just because there is a State or Federal law, that requires it, it does not mean that, that particular law, or statute is not contradictory to the Constitution. Public and elected officials are limiting citizens rights every day. This is why the Supreme Court is so important. Checks and balances and the separation of powers, is so that no one in government holds absolute power over an individual (or group of individuals). Where the Republic fails, is when those people that have the responsibility to control the other branches of government collude with each other and corrupt themselves.

[@Notwoke7]

Yes, all of them and any company should be able to serve who they want to serve. They put their hard-earned money and hours of Labor to build their vision. Also, it creates competition. Not every company will be the same those who don't approve of the company's policy can use a similar company. Your vision can make your company succeed or fail. It's a learning experience, as well!

[@dnifty1]

Somehow these people forget that prior to 1964 that discrimination was legal in this country as an expression of the "individual rights" of the settlers and colonists and not some theoretical concept. And what brought that discrimination to an end was the actual sacrifice of many of those who suffered under discrimination to end it. I find it amazing how folks sit up here and pretend that these "rights" they claim America represents always existed when they didn't.

[@BGTuyau]

This is an important, intellectually challenging discussion -but how did this particular video end up in my feed?

[@nathanatkins15t]

It seems to me the problem is with the word “wedding” If I provide a service for “weddings” and someone wants me to do a service for their ceremony and (even if they call it a wedding) it doesn’t fit my definition of wedding then I would reserve a right to refuse.

[@snowwhite9790]

I think that it comes down to the product and services that are provided. If it provides public utilities such as airline, providers cannot claim it as expression. If it is a generic product and service such as a cake or a meal, that cannot be considered as free expression. On the other hand, if the product and services are to be customized to individual expressions such as wedding cake and websites, then you cannot force other individuals to agree with you and perform the work, because here individual expressions are clearly involved.

[@charliegordon-qh2ll]

It is content dependent.

[@woodchuck003]

It sounds like one of the students was getting at this but with the mentioned bakery case the Supreme Court had last session it is important to note that the bakery did not ban the gay couple from purchasing a cake that was already baked. There are also questions if the couple suing was doing so in good faith as they went to multiple bakeries and notably never went to a Muslum-owned bakery. Another missed point in terms of the website is has more of a right to refuse service since it is not a business that operates in a physical location, accessible by the public, utilizing infrastructure funded by the public. Finding another website designer is literally a hyperlink away. This is non-legal but I am at a loss for why people want services and products to be rendered by individuals who don't like them? If you are convinced the baker doesn't;t like you should you also be considered if there are any contaminates in the cake? If the web designer hates you why are you not concerned they may do something malicious with you financial information?

[@kevinjenner9502]

Mr CIA Torture Program.

[@christophersimmering1318]

Does John Yoo believe in individual rights?

[@tahulanyon3995]

Programing is a language, you cannot be forced to use language in a certain way

[@johnnotrealname8168]

First and only 41 minutes late, no. If individual rights are somehow discriminatory then it should not. If you mean violent then of course it does end. If you mean providing a service then I think it is a right but Thankfully our society has been sufficiently turned off to such nonsense. One should investigate why though.

[@donnagjoka2587]

No so vulgaris.. Q.. doing business have to basic on both side flexible rules... But ! Not use which others pay for interested economic in damages of your consideration.. culture and morality... We can not accept all in ? Just for a benefit? Then ? Is one Christian or buddies or Muslim will make business? Which they do .. by respect each other options.. one homosexual can make business with everyone else out of bothers value.. don't come in my office for example with rose dress 😂 sorry.. the same for others religion.. believe Lady and gentlemen Arab dress .? I don't know what they exact are ? We wanted civil cod dress in business . To be fair . Can you imagination business with Arab dress and christian Cross Blue white collar? So... Not from one extrim to other this I mean .. thx . I like your excellent speak

[@tomschneider7555]

These are supposed to be the brilliant Harvard students? Good Grief. I was expecting nuanced and well thought out arguments instead I got mindless teenagers reading from their laptop computers