From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:25:22 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan24.200107.8864@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>A: I'd like to have sex with you.      A: I'd like to rent your room.
>B: No thanks, you're not what I want.  B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
>A: Oh well, too bad.                   A: Discrimination!!!!
>    
>1. 80% of all "landlords" in California are individuals, not businesses.

But they enter into business contracts when they rent their properties.
They install legal business documents, many landlords are 'businesses'
because they adopt a DBA or if using their own name e.g. Smith & Sons
But all acts within the process of property rental is business. The
idea being that a business is somewhat lacking in a human identity.
We call businesses by their names, whether it is the owner's name
or a DBA.  So all parties then enter into contracts with each other
and since it operates within the larger sphere of the community, it
must make certain concessions, in order to bring about a fairness
of treatment of a large spectrum of individuals.
 

>
>2. What does being a "business" have to do with it? Does a business (a
>   coporation, partnership, or a plain DBA) have any less civil rights
>   that an individual? (Answer, no, of course not).
>

Well that is the question, isn't it?  It is unclear and very undefined
territory.  But to simply counter your no, I would say that this is
not a case of 'individual' civil rights.  Whether one deals with an
individual or a group (corportaion), if you decide to do business then
you enter a contractual agreement.  It is based solely on business.
As a reverse example- most companies and corporations are not democratic
in nature.  What ever boss says, goes.  Many times the employee has
no say.  So when we speak of civil rights for the employer or business,
what happened to the civil rights of the employee?  In other examples
a boss may tell an employee that it is inappropriate for them to 
engage in an activity (we will say it is political) while they are
at work- but, this is a violation of their civil rights.  What is 
really being said is, while I pay you, I own your time, and therefore
I own you and your productivity. So what is to be said for civil
rights when one is at their job?

Your example has a missing component- one is contractual (legally
binding) and the other is not.  To decide to have sex with someone, in
general, is a private and noncontractual arrangement.  To rent a
property from someone is a legal and a contractual arrangement. 

So in the sphere of business, where there is no democracy, but
only legally binding contractual agreements, discrimating based
on color, creed, religion or whatever does not make much sense.

>Remember, if (for example) YOU want to fuck whatever,
>then HE gets to rent to |>whatever.
> 

And again you leave out the point- fuck whatever is not a contractual
agreement, renting is a contractual agreement.

>    >|>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll
>    >rent 'em cheap ...)
>    >
>    >The act of renting them makes you a business. If you were to
>    >rent to some, but not others, based on race, color, creed,
>    >sex, marital status, or sexual orientation, that would be
>    >discrimination.
>
>Why yes, you are correct in one thing -- it WOULD be discrmination. What
>being a business has to do with it is irrelevant.

Well this is the question.  And it is one that cannot be easily solved
or answered. At best, it can only be a process give and take, it can
only be a process of instilling fairness.  We need only look at the
roots or capitialism and even some cases today, to see that business
constantly did (and do) violate individuals civil rights.  Why?
Because the problem lies in the fact that as an individual you are
hired to perform a certain job, which is a certain amount of time,
and that time is bought by the employer, and therefore since you
just happen to come with it, tough luck- Take a look at companies
like WalMart and their child labor usage questions.  We will soon
see those countries where our businesses are going, starting to
install those nasty coercive laws to protect their childern, to
make wages fair, etc.

You are right about one aspect of a business being just its people,
they are greedy and will take as much as they can.