Words!

... they can each exercise the same freedoms. That is equality. That we inherently as human beings have a right to equal enjoyment, that no single human is less than another even if their means or abilities are, but so long as a human chooses to live in society that they must respect that what opportunity is given to another, should be given to all who posses the fundamental ability.

Enforcing equality of opportunity restricts freedom. It's not complicated.

Like most utterly wrong claims, it's quite uncomplicated. I get it: you're really hooked on your beloved privileges, and others gaining equality feels like a loss to you, but that's just your personal problem and not some cosmic irregularity that needs to be prevented by some GotG.

Upvote for halfdeadhammerhead. That’s not always the truth, it more often than not it is. But the fact that “enforcing oppprtunity of equality restricts freedom” is dubious at best and just fits hammerheads point. In absolutes- it restricts a single persons freedom. But it also ensures a multitude of people’s freedom of enjoyment. 1 man owns a dinner. He doesn’t want to hire “those people... because!” You take his freedom to be a bigot, one man, and now every one of “those people” in the world have the freedom to try and work there. But it’s not so simple or a numbers game. Why is murder wrong? Why can’t you just kill someone for whatever reason you feel like? Don’t say “that’s different!” Think about WHY you can’t do it even if you want to, even if it’s your business or whatever. In society you give up freedoms by default in exchange for being able to live with others. You can’t kill someone in cold blood for being a “bad person” or any other reason. You need a VALID reason to do so

"In society you give up freedoms by default in exchange for being able to live with others."
Yes, laws restrict freedoms. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.
And I'm not even categorically against restricting freedom of association to curb employment disparity based on bias, but the difference between not hiring someone and not murdering someone is you don't have a right to work in someone's business, that's a really shitty comparison.

You have really shitty reading comprehension. I specifically said that it is not a comparison of the two acts, but the core of why the act is wrong. The same principle applies to stealing a million dollars as stealing a penny. The same reasoning at the core of not being able to drive drunk is the same reasoning at the core of of why you can’t open a home surgery center. The acts and magnitudes seem unrelated but the core principals behind them are the same. In this case- why is killing wrong? Because you take the freedom of another person, you deny them the basic right to exist and make choices, you remove their potential from the world. When you deny a person equal opportunity you have done the same thing but to a lesser degree. You have removed their ability to make choices in the world, taken away their potential. You have harmed them and you have harmed society, and just the same as killing there are times where society justifies a need to remove those freedoms and potentials...

... and the rest of the time, without those justifications of necessity, it is an act that causes great harm out of malice and is not allowed. As for your sarcastic mention of “the code” it is obviously not a huge secret- but in reference to the original quote you would think it is. That simple truism means that the original quote is either unaware of that simple fact- in which case I would say it loses credibility, or is aware and thus is the flowery equivalent of saying that water is wet- pointless. In which case it also has no bearing on anything being discussed as it is exactly that- pointless. Duh. If you live in society you aren’t “truly free,” if you don’t live in society you don’t have to care about equality, and if you do live in society you’ve already agreed to give up certain freedoms to do so, and as such there’s no argument there. “If we are all free, we could steal, if we can’t all steal, none are free.” Wow. Look. I’m profound.

Somewhat ironic to call me out on “cracking the code” when the whole point- the whole original quote that led to this- is literally doing exactly that. That was my point. It’s not a code, it’s garbage. Like calling water wet and then saying that supports any argument other than water is wet.

Are you purposely making this difficult by making 3-post comments? Let's see what I can do.
You were clearly comparing the two things, what else do you call it?
I disagree on your statement that denying someone equal opportunity removes their freedom because your freedoms never extend beyond anyone else's freedom, like freedom of association. It also doesn't harm them because they don't lose anything that they had a right to in the first place. It's also not necessarily out of malice. You making a lot of assumptions.
The quote in the first comment is factual, and I don't think it an equivalent to "water is wet" because it's likely that many people don't realize it.
The quote in your second-to-last comment would likely sound profound to most people.
Lastly, why are you suggesting that water being wet can't possibly aid someone in an argument? Just because a fact is obvious doesn't mean it useless.

I’m comparing the root of two things. An aspect. If we are talking about paint colors, and I ask if you like the red on the fire truck or the red on a Birds feather to paint a shed- would you get confused because Robbins and fire trucks and buildings are not exactly the same? But to the point- You don’t think that you have denied them freedom? So if someone says you can’t live in an area because of your race, you and everyone of your race hasn’t been denied anything? If that area is near the school or the airport or some other critical place- the fact that to work or use those facilities you now have to drive further, spend more on gas or transit, the fact that you can’t go to that school because you don’t live in the district- not because you can’t afford a home there, but because you are denied to, nothing is taken from you? If your race can’t be employed as engineers or doctors, of the only job a person of your race can get is a janitor- nothing is taken from you or your children?

As for water and wetness- it wasn’t literal- but in the sense that arguing water being wet doesn’t prove that steel supports are a better choice than reinforced concrete. If we are arguing about a trade deficit and I say: “well, water is wet so obviously a 3% tax is favorable” that’s nonesense no? So I mean more that one can’t directly use a factual statement, especially a self evident one, as a totem to point at and say that since one element of your statement is true- that your overall argument is true.

You don't have a right to live in a particular neighborhood and you don't have a right to live near schools/airports/whatever, so as long as you don't already live there and have it taken from you, you haven't had anything taken from you. This applies if the private owners of the homes in the neighborhood won't sell to you. it's different if you're talking about government policy. If you pay taxes the government should treat you the same as anyone else who pays taxes.
I think I understand you "water is wet" thing now, but what argument do you think I (or maybe the original commenter) am using "Enforcing equality of opportunity restricts freedom" as a totem for?

What gives a person the right to live somewhere? The government or body which holds sovereignty grants eights to live in its territories. Speaking of the USA: The government then gives a person constitutionally protected rights of private ownership, save exceptions where the government is allowed to retake ownership rights as it always holds true deed to all land in its territories. So... how did that property owner get that land? They were allowed the opportunity to get it. They only own that land by the rights afforded the original purchaser of the land. A key concept here- that the right to the land is held through a government, without which your claim to that land would only extend so far as your independent ability to defend it from those who would claim it. The very mechanism upon which the purchaser bought that land stems from the concept that it is a right to own property, and that land rights are rights granted by the government at its discretion. That same government holds..

That all rights it offers are to be offered equally to all citizens. The opportunity to purchase that land is itself guaranteed by said governments administration and care of its territories. On the basic most levels of the fundamental principal of a fair and democratic nation, allcitezens are equal in rights and status unless special and appropriate conditions exist to the contrary. It is the determination of that government and its people, that race, sex, religion, etc. Re not appropriate grounds to curtail a persons basic rights to the foundations upon which life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness are built. Quite literally- in the line, the PURSUIT of happiness is guaranteed constitutionally to every United States citizen. Any action which does not have a specific legal permission and would hinder the PURSUIT of happiness is by nature unconstitutional. Any attempt to even deny the opportunity to try to own the land would be against the very fundamentals of our nation.

The exclusion of any person from an activity or opportunity based on constitutionally protected status, by extension, is flatly a violation of the principals of mass freedom set forth in the very document that defines what freedom in the United States is. Regardless of leagaleese I hope we can agree that it’s a shitty thing at least. However if a person meets all other criteria that would allow any other person to complete a contract, and you deny them the right to execute that contract based on any constitutionally or legally protected status, you have violated the right to freedom. So yes, they do have a right to live there. As much a right as any other person who otherwise meets the same criteria as they do other than protected status. If you do not offer these rights equally, they are not rights but privelages, and you can have “true” freedom and provelage together, but you cannot ENSURE freedom to ALL citizens, which is a major points of a democratic organized government.

I literally said "it's different if you're talking about government policy. If you pay taxes the government should treat you the same as anyone else who pays taxes."
If I assume you knew that I said that and assume that you're talking about the actions of individuals I think I'd have to assume you think that anyone who refuses to voluntarily give they're property to someone else who wants it will be in violation of the constitution based on you saying "Any action which does not have a specific legal permission and would hinder the PURSUIT of happiness is by nature unconstitutional."

You aren’t considering the whole conversation and are picking bits out of context. I never said you had to give anyone anything. One of the early things we established is that “freedom” in society is not absolute freedom. If you had to give away anything you earned for free to anyone who wanted it, that would seriously undermine a stable functioning society, and as I said in the last reply- personal property is a right, so I don’t know where you get your assumptions from. The PURSUIT of happiness also does not mean you have a guarantee of hapiness. You do not have a right to posses anything, you have a right equal to anyone else who meets the same criteria to potentially posses it. Next- let’s address this “government policy” part. The point was where does your freedom extend from? Government policy is literally what determines your personal freedom. Unless we exist in anarchy, every human is society is the ward of a larger power.

Use your imagination. Imagine a world with no government where you live. People do whatever they want. “True” individual freedom. Whoever is most able simply takes what they want. As human history shows, it doesn’t take long for that to mean murder, theft, slavery and subjugation. Inevitably humans realize strength in numbers and form alliances. These groups take from individuals and groups who lack the power to oppose them. They establish territories, settlements. If you read a history book it is all there as humans go through various stages of feudalism, serfdom, etc. the existence of government centralized power (which requires a measure of control) and then depending upon the system of government extends some of that power to individuals. Power to protect, to do commerce, to own land.

The system of land ownership exists because of a “body of power.” Otherwise you would have an equality where we didn’t need to worry about money. Don’t have $1miol for a house, but are a good shot? Shoot the guy from down the block and it’s yours until someone else takes it. That’s not very stable. So your right to own that property is protected. The body of power prevents people from just taking your shoes or your house as much as they have the power to compel. A critical part of that system in a democracy is that those rights are protected equally- by the government, because it is through them and their law that you have that ability. Without someone to enforce your rights, or in a system where you are given no rights by the body of power- there is no one to ensure that you are given anything. You are only able to get and keep what you as an individual can take and hold.

Once society enters the mix, we have now said that in the interest of stability, you can’t do that. You ant do whatever you want because you want to. It doesn’t matter if there is an organized government or just a social community, a militia or a despot. There is a body of power which sets the acceptable rules and has power to compel others to follow them to one degree or another. If you have one rule for all people, then by those rules all people are equal in the rules. That’s all there is to it. If the rules say “no running” and one person says it is ok for this guy to run and not that guy, because they don’t like one guy- you don’t have one rule for all people. If you let one guy run because he is an emergency responder on his way to a critical emergency- you’ve given valid justification, exception to the rule as prudent to society so that there is still one rule for all, with justifiable flexibility as needed.

Your assertion that you would require things be given away free is agiant the entire point of the discussion thus far. It shows a disconnect with reality. If you don’t let anperson be an airline pilot because they never learned to fly a plane, or you don’t allow them to sleep with your spouse or take your kidney while you’re sleeping, you aren’t committing wrongful discrimination. You have very good reason for all those things. If you don’t let someone become an airline pilot because they are Latino- that’s wrongful discrimination. If you put up signs at your flight school saying “no <race> allowed...” that’s wrongful discrimination. If you sell a home but don’t sell it to so and so because of protected class- that’s discrimination. See- you are engaging in commerce. Commerce protected by your government. That’s why you pay taxes on things. You owe the government for letting you, for protecting your ability to- engage in commerce. I’m s market stability that exists because of them.

It’s by their rules. And their rules are clear. You can’t do that. It undermines the very stability and equality of right to commerce that you are enjoying by participating in commerce. Any act performed in public or which effects the public is no longer strictly a “private” act. Your actions as a member of society effect others, and as a society we balance personal freedom of one against that of all others. A system designed to allow EVERYONE, not just you, or these people, or those people. When you put something for sale to the general public, you are participating in the commerce market that is a central part to our society and an extension of the government that services that society. That is why I mention government. Unless you are strong enough to declare sovereignty or dominion over yourself and your land from the government- you must play by their rules. Their rule is- no wrongful discrimination.

So you're argument is suddenly statist?
I don't think anti-discrimination laws are necessary for functional commerce, you'll have to explain that.
Also just to make sure we're on the same page, what is the point of the discussion so far?

The discussion began when I essentially called the quote in the first comment as well as the sentiment drivel. I also made the observation that theor calling the original post self flagellation was hypocritical given their quote was more of the same. You took umbrage to that and the example I used, I elaborated on my original disclaimer that it wasn’t the exact actions but the core reasons they are considered wrong which was the point of the comparison... the rest is all there in text. I posted, you replied, I replied, so far that’s pretty much where we are. The point for me so far has been that either through a failure in my ability to explain, or some other short coming, your replies haven’t implied disagreement to me but a lack of understanding or assimilation of my replies. So pretty much I just reply to your comments that say you don’t get the point with different ways to try and explain the point in a way that is understood so that there can be a discussion of the ideas.

Alright, that does add some clarity.
Going back if you want to, I'm interested in the phrase "right to equal enjoyment". I've never seen that used before.

Right to equal enjoyment is a legal and philosophical concept that basically says: If you make goods or services available to the public, or in a public manner- a hotel, eatery, shop, website, etc. that you’ve decided to be a public business and you can’t offer your services to this guy and not that guy, and that each guest is entitled to the same treatment. There’s asterisks of course. A guest who can’t pay doesn’t get the same as one who can, a guest who pays for extra services gets them, a guest who is disruptive or etc. can be refused service and so on. You can have a dress code, you can have a private club or membership requirements, so long as none of it excludes people on the basis of fundamental self (ie: protected status.)

In your home and in your life you can allow who you want in your home for whatever reason, you can sell your bike to whoever you want for whatever reason provided it’s a private sale (someone walks up and asks to buy your bike for example.) But when you enter the public domain you’ve entered a space where for the best interests of all people, the rules of equal enjoyment apply. The principal is seen in other laws like noise ordinances and park rules and even public decency laws. The idea is that where the public is involved you can do as you like and have a good time until your fun starts preventing others from enjoying life too. It all stems from those basic constitutional rights to pursuit of happiness and life. If what the individual wants stood others from living their life, with no purpose or justification, it is against those principals. If you have to take away someone’s choice, you generally take the choice from the one who seeks to do that to others and not the one minding...

... their own business. Similar to how if you only have a split second to choose and have a gun, you’re more likely to shoot the person with the gun pointed at someone else than the person with no gun at all. A right to equal enjoyment is necessary because for society to fiction we need a degree of consistency. People need to know that if they have money, it has value. Money you can’t spend has no value. If you have billions in USD but are somewhere that won’t take your money- it’s worthless. Earning it is worthless because you can’t spend it. You just have paper. So you need to know that you can go to a store or buy a house and your money or your credit is as good as anyone else who has the same as you, otherwise the whole system is arbitrary. So equality goes beyond morality. It’s a practical concern as well as a philosophical one. If $1 isn’t always $1 and $1 doesn’t buy $1 worth of goods, you can’t have a stable economy, commerce, growth. If you don’t have those,

It makes it hard or impossible for almost everyone to enjoy their lives. We all lose. Economically by excluding viable consumers you cripple yourself further still. At the end of the day these laws support both morality and the concept of wealth and stability, but are required because of you don’t have such laws there is no way to enforce equality. With laws it isn’t perfect- but if you allow people to discriminate in selling to one group or another, you create a loop hole which can allow a group of people to be shut off from society. They can’t buy a home somewhere because no one will sell to “their kind.” They can’t shop where they live or catch a lyft. You push people out, citizens who you have cut off from bei able to benefit from the perks of theor citizenship. You’ve effectively removed their citizenship entirely. So equal enjoyment is meant to prevent that and protect all people.