- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 104,163
- Reaction score
- 26,186
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I asked what I typed.Are you asking specifically why we should have civil rights laws in the workplace, or are you asking more generally why we should have any labor regulations whatsoever?
So violating the first amendment is about compensating for something that people died a long time ago did to people that also died a long time ago?To answer the first part of that: Because the United States had an ugly history, within living memory of some people, of economically and systematically disadvantaging some groups based on their race or perceived race. And civil rights laws are a relatively non-intrusive way to prevent that from happening going forward.
So I would have to run for Congress for the First amendment to not be violated?Because most people consider it a lot more intrusive for the government to demand that Chad and Tyrone each get equal time to plow you, than for the government to demand that you don't write workplace job advertisements saying "Irish need not apply." If you disagree, you are welcome to run for Congress or President on a platform of "You must have sex with all races an equal amount of time," and make your case to the voters for that law.
Does that also apply to gender?Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.
That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.
Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.
These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.
If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.
Only with respect to dating if you refuse to hire men as waiters for your Hooters franchise that's problem why is that?The same is true about sex. If you refuse to date a man, it's simply misandry.
Guess what we're already there. I think that's the point he's makingDoes that also apply to gender?
This "anti-discrimination" stuff can quickly get out of hand.
You do not have a First Amendment right to not hire black people because of their race.I asked what I typed.
So violating the first amendment is about compensating for something that people died a long time ago did to people that also died a long time ago?
So it's ancestral vengeance?
You might want to rethink your response
So I would have to run for Congress for the First amendment to not be violated?
Oh, I don't think we are there yet.Guess what we're already there. I think that's the point he's making
You do have the right to association.You do not have a First Amendment right to not hire black people because of their race.
That's fine, go associate with whoever you want. If someone wants to join a whites-only group like the Ku Klux Klan, there's no law against that. But if you're starting a burger joint and you declare that you'll only hire white people and only sell burgers to white people, well, that's illegal discrimination under civil rights law. Because the transactional nature of these relationships inherently makes them more susceptible to government regulation.You do have the right to association.
Oh, I don't think we are there yet.
I didn't say there were lawsIf someone I'm not interested in makes a move on me and I reject them, I don't think any court will find me in violation of any laws.
Unless you're association is a business then no first amendment for you.That's fine, go associate with whoever you want.
Yeah that's the issue I'm pointing at. The law is arbitrary. And you can't give a reason. I'm asking for a reason.If someone wants to join a whites-only group like the Ku Klux Klan, there's no law against that. But if you're starting a burger joint and you declare that you'll only hire white people and only sell burgers to white people, well, that's illegal discrimination under civil rights law.
Why? Why should they be. If I'm selling my car privately that's a transactional relationship and if I decide nobody that's blond can buy it why shouldn't that be regulated?Because the transactional nature of these relationships inherently makes them more susceptible to government regulation.
The OP mentioned anti-discrimination laws. That's what I was referring to.
If you are a straight man and don't want to date a guy who identifies as a woman you are transphobic.
I didn't say there were laws
Yes it is. And I am mystified as to why you think this is an "issue." My response is yes, the law is arbitrary. So what?Yeah that's the issue I'm pointing at. The law is arbitrary.
I gave you a reason. Because America has a history, within living memory, of systematically economically disadvantaging some groups based on their race or perceived race. And that's bad. And civil rights laws help make sure that this bad outcome doesn't happen again.And you can't give a reason. I'm asking for a reason.
It should, to the extent that "blond" is a stand-in for some racial attribute.Why? Why should they be. If I'm selling my car privately that's a transactional relationship and if I decide nobody that's blond can buy it why shouldn't that be regulated?
Oh that wasn't clear.The OP mentioned anti-discrimination laws. That's what I was referring to.
Because the transactional nature of these relationships inherently makes them more susceptible to government regulation.
Then it makes no sense and why are you defending itYes it is.
So it's pointless? Why are you arguing for it thanAnd I am mystified as to why you think this is an "issue." My response is yes, the law is arbitrary. So what?
So it's not arbitrary.I gave you a reason.
So when you said it was arbitrary you were not sure what that meant?Because America has a history, within living memory, of systematically economically disadvantaging some groups based on their race or perceived race. And that's bad. And civil rights laws help make sure that this bad outcome doesn't happen again.
But it's my car. And black people, Asian people, south American people can be blondIt should, to the extent that "blond" is a stand-in for some racial attribute.
If it's my car I can sell it to anyone I want.If you meant "blond" in the sense of "idiosyncratic non-racial requirement" like wearing a blue shirt,
Again proving it isn't arbitrary it's about vengeance.it doesn't need to be regulated because America doesn't have a history of discriminating against people in blue shirts.
This is all information to suggest it isn't arbitrary.Even if you, personally, have a history of discriminating against people in blue shirts, it isn't a widespread enough problem to warrant regulations preventing it.
ThisThis is an entirely false equivalent. Period. Full stop.
What?Sorry, but if you think romantic relationships aren't transactional, then you've never been in one.
You can’t borrow affection thoughAll relationships are transactional. Some just use affection instead of cash.
Race is but equivalent to race?This
Then it makes no sense and why are you defending it
So it's pointless? Why are you arguing for it than
You are the one who keeps equating "arbitrary" to "pointless". Not me. Most, if not all, laws are arbitrary.Yes? So are speed limits, ages of consent, and tax laws. "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "unimportant."
Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.
I have no idea why you are obsessed with the law being "arbitrary." As though everyone who supports civil rights laws is going to change their mind if only you can show them that the law could have been some other way.Again proving it isn't arbitrary it's about vengeance.
This is all information to suggest it isn't arbitrary.
So why do you admit it's arbitrary and then your two paragraphs explaining how it isn't?
That's fine, go associate with whoever you want.
Sorry, but if you think romantic relationships aren't transactional, then you've never been in one.
Jesus. Why is every libertarian's villain origin story some high school crush who wouldn't go to prom with them.All relationships are transactional. Some just use affection instead of cash.
I support workplace civil rights laws.Do you believe in freedom of association as a principle, or are you willing to sacrifice it in the name of equity?
Once again, more complete disrespect for the fact that today people have that CHOICE.All relationships are transactional. Some just use affection instead of cash.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?