Racial discrimination is morally wrong in any context - including dating and sex

[CLAX1911]

You are the one who keeps equating "arbitrary" to "pointless". Not me. Most, if not all, laws are arbitrary.

Then why do you go into diatribe explaining how they aren't arbitrary.

I have no idea why you are obsessed with the law being "arbitrary."

I just suggested it was and you agreed and proceeded to explain how it isn't 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.

I don't think anyone that supports it thinks it's arbitrary. I think they believe there is a historical component where people were treated as second class citizens.

Did you such treatments were not actually because everybody was racist and didn't like black people? It's was legally required that businesses segregate. Jim Crow laws were laws. The civil rights movement was about suspending a law.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

My guess: Most women wouldn't want to date at guy who displays a user name calling other women dumhos.

 

[Real blank]

Once again, more complete disrespect for the fact that today people have that CHOICE.

For how many years were women literally traded - transactionally - by their families into marriages for the sake of attaining or maintaining wealth?

They didn’t get a say in that. And quite often there was no affection, no choice.




So what, exactly, is your complaint that in PERSONAL relationships, in 2025…people get the CHOICE as to whom they do/do not engage in romantic relationships with?

I would agree but also add romantic relationships aren’t just purely transactional now.

 

[BirdinHand]

I would agree but also add romantic relationships aren’t just purely transactional now.

I would hope not.

In fact, I’d say it is quite sad if they are.

 

[Gatsby]

Then why do you go into diatribe explaining how they aren't arbitrary.

I just suggested it was and you agreed and proceeded to explain how it isn't arbitrary.

At no point in this entire thread have I ever said that the law is not arbitrary. And in fact, I have stated that most if not all laws, including this one, are arbitrary. So I have no idea why you keep going down this rabbit hole. It's a dead end.

I don't think anyone that supports it thinks it's arbitrary.

Well at least two people in this thread who support civil rights laws have stated flat-out that they are arbitrary, and that we are OK with that.

I think they believe there is a historical component where people were treated as second class citizens.

Correct.

Did you such treatments were not actually because everybody was racist and didn't like black people? It's was legally required that businesses segregate. Jim Crow laws were laws. The civil rights movement was about suspending a law.

I think segregation is bad, but ymmv.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

This has got to be the lamest post you have ever come up with.

What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?

So you got no problem with child porn?

That makes sense, coming from someone who thinks doctors shouldn't have to go to medical school.

Tell you what:
Watch this video and tell me what you think of the white bitch.

 

[CLAX1911]

At no point in this entire thread have I ever said that the law is not arbitrary.

That's why I'm confused. You say it's arbitrary and then explain why it's not. It's a bit self contradictory

And in fact, I have stated that most if not all laws, including this one, are arbitrary.

I don't agree with you. They aren't normally laws go through a long process of ratification to make sure they serve a purpose

So I have no idea why you keep going down this rabbit hole. It's a dead end.

I don't agree with you.

Well at least two people in this thread who support civil rights laws have stated flat-out that they are arbitrary, and that we are OK with that.

Then why would they exist? Why not laws about howling at the moon or shaving your left testicle?

Correct.

I think segregation is bad, but ymmv.

you do understand convicted pedophiles are segregated from jobs involving children. That's bad?

 

[Gatsby]

That's why I'm confused. You say it's arbitrary and then explain why it's not. It's a bit self contradictory

I don't agree with you. They aren't normally laws go through a long process of ratification to make sure they serve a purpose

I don't agree with you.

Then why would they exist? Why not laws about howling at the moon or shaving your left testicle?

You seem to be confused about what "arbitrary" means if you think it means "purposeless."

 

[aociswundumho]

Once again, more complete disrespect for the fact that today people have that CHOICE.

For how many years were women literally traded - transactionally - by their families into marriages for the sake of attaining or maintaining wealth?

They didn’t get a say in that. And quite often there was no affection, no choice.

That obviously isn't what I was talking about.

All I'm saying is reciprocity is a key part of all relationships, including personal, professional, and work relationships.

So what, exactly, is your complaint that in PERSONAL relationships, in 2025…people get the CHOICE as to whom they do/do not engage in romantic relationships with?

I support freedom of association in every context, unlike you.

I also believe racial discrimination is morally wrong in every context, unlike you.

 

[CLAX1911]

You seem to be confused about what "arbitrary" means if you think it means "purposeless."

Yeah it's like I know what the word means

arbitrary
adjective
ar·bi·trary ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē -ˌtre-rē
Synonyms of arbitrary
1
a
: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You can’t borrow affection though

Can't use it as collateral, either.

 

[BirdinHand]

That obviously isn't what I was talking about

No, of course not.

You want to deny the reality of history and all that has been overcome in order for people to have the CHOICE in their personal relationships that they have today.

In fact, in parts of the world - many people STILL do not have that choice.

You ignore that to complain that what? You don’t agree with their choices?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That obviously isn't what I was talking about.

All I'm saying is reciprocity is a key part of all relationships, including personal, professional, and work relationships.



I support freedom of association in every context, unlike you.

I also believe racial discrimination is morally wrong in every context, unlike you.

But you do not believe this thing you believe is morally wrong should be outlawed in any circumstances. SMH.

 

[Randomutation]

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.

The general rule of thumb is that the government can infringe on individual rights only if there is a compelling reason to do so. The government does have a compelling reason to see to it that its citizens have access to necessities such as employment, housing, education, etc. That's what justifies infringing on the rights of an employer, a landlord, or an educator.
Dating based on race may be just as racist as hiring based on race. But there is no compelling reason (that I know of) for the government to involve itself in your dating choices even if they are discriminatory.

 

[Cosmo]

What about when it comes to diagnosing Sickle Cell Disease? Seems some discrimination is more acceptable than others, the same way we still have separate bathrooms for men and women, but not separate bathrooms for whites and blacks.

 

[aociswundumho]

But you do not believe this thing you believe is morally wrong should be outlawed in any circumstances. SMH.

That's correct. You not wanting to associate with me does not violate any of my natural, inherent, inalienable rights.

 

[aociswundumho]

The general rule of thumb is that the government can infringe on individual rights only if there is a compelling reason to do so.

That's too vague to be meaningful. You are referring to the whims of politicians.

The government does have a compelling reason to see to it that its citizens have access to necessities such as employment, housing, education, etc. That's what justifies infringing on the rights of an employer, a landlord, or an educator.
Dating based on race may be just as racist as hiring based on race. But there is no compelling reason (that I know of) for the government to involve itself in your dating choices even if they are discriminatory.

 

[reflechissez]

Perhaps there is more than wun dum ho.

 

[Gatsby]

Yeah it's like I know what the word means

arbitrary
adjective
ar·bi·trary ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē -ˌtre-rē
Synonyms of arbitrary
1
a
: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

Ah, I see your confusion now. You were conflating "seemingly at random" (i.e. the speed limit on this road is 45 when it could have just as easily been 35 or 55) with "purposeless" (i.e. speed limits serve no purpose). No wonder you were so confused. I'm glad the dictionary has helped you.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ah, I see your confusion now. You were conflating "seemingly at random" (i.e. the speed limit on this road is 45 when it could have just as easily been 35 or 55) with "purposeless" (i.e. speed limits serve no purpose). No wonder you were so confused. I'm glad the dictionary has helped you.

It's not seemingly random. You made a lot of posts explaining that

 

[Randomutation]

That's too vague to be meaningful. You are referring to the whims of politicians.

No, it is not "the whims of politicians". It's actually a restriction on political whims.
It's called strict scrutiny. And the burden of proof is on the government.
From Wikipedia:
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That's correct. You not wanting to associate with me does not violate any of my natural, inherent, inalienable rights.

It does if it keeps you from feeding your family or securing legal employment or pursuing life, liberty or happiness.

When no bank will let you open an account or give you a loan because of your race or other unavoidable physical characteristics, you might get the impression that your 'inalienable' rights are being violated.

When your child is sick and no doctor or hospital will treat them because you're the wrong race or a pharmacist won't fill a
prescription, you might have a different perspective on freedom of association.

If you want freedom of association, go join an all-white country club or the KKK. They share your sentiments.

 

[Sweden]

Let me address a common objection:

"But I can’t help who I’m attracted to" - fine, then neither can a landlord or employer. If you don't accept 'personal preference' as a defense for racial discrimination in housing or hiring, then you shouldn't accept it in dating either.

No one has the right to a personal relationship. All are free to choose heir mates, in every sense, using what ever criteria they wish. I think your post is confused and misleading in that it gives a false equivalence to private and public matters.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.

Then would not gender discrimination also count in your argument. So are you arguing that if a homosexual wanted to have sex with a heterosexual then it would be discrimination for the hetero to say no based on their personal sexual inclination.

 

[aociswundumho]

It does if it keeps you from feeding your family or securing legal employment or pursuing life, liberty or happiness.

Wrong. You simply refusing to associate with me does not violate my rights in any way.