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

[aociswundumho]

No, it is not "the whims of politicians". It's actually a restriction on political whims.

I was referring to the idea of a "compelling interest" by the idiot government.

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

Wow, sounds impressive, until we remember that the supremes applied strict scrutiny in Korematsu.

Strict scrutiny sounds impressive until you realize it’s just the filthy state saying: "we violated your rights, but we really thought hard about it first."

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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

So, if I'm a bank or a hospital or a grocer, and I refuse to 'associate' with you (ie sell my goods and services to you) you are just fine with that. When your kid dies from a treatable condition, just dandy with you. When you and your family are homeless because no one will rent to you, that's what makes America great.

Your entire premise boils down to this: The powerful should always be allowed to exert their power on the weak.

Law of the ****ing jungle. You have no use for civilization.

 

[aociswundumho]

So, if I'm a bank or a hospital or a grocer, and I refuse to 'associate' with you (ie sell my goods and services to you) you are just fine with that.

What's the alternative - forced association? Compelling someone to do business against their will isn’t just immoral, it guts the entire concept of voluntary exchange and contract law.

 

[Randomutation]

I was referring to the idea of a "compelling interest" by the idiot government.

No. You called it "whims of politicians".
A "whim" is not at all the same as a "compelling interest".

Wow, sounds impressive, until we remember that the supremes applied strict scrutiny in Korematsu.

Yeah, the Korematsu decision was wrong. It has been overturned, and the victims were granted reparations. But you cannot invalidate the principal of strict scrutiny on the basis of one bad decision.

Strict scrutiny sounds impressive until you realize it’s just the filthy state saying: "we violated your rights, but we really thought hard about it first."

Wrong. That's a strawman. The strict scrutiny standard does not require the government to show that it "thought hard about it first". It requires the government to PROVE that the law is necessary for some compelling reason, and that the law is the least restrictive way of achieving that.

 

[CLAX1911]

It seems like the antidiscrimination laws created mostly in the 60s were constraints on the government. The government was enforcing segregation. And the desegregation movement was focused on the government.

The government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people based on race or sex. I don't know how that translates to we need to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private business owners.

 

[aociswundumho]

No. You called it "whims of politicians".
A "whim" is not at all the same as a "compelling interest".

What's the difference?

Yeah, the Korematsu decision was wrong. It has been overturned,

Yep, and it only took 74 years. Ain't democracy grand?

and the victims were granted reparations. But you cannot invalidate the principal of strict scrutiny on the basis of one bad decision.

Ok, here's another terrible decision that used your shit principle:

Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wrong. That's a strawman. The strict scrutiny standard does not require the government to show that it "thought hard about it first". It requires the government to PROVE that the law is necessary for some compelling reason, and that the law is the least restrictive way of achieving that.

The problem is the "compelling reason" is bullshit to begin with, as that case above clearly demonstrates.

 

[Gatsby]

What's the alternative - forced association?

Yes. You can call it that if you like. So what?

Compelling someone to do business against their will isn’t just immoral,

Believe it or not, the majority of voters do not derive their moral code from Atlas Shrugged, so you need to bring something more to the table than "I think it's immoral."

it guts the entire concept of voluntary exchange and contract law.

You're saying the state, which you expect to enforce those contracts, doesn't get to have any say on what elements are enforceable and under what circumstances? Why?

 

[Randomutation]

What's the difference?

“Whim means a passing fancy or an impulse.”
Whim Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

"A compelling state interest is an important government reason that justifies limiting individual rights for the greater good of society."

compelling state interest - Meaning in law and legal documents, Examples and FAQs | LegalBrief AI

A compelling state interest is an important government reason that justifies limiting individual rights for the greater good of society.

www.legalbriefai.com

For a "whim" to qualify as a "compelling interest" it must satisfy all three of the following criteria:
1. There would have to be "an important government reason" for it, AND
2. that reason would need to be something "for the greater good of society", AND
3. that "greater good" must be so important that it "justifies limiting individual rights"

Few if any "whims" are going to satisfy even one of those criteria, much less all three of them.
So, your equating "whim" and "compelling interest" was wrong.

Yep, and it only took 74 years. Ain't democracy grand?

I’d attribute most slowness in our government to the fact that we’re not a pure democracy but more like a democratic republic, with checks and balances and with protections for those who aren’t in the majority. In fact, the “whims” that you incorrectly tried to substitute into my argument can indeed be very quickly implemented in a pure democracy as long as they are popular whims. Personally, I prefer constitutional protections to pure democratic rule even if it means things might move a little slower.

Ok, here's another terrible decision that used your shit principle:

Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, another old decision that has now effectively been overturned by more recent decisions.
But erroneous application of a principle does not invalidate the principle any more than erroneous application of mathematics invalidates mathematics.

The problem is the "compelling reason" is bullshit to begin with, as that case above clearly demonstrates.

No, those were cases in which strict scrutiny was incorrectly applied and/or where important contrary evidence was withheld from the judges by the government (as apparently occurred in the Korematsu case)
Incorrect application of a principle does not invalidate the principle.

​

 

[aociswundumho]

"A compelling state interest is an important government reason that justifies limiting individual rights for the greater good of society."

f that shit. I'm not a collectivist like you are.

But erroneous application of a principle does not invalidate the principle any more than erroneous application of mathematics invalidates mathematics.

That’s like saying “communism is great in theory” while stepping over the bodies.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yes. You can call it that if you like. So what?

Really? You don’t see any issue with the filthy state forcing people into associations they didn’t choose? Was it fine when the state forced black kids into black-only schools under Jim Crow? That was forced association too, and just as immoral. Your view treats people like pieces on a chessboard, to be shuffled around by whatever politician happens to be in charge, whether it’s Trump, Biden, or Stalin.

Believe it or not, the majority of voters do not derive their moral code from Atlas Shrugged, so you need to bring something more to the table than "I think it's immoral."

If the people wanted it, then you wouldn't need laws mandating it.

You're saying the state, which you expect to enforce those contracts, doesn't get to have any say on what elements are enforceable and under what circumstances? Why?

The state can enforce contracts without dictating their terms. Saying the state can enforce contracts only if it also gets to micromanage who can make them, with whom, and under what ideological conditions is like saying a referee can’t call a fair game unless he also picks the players and sets the scoreboard.

The whole point of contract law is to uphold voluntary agreements. If the idiot state gets to decide what you’re allowed to agree to and what you're not - especially based on political or moral fads - then it’s not voluntary anymore. I realize the word voluntary to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire.

 

[Randomutation]

f that shit. I'm not a collectivist like you are.

Ok, I'll confess my ignorance. I did have to look up the term “collectivist” to know what you were calling me.

Collectivist: “related to or practising collectivism (= a theory or political system based on the principle that all industries and services should be owned by or for all the people in that country):”
COLLECTIVIST | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

And no, you are wrong, I do not advocate that “all industries and services should be owned by or for all the people in that country”.
And strict scrutiny does not entail collectivism either.
Looks like you’re simply employing an ad hominem attack against me as an attempt to deflect from your failed attempt at equivocation (trying to substitute the term “whims of politicians” in place of the term “compelling interest”)

But erroneous application of a principle does not invalidate the principle any more than erroneous application of mathematics invalidates mathematics.

That’s like saying “communism is great in theory” while stepping over the bodies.

That’s a false equivalence. A valid analogy to my statement would be the statement that the legal principle of self-defense is not invalidated just because it can sometimes be misused to get away with murder.

 

[Gatsby]

Really? You don’t see any issue with the filthy state forcing people into associations they didn’t choose?

Nope.

Was it fine when the state forced black kids into black-only schools under Jim Crow?

Nope.

That was forced association too, and just as immoral.

Segregation was immoral, civil rights laws are fine.

Your view treats people like pieces on a chessboard, to be shuffled around by whatever politician happens to be in charge, whether it’s Trump, Biden, or Stalin.

Civil rights laws are just like the Gulag Archipelago. If you say so.

If the people wanted it, then you wouldn't need laws mandating it.

The government that enacted those laws was elected by the people.

The state can enforce contracts without dictating their terms. Saying the state can enforce contracts only if it also gets to micromanage who can make them, with whom, and under what ideological conditions is like saying a referee can’t call a fair game unless he also picks the players and sets the scoreboard.

You know what, I'm OK with the entity that hires the referees having some say in the rules of the game. If this analogy was supposed to point out the absurdity of the position, it failed, because that's totally fine.

The whole point of contract law is to uphold voluntary agreements. If the idiot state gets to decide what you’re allowed to agree to and what you're not - especially based on political or moral fads - then it’s not voluntary anymore. I realize the word voluntary to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire.

Then why do you want the state's help enforcing your contracts? Do it yourself.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

I find this entire OP a bit sus given the author's stated views and posting history.
It smells a bit fishy to be honest.