• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Gatsby said:
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?
Click to expand...
I asked what I typed.
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
So I would have to run for Congress for the First amendment to not be violated?
 
aociswundumho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does that also apply to gender?

This "anti-discrimination" stuff can quickly get out of hand.
 
CLAX1911 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You do not have a First Amendment right to not hire black people because of their race.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Guess what we're already there. I think that's the point he's making
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think we are there yet.

If 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.
 
You know - this is really quite a shameful thread considering that interracial and gay marriages and relationships were flat out illegal within the past decades.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You do have the right to association.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh, I don't think we are there yet.
Click to expand...


If you are a straight man and don't want to date a guy who identifies as a woman you are transphobic.

Mycroft said:
If 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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there were laws
 
Gatsby said:
That's fine, go associate with whoever you want.
Click to expand...
Unless you're association is a business then no first amendment for you.
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Gatsby said:
Because the transactional nature of these relationships inherently makes them more susceptible to government regulation.
Click to expand...
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?
 
CLAX1911 said:


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
Click to expand...

The OP mentioned anti-discrimination laws. That's what I was referring to.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yeah that's the issue I'm pointing at. The law is arbitrary.
Click to expand...
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?
CLAX1911 said:
And you can't give a reason. I'm asking for a reason.
Click to expand...
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.
CLAX1911 said:
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?
Click to expand...
It should, to the extent that "blond" is a stand-in for some racial attribute.

If you meant "blond" in the sense of "idiosyncratic non-racial requirement" like wearing a blue shirt, it doesn't need to be regulated because America doesn't have a history of discriminating against people in blue shirts. 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.
 
Gatsby said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...
Then it makes no sense and why are you defending it
Gatsby said:
And I am mystified as to why you think this is an "issue." My response is yes, the law is arbitrary. So what?
Click to expand...
So it's pointless? Why are you arguing for it than
Gatsby said:
I gave you a reason.
Click to expand...
So it's not arbitrary.
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
So when you said it was arbitrary you were not sure what that meant?
Gatsby said:
It should, to the extent that "blond" is a stand-in for some racial attribute.
Click to expand...
But it's my car. And black people, Asian people, south American people can be blond
Gatsby said:
If you meant "blond" in the sense of "idiosyncratic non-racial requirement" like wearing a blue shirt,
Click to expand...
If it's my car I can sell it to anyone I want.
Gatsby said:
it doesn't need to be regulated because America doesn't have a history of discriminating against people in blue shirts.
Click to expand...
Again proving it isn't arbitrary it's about vengeance.
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Then it makes no sense and why are you defending it

So it's pointless? Why are you arguing for it than
Click to expand...
Gatsby said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are the one who keeps equating "arbitrary" to "pointless". Not me. Most, if not all, laws are arbitrary.


CLAX1911 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
aociswundumho said:
Sorry, but if you think romantic relationships aren't transactional, then you've never been in one.
Click to expand...
aociswundumho said:
All relationships are transactional. Some just use affection instead of cash.
Click to expand...
Jesus. Why is every libertarian's villain origin story some high school crush who wouldn't go to prom with them.
 
aociswundumho said:
All relationships are transactional. Some just use affection instead of cash.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom