What Would Happen Without Anti-Discrimination Laws?

[skeptic llc]

Without anti-discrimination laws, would the US have more discrimination (no legal penalties, businesses free to hire based on bigotry) or less discrimination (businesses can hire people in protected classes without fearing lawsuits if they have to fire them)? Basically, do these laws do what they are intended to do, or the opposite?

 

[Emily L]

Skeptic, I'm a conservative, but I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the anti-discrimination laws passed in the sixties, seventies, etc., we'd still have legal discrimination all over the place. "Separate but Equal" would be the rule, complete with "whites only" and "coloreds only" restrooms and lunch counters. I've seen too many old news films of that kind of thing, so I say, no thanks.

 

[skeptic llc]

Skeptic, I'm a conservative, but I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the anti-discrimination laws passed in the sixties, seventies, etc., we'd still have legal discrimination all over the place. "Separate but Equal" would be the rule, complete with "whites only" and "coloreds only" restrooms and lunch counters. I've seen too many old news films of that kind of thing, so I say, no thanks.

Thanks for responding!

 

[Emily L]

Thanks for responding!

Thanks--it's a good question. I hope others will join in!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There would still be large swathes of the south where black people couldn't even buy groceries or rent / buy an apartment or house, effectively making it a whites only zone.

The people that whine about anti-discrimination laws remember that it used to be like this and want it to return to being that way. I sincerely doubt anyone's motives when they claim that it wouldn't cause issues. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with pushing a racist agenda.

 

[skeptic llc]

There would still be large swathes of the south where black people couldn't even buy groceries or rent / buy an apartment or house, effectively making it a whites only zone.

The people that whine about anti-discrimination laws remember that it used to be like this and want it to return to being that way. I sincerely doubt anyone's motives when they claim that it wouldn't cause issues. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with pushing a racist agenda.

And thanks to you too for responding! It's a serious question. I live in a relatively non-racist geographic area, where the main effect of these laws may be to scare employers off from hiring employees that will be difficult (costly) to fire if they are not good, but my geographic area is not the norm ... hence the question.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Skeptic, I'm a conservative, but I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the anti-discrimination laws passed in the sixties, seventies, etc., we'd still have legal discrimination all over the place. "Separate but Equal" would be the rule, complete with "whites only" and "coloreds only" restrooms and lunch counters. I've seen too many old news films of that kind of thing, so I say, no thanks.

That’s exactly what black lives matter wants.

 

[ClaraD]

We have discrimination with the laws in place...if they were not in place, it would be a disaster for half of this country.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There would still be large swathes of the south where black people couldn't even buy groceries or rent / buy an apartment or house, effectively making it a whites only zone.

The people that whine about anti-discrimination laws remember that it used to be like this and want it to return to being that way. I sincerely doubt anyone's motives when they claim that it wouldn't cause issues. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with pushing a racist agenda.

There would not be anywhere in the south where blacks couldn’t buy groceries. That is a myth. Segregation only existed because of government mandate.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There would not be anywhere in the south where blacks couldn’t buy groceries. That is a myth. Segregation only existed because of government mandate.

If the owner of the only grocery store in town is a racist and refused to serve black people, it would already be a tremendous burden on them. You're a great example of the type of hateful racist I'm talking about. No doubt you'll tell me they can just find a new town that's more hospitable.

That’s exactly what black lives matter wants.

Actually what they want is to not be shot by cops unjustly. You're a self victimizer that lies about BLM wanting to enslave white people because you're dishonest and have an agenda.

 

[jdog21]

I think there would be more discrimination. Or at least more segregation and tribalism.

 

[roguenuke]

Skeptic, I'm a conservative, but I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the anti-discrimination laws passed in the sixties, seventies, etc., we'd still have legal discrimination all over the place. "Separate but Equal" would be the rule, complete with "whites only" and "coloreds only" restrooms and lunch counters. I've seen too many old news films of that kind of thing, so I say, no thanks.

It wouldn't just be separations based on race either. We would see it for both religion and sex/gender, as well as multiple other classifications that protections exist for.

 

[holbritter]

I can't even imagine how it would look if we didn't have those laws. While some may carry to the extreme of what they were created for, the intent of those laws will always be needed.

 

[dex4974]

Skeptic, I'm a conservative, but I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the anti-discrimination laws passed in the sixties, seventies, etc., we'd still have legal discrimination all over the place. "Separate but Equal" would be the rule, complete with "whites only" and "coloreds only" restrooms and lunch counters. I've seen too many old news films of that kind of thing, so I say, no thanks.

Have things changed since the sixties? If it was legal for a shop owner to hang a "No negros allowed!" sign out front do you think that person would have a very successful business? I think in the year 2020 the free market and social norms would see most people like that put out of business without any mandates from Uncle Sam.

 

[Emily L]

Have things changed since the sixties? If it was legal for a shop owner to hang a "No negros allowed!" sign out front do you think that person would have a very successful business? I think in the year 2020 the free market and social norms would see most people like that put out of business without any mandates from Uncle Sam.

Dex, maybe I'm underestimating the public. But I'm afraid there just might be enough racists (for example) who will band together and support a business that puts up a "No Black Customers" sign. If there are other nearby businesses that feel the same way about blacks, then the signs will start popping up all over the place.

I hope I'm wrong about that, but I think I'd rather not even take that chance. Especially troubling would be signs that say, "Blacks Need Not Apply."

 

[dex4974]

Dex, maybe I'm underestimating the public. But I'm afraid there just might be enough racists (for example) who will band together and support a business that puts up a "No Black Customers" sign. If there are other nearby businesses that feel the same way about blacks, then the signs will start popping up all over the place.

I hope I'm wrong about that, but I think I'd rather not even take that chance. Especially troubling would be signs that say, "Blacks Need Not Apply."

Even in the 60s the businesses that didn't discriminate thrived due to the fact that they weren't stupid racists that turned down money from black people. Also back then black people still had places to shop. I'm a little torn on this issue. The libertarian in me is screaming "The government has no place mandating who a private business can and can't turn down service to!" It feels incorrect that somebody who built a private business can't decide to turn down their service to anybody they want for any reason. A business exchange is not pure if both sides are not entering the agreement willingly.

 

[Emily L]

Even in the 60s the businesses that didn't discriminate thrived due to the fact that they weren't stupid racists that turned down money from black people. Also back then black people still had places to shop. I'm a little torn on this issue. The libertarian in me is screaming "The government has no place mandating who a private business can and can't turn down service to!" It feels incorrect that somebody who built a private business can't decide to turn down their service to anybody they want for any reason. A business exchange is not pure if both sides are not entering the agreement willingly.

Dex, I know I sometimes don't sound like it, but I'm a traditional conservative, and I share your concerns. I hate putting excessive regulations on businesses. Since it sounds like you might have a personal memory of the 1960's, I bow to your knowledge of how things were. I guess I'm just a little fearful of making big changes in things.

 

[dex4974]

Dex, I know I sometimes don't sound like it, but I'm a traditional conservative, and I share your concerns. I hate putting excessive regulations on businesses. Since it sounds like you might have a personal memory of the 1960's, I bow to your knowledge of how things were. I guess I'm just a little fearful of making big changes in things.

I've barely seen you post but your nonpartisan honesty and humility make you one of the best posters on this forum. I hope you stick around.

 

[roguenuke]

Have things changed since the sixties? If it was legal for a shop owner to hang a "No negros allowed!" sign out front do you think that person would have a very successful business? I think in the year 2020 the free market and social norms would see most people like that put out of business without any mandates from Uncle Sam.

It depends on a lot of things, including the makeup of the town, city that the business was in. There are towns that had such business practices going on in the last 5 years.

Polygamist Towns Discriminated Against Non-Church Members, Jury Finds

Two fundamentalist Mormon towns waged a two-decade campaign of systematic discrimination against non-church members, a federal jury found Monday.

www.nbcnews.com

Maurice's Piggie Park had signs and displays up into the early 2000s denouncing mixing of the races, supporting segregation. They didn't go under.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/food-drink/article119660858.html

These people still do exist, still know that there are those out there that they can cater to, that will see them as "speaking their minds", "just saying how they feel", or "not harming anyone" to justify going to such businesses.

 

[Emily L]

I've barely seen you post but your nonpartisan honesty and humility make you one of the best posters on this forum. I hope you stick around.

Wow, Dex! Thanks for saying that. I wish I could say the check's in the mail, but the mail is simply too slow these days. Thanks again!

 

[dex4974]

It depends on a lot of things, including the makeup of the town, city that the business was in. There are towns that had such business practices going on in the last 5 years.

Polygamist Towns Discriminated Against Non-Church Members, Jury Finds

Two fundamentalist Mormon towns waged a two-decade campaign of systematic discrimination against non-church members, a federal jury found Monday.

www.nbcnews.com

Maurice's Piggie Park had signs and displays up into the early 2000s denouncing mixing of the races, supporting segregation. They didn't go under.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/food-drink/article119660858.html

These people still do exist, still know that there are those out there that they can cater to, that will see them as "speaking their minds", "just saying how they feel", or "not harming anyone" to justify going to such businesses.

If a handful of businesses manage to survive through racism sympathizers I am fine with that. Racism is not illegal. Discrimination laws were inacted because in the 60s black people had some real struggles in some areas. I think even in places like Alabama things have changed a lot. Businesses like that would be very few and very niche.

 

[roguenuke]

If a handful of businesses manage to survive through racism sympathizers I am fine with that. Racism is not illegal. Discrimination laws were inacted because in the 60s black people had some real struggles in some areas. I think even in places like Alabama things have changed a lot. Businesses like that would be very few and very niche.

But there are places where such things would make it impossible for certain groups of people to even live, to even travel near, because they may not be able to find any sort of life saving help, required resources simply because of racism or sexism, or differences in religious beliefs.

 

[dex4974]

But there are places where such things would make it impossible for certain groups of people to even live, to even travel near, because they may not be able to find any sort of life saving help, required resources simply because of racism or sexism, or differences in religious beliefs.

In 2020 you think it'd actually get that bad? Where? And maybe we can find some kind of middle ground here if what you're saying is true.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Have things changed since the sixties? If it was legal for a shop owner to hang a "No negros allowed!" sign out front do you think that person would have a very successful business? I think in the year 2020 the free market and social norms would see most people like that put out of business without any mandates from Uncle Sam.

Unfortunately not as much as I had hoped, the last four years proved we still have quite a problem with this issue.

 

[dex4974]

Unfortunately not as much as I had hoped, the last four years proved we still have quite a problem with this issue.

Even people with racist inclinations wouldn't turn down money from black people a lot of the time I think. You'd have to be one seriously bigoted moron to hinder the success of your business over not wanting to trade with black people.