or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 222

post #3316 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


Why don't you explain to me in detail (as if I were a small child) what the merit of the 1896 Plessy case is in the context of his point regarding a civil rights law passed in 1965?  I want to see the genius of this argument.  Really.  Explain it.  I have no clue where the logic in this comparison might be lurking.

I thought his thesis was more isomorphic having to do with discriminatory laws coming from governments and not people or organizations.

You seem very wound up. How's your blood pressure?
post #3317 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


I thought his thesis was more isomorphic having to do with discriminatory laws coming from governments and not people or organizations.

You seem very wound up. How's your blood pressure?


It's exceptionally good, just got a physical a week ago.  Thanks for asking.  You seem very optimistic.  There was a thesis in there?

post #3318 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


It's exceptionally good, just got a physical a week ago.  Thanks for asking.  You seem very optimistic.  There was a thesis in there?

If optimism is my greatest sin I think I could have done worse.
post #3319 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


So...we should be able to reject blacks from lunch counters?

"Don't force private business to do stuff" might sound like a basic thing, but it's got pretty deep implications for civil rights.

 

A "civil right" is separate from a mutually consensual business relationship.  Or have you gone full socialist and believe that government should control all means of production and distribution?

 

 

post #3320 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 


You too.  What is your point?  You seem to think that because governments pass laws, not private companies, you have scored some sort of knockout punch.  I have no idea WTF you think you are getting at.

 

Let's use Plessy v. Ferguson as an example because it has already been brought up, and it is the most historic example.  In Plessy v. Ferguson, a private individual bought a train ticket from a private company.  He then attempted to sit in said company's first class train car.  The company wanted to allow him to sit in the first class train car.  The state of Louisiana had passed the Separate Car Act making it illegal for Plessy to sit in the car.  He was arrested for violating the law.

 

A private company was trying to NOT discriminate.  The government, which has a monopoly on force, required the company to discriminate.   

 

As a business owner, I'm not going to discriminate against anyone unless they're more trouble than they're worth which isn't discriminating against anyone on the basis of something covered by the Civil Rights Act.  We hear from the Democratic camp that businesses are greedy, so if that's true, businesses won't discriminate because of their greed.

post #3321 of 8748
Do you live in some sort of simplified world where things like backlash or resentment don't exist? One in which "sell to everyone!" is the only way businesses look after their interests? It's possible for business owners to discriminate based on their own prejudices while also advancing their business interests; this can happen when certain forms of discrimination or bigotry have enough popularity that toeing that party line can drum up business. A bakery that refuses to make wedding cakes for gay couples might very well become a darling of the evangelical community.

Earlier, you appealed to the prevalence of social media as a check on discriminatory practices, because businesses that discriminate would get such bad publicity. But this works both ways: businesses can also get a lot of publicity among mouth-breathers by doing shit like this: http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/muslim-free-zone-gun-shop-wins-case/ Or, to put it a different way: the free market coupled with the rapid spread of information doesn't ensure that all groups are protected against undue discrimination. The anti-black racism example works well for your argument: even without any anti-discrimination laws, it's likely that a business that refused to serve black customers would be inundated with bad publicity (although even here there might be caveats). But this is only because after a long, hard fight that took place in relatively recent memory, we've collectively decided that anti-black racism is a bad thing, with only Klansmen and other assholes in out-and-out disagreement. But there are plenty of other forms of discrimination that have more widespread appeal. We need laws to protect people even if popular sentiment & the market doesn't.
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/7/16 at 11:12pm
post #3322 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Do you live in some sort of simplified world where things like backlash or resentment don't exist? One in which "sell to everyone!" is the only way businesses look after their interests? It's possible for business owners to discriminate based on their own prejudices while also advancing their business interests; this can happen when certain forms of discrimination or bigotry have enough popularity that toeing that party line can drum up business. A bakery that refuses to make wedding cakes for gay couples might very well become a darling of the evangelical community.

Earlier, you appealed to the prevalence of social media as a check on discriminatory practices, because businesses that discriminate would get such bad publicity. But this works both ways: businesses can also get a lot of publicity among mouth-breathers by doing shit like this: http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/muslim-free-zone-gun-shop-wins-case/ Or, to put it a different way: the free market coupled with the rapid spread of information doesn't ensure that all groups are protected against undue discrimination. The anti-black racism example works well for your argument: even without any anti-discrimination laws, it's likely that a business that refused to serve black customers would be inundated with bad publicity (although even here there might be caveats). But this is only because after a long, hard fight that took place in relatively recent memory, we've collectively decided that anti-black racism is a bad thing, with only Klansmen and other assholes in out-and-out disagreement. But there are plenty of other forms of discrimination that have more widespread appeal. We need laws to protect people even if popular sentiment & the market doesn't.

 

And what happens when government creates laws that harm people rather than help them?  A good example is the bathroom laws in North Carolina (and other places).  You act as though the government is some benevolent being that always does right.  Except those same people who want to discriminate vote and get elected and pass dumb laws that codify discrimination or other things that harm minorities - sometimes intentionally and sometimes with unintended consequences.  Then the law gets challenged in court, which takes a year or two at least, and with the courts, there is no guarantee on how they decide.  Your link only reinforces that point: courts agreed the discrimination is Constitutionally protected.  So somehow we can say it is okay to discriminate based on religion but not on what sex organs you find attractive?

I don't believe a free market is perfect or always gets it right.  However, I just rather take my chances with an open and free market rather than with government: especially with the power of anonymous purchasing via the internet.  Furthermore, I rather not enforce my morality on others, and I don't like it when others try to do the same.  Next the courts will be ruling that the 2nd Amendment means businesses can't ban firearms by carry permit holders.

 

Don't forget the power that these anti-discrimination laws can have on emboldening discrimination.  Look at the various businesses who run afoul of these laws.  That Indiana pizzeria got almost $1m in donations after they refused to serve gays. 

post #3323 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If optimism is my greatest sin I think I could have done worse.

What is the difference between Pessimist and Optimist in a context of US politics?
Pessimist believes it cannot get any worse than this, while Optimist argues: that, thanks to Amurikan ingenuity, we will figure a way to make it worse. Yes We Can!
post #3324 of 8748
Not entirely sure you know what pessimist or optimist mean.
post #3325 of 8748
I'm not kicking people out. But if you can't vote then fuck off.
post #3326 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Let's use Plessy v. Ferguson as an example because it has already been brought up, and it is the most historic example.  In Plessy v. Ferguson, a private individual bought a train ticket from a private company.  He then attempted to sit in said company's first class train car.  The company wanted to allow him to sit in the first class train car.  The state of Louisiana had passed the Separate Car Act making it illegal for Plessy to sit in the car.  He was arrested for violating the law.

A private company was trying to NOT discriminate.  The government, which has a monopoly on force, required the company to discriminate.   

As a business owner, I'm not going to discriminate against anyone unless they're more trouble than they're worth which isn't discriminating against anyone on the basis of something covered by the Civil Rights Act.  We hear from the Democratic camp that businesses are greedy, so if that's true, businesses won't discriminate because of their greed.
So your example from an 1896 case involving a State law stands for the proposition that discrimination is what government laws do, not what private companies and citizens do. Therefore the Federal government shouldn't involve itself in legislating civil rights (i.e., by preempting states from allowing discrimination). Hrrrm.
post #3327 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You heard it here, folks, all black people think alike.

Racial, ethnic & religious minorities = all black people? Lol. Pull up your pants Turk cause you're talking out of your ass.
post #3328 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

We hear from the Democratic camp that businesses are greedy, so if that's true, businesses won't discriminate because of their greed.

Yes but businesses are run by people and people are stupid
post #3329 of 8748
Yes but government is run by even stupider people.
post #3330 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Not entirely sure you know what pessimist or optimist mean.

Entirely sure that you are not intelligent enough to see humor in my comment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field