4 ms·

Tbh, this "contradiction" in the moral side of the progressive movement was bound to happen at some point. My own feelings about it are it's hard to judge eithe

Tbh, this "contradiction" in the moral side of the progressive movement was bound to happen at some point. My own feelings about it are it's hard to judge either party from the outside. There is an argument that people should have a right to not associate with whom they'd rather not, but on the other hand, denying someone the ability to rehabilitate themselves by (yes) denying them your company seems also wrong. For example, saying "you'd rather not hire black people" and saying that's just your right to associate with is generally considered immoral today, so it's difficult honestly for me to pass judgement on either side.

klyrs 4y ago
> For example, saying "you'd rather not hire black people" and saying that's just your right to associate with is generally considered immoral... Martin Luther King put this rather clearly -- one is judging on the content of a person's character, the other is judging on the color of a person's skin.
kazinator 4y ago
> denying someone the ability to rehabilitate themselves by (yes) denying them your company seems also wrong No it isn't; screw them? And can't they rehabilitate themselves without me? > you'd rather not hire black people Black is not a choice, like assaulting someone, and not some stain on your character. We've come to the conclusion that this kind of characteristic of a person falls into a protected class, and discriminating on its basis is illegal. From that it doesn't follow that any attribute of a person whatsoever is the marker of a protected class. > it's difficult honestly for me to pass judgement on either side. Yet, that's exactly what some judge did, in the case of the one side.