3 ms·

Again, why would people want the government to compel people to serve everyone?

by TheCaptain4815 3y ago

richbell 3y ago
It wasn't that long ago that people wouldn't serve black patrons, until the government compelled them to.
- WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
  [dead]
msla 3y ago
To attack discrimination.
the_gastropod 3y ago
Because it works. Having “white only” restaurants, schools, pools, etc. was (hopefully) obviously horrific. Requiring service to black Americans clearly was effective. We’re sliding backwards with this ruling.
- koolba 3y ago
  Not at all. Between this and the court throwing out affirmative action in higher education, we’re finally getting past this crap. Next step is going to be eliminating affirmative action in private sector hiring practices. In all these situations it’s helpful to imagine flipping around the characters to see the sheer nonsense of the complaints. Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? Would a design firm run by a gay man be required to design an anti gay marriage billboard?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    I mean, yes. Traditionally, prior to the recent rulings, a gay man running a design firm would in fact be compelled to to do the best work he felt he could for, say, a Catholic church, because religion is a protected class. So what? He's not obligated to own a business and the fact he has hung a shingle bears some obligation to serve his fellow Americans. > Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? I think you're tilting at a windmill here. The more accurate question would be "Would it be morally acceptable for an all black institution to categorically disregard white candidates because they don't have that 'urban vibe' the institution is going for." Well would it?
shadowgovt 3y ago
Because it was basically necessary to break the back of Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws weren't just a set of laws put in place in southern states. They were an entire culture that said if you had the wrong color skin, you didn't deserve service. You didn't have to be treated as a fellow citizen. Your money wasn't as green as the next person's. And, indeed, via the Civil Rights Act we had to tie the right to operate as a legally-protected business entity to the obligation to serve all members of the community regardless of having qualities we recognized as unchangeable and ultimately harmless to society. We did it because it was the only way we could start to drive a wedge into American racism and separate the present from the past's grip on it. And it has been working, we have watched each generation get progressively less racist. But racism will not go without a fight, and we are watching an atrocious but effective stand in trying to leverage the law of the land to support the prejudices of old. We want the government to compel people to serve other Americans because they are other Americans. They deserve to be treated as fellow citizens.
revscat 3y ago
Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy.
- tacitusarc 3y ago
  > Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy Neither of those claims seem obviously true to me. While I may dislike bigotry, I don’t know why you couldn’t have bigoted democracy. Similarly, while I may enjoy both freedom and democracy, I don’t see any reason democracy is required for freedom.
hackerlight 3y ago
Because people's freedoms don't exist in a vacuum with no consequences on other people. I believe in the idea that people should be maximally free to do whatever they want without government interference. But there needs to be limits in certain situations whenever the negative impact of certain freedoms onto other people exceeds an acceptable threshold.

Again, why would people want the government to compel people to serve everyone?

richbell 3y ago

It wasn't that long ago that people wouldn't serve black patrons, until the government compelled them to.

WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
[dead]

msla 3y ago

To attack discrimination.

the_gastropod 3y ago

Because it works. Having “white only” restaurants, schools, pools, etc. was (hopefully) obviously horrific. Requiring service to black Americans clearly was effective. We’re sliding backwards with this ruling.

koolba 3y ago
Not at all. Between this and the court throwing out affirmative action in higher education, we’re finally getting past this crap. Next step is going to be eliminating affirmative action in private sector hiring practices. In all these situations it’s helpful to imagine flipping around the characters to see the sheer nonsense of the complaints. Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? Would a design firm run by a gay man be required to design an anti gay marriage billboard?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I mean, yes. Traditionally, prior to the recent rulings, a gay man running a design firm would in fact be compelled to to do the best work he felt he could for, say, a Catholic church, because religion is a protected class. So what? He's not obligated to own a business and the fact he has hung a shingle bears some obligation to serve his fellow Americans. > Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? I think you're tilting at a windmill here. The more accurate question would be "Would it be morally acceptable for an all black institution to categorically disregard white candidates because they don't have that 'urban vibe' the institution is going for." Well would it?

shadowgovt 3y ago

Because it was basically necessary to break the back of Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws weren't just a set of laws put in place in southern states. They were an entire culture that said if you had the wrong color skin, you didn't deserve service. You didn't have to be treated as a fellow citizen. Your money wasn't as green as the next person's. And, indeed, via the Civil Rights Act we had to tie the right to operate as a legally-protected business entity to the obligation to serve all members of the community regardless of having qualities we recognized as unchangeable and ultimately harmless to society. We did it because it was the only way we could start to drive a wedge into American racism and separate the present from the past's grip on it. And it has been working, we have watched each generation get progressively less racist. But racism will not go without a fight, and we are watching an atrocious but effective stand in trying to leverage the law of the land to support the prejudices of old. We want the government to compel people to serve other Americans because they are other Americans. They deserve to be treated as fellow citizens.

revscat 3y ago

Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy.

tacitusarc 3y ago
> Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy Neither of those claims seem obviously true to me. While I may dislike bigotry, I don’t know why you couldn’t have bigoted democracy. Similarly, while I may enjoy both freedom and democracy, I don’t see any reason democracy is required for freedom.

hackerlight 3y ago

Because people's freedoms don't exist in a vacuum with no consequences on other people. I believe in the idea that people should be maximally free to do whatever they want without government interference. But there needs to be limits in certain situations whenever the negative impact of certain freedoms onto other people exceeds an acceptable threshold.