3 ms·
Because it works. Having “white only” restaurants, schools, pools, etc. was (hopefully) obviously horrific. Requiring service to black Americans clearly was eff
by 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 agoNot 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 agoI 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?