Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conveniently you ignore the part about jobs

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes. I want to be the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. It's my life plan. Jerry Jones' arbitrary preference that I not do this is unjust and incorrect imo.

Obviously, I need some government intervention to prevent Jerry Jones from discriminating against me and wrecking my life plans, because I'm entitled to everything I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is, even though right now I have about a 0.0000000000001 chance of being the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, under Moorobot's utopian fantasyland dreamworld the Dallas Cowboys won't even exist (DUCY?), reducing my chances to 0.

Moorobot, why do you want to destroy any chance of me achieving my life dream? Isn't your arbitrary preference for your utopian fantasyland dreamworld thusly unjust and incorrect?

[tame_deuces]

Why is there even a debate here? Democracy is mostly based on equality and voluntarism on freedom. Racism is a problem for democratic practice, it is not a problem for voluntary practice, since you can't enforce equality principles. Whether or not racism disappears, stays the same or increases in a free society is irrelevant.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I'm suggesting a scenario where the two restuarants in your example are both "whites only".

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, OP forgot the scenario where 2 restaurants are "white only" and 1 is "Martian only." COME ON!

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies, I didn't realize the possibility of widescale racism was as ridiculously remote as the existence of intelligent life on Mars. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
A person's ability to pursue there chosen life plans and access to necessary resources should not depend on the arbitrary preferences of others, on what other people think of them, especially when what other people think of them is both unjust and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming this premise, it thereby follows that the state should legally forbid individuals to discriminate based on (say) race who they are willing to date and to marry. Surely one's spouse also had a profound effect upon one's "ability to pursue [sic] there chosen life plans," which should not depend upon the "arbitrary whims" of others.

Obviously, the lefties will always claim this is "different," because freedom of association in that realm is arbitrarily included in the list of "leftists' approved" individual rights.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes. I want to be the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. It's my life plan. Jerry Jones' arbitrary preference that I not do this is unjust and incorrect imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty funny, actually. Jerry may give you a call after that performance Romo put on last night. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[W brad]

There are other scenarios that we aren't discussing here.

What if a non-racist is targeted for racial reasons because people who claim to also be non-racists want to derive racial and/or political advantage in a situation?

Like the Freddie's Fashion Mart situation.

[Roland32]

Instead of do you support the act, a better title would be do you support the constitution. Equal protection ensures certain rights, one of which is liberty. The right to include and exclude of property conflicts directly with the right to consume.

The Supreme court precedence states that whenever two constitutional rights conflict they must be balanced. However, the court states that whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by the exercise of another right it is held to a strict scrutiny. Meaning that the State must have a compelling interest, i.e. Health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, AND the means are narrowly tailored (is there another way)

So here you have a law as applied here that makes it illegal to include or exclude commerce on the basis of race. The fundamental right of liberty (the right of property)is is being infringed upon by the this law. The compelling interest is curbing racism. I belief this to be compelling interest, if someone would like to argue the latter I think it would be an interesting discussion. Secondly it must also be narrowly construed. It only attacks acts of racism and not say Political bigotry or something else, so it appears it passes a strict scrutiny test.

There is also the issue of the Commerce Clause, which I belief is how the law was upheld but I am not sure. That says that the federal government trumps the state if Interstate Commerce is involved. Arguement for that should be clear.

I say this law is clearly constitutional.

next issue is it best for society to have this law economically. I would say that a niche market is being shut down so there is a definate economic loss. However, this is where I part with the Anarcho's. I am willing to have a loss of economic output for the sake of democracy.

The Assault on Reason in Chapter 2 I believe gives a good arguement on why that should be. A brief recap is that democracy is intertwined like a double helix with Capitalism. WHile they both feed each other, left unprotected either side will vanquish the other because they are fundamentally opposed. In essence whenever economic interests collide, ere to must be abalancing test. I side in this instance with democracy.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person's ability to pursue there chosen life plans and access to necessary resources should not depend on the arbitrary preferences of others, on what other people think of them, especially when what other people think of them is both unjust and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming this premise, it thereby follows that the state should legally forbid individuals to discriminate based on (say) race who they are willing to date and to marry. Surely one's spouse also had a profound effect upon one's "ability to pursue [sic] there chosen life plans," which should not depend upon the "arbitrary whims" of others.

Obviously, the lefties will always claim this is "different," because freedom of association in that realm is arbitrarily included in the list of "leftists' approved" individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


Life isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. This is why slippery slope arguments are silly. In your instance any law that forbade marriage on basis of race would not be constitutional under an equal protections analysis. The fundamental liberty right of privacy (oh noes not that privacy right that isn't in the constitution, we should overturn Roe v Wade [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]) the right to choose who you marry is fundamental and would trump most other rights in a strict scrutiny test.

[tomdemaine]

Race laws create racists because people can blame their [censored] ups on reverse discrimination rather than taking personal responsibility.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person's ability to pursue there chosen life plans and access to necessary resources should not depend on the arbitrary preferences of others, on what other people think of them, especially when what other people think of them is both unjust and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming this premise, it thereby follows that the state should legally forbid individuals to discriminate based on (say) race who they are willing to date and to marry. Surely one's spouse also had a profound effect upon one's "ability to pursue [sic] there chosen life plans," which should not depend upon the "arbitrary whims" of others.

Obviously, the lefties will always claim this is "different," because freedom of association in that realm is arbitrarily included in the list of "leftists' approved" individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


Life isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. This is why slippery slope arguments are silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a slippery slope argument. There is no meaningful distinction to deny consenting adults freedom of association among various types of relationships. Like you say, there are shades of grey, and we can't even always distinguish between "business" relationships and "personal" relationships. They are all just relationships.

[ QUOTE ]

In your instance any law that forbade marriage on basis of race would not be constitutional under an equal protections analysis. The fundamental liberty right of privacy (oh noes not that privacy right that isn't in the constitution, we should overturn Roe v Wade [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]) the right to choose who you marry is fundamental and would trump most other rights in a strict scrutiny test.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the leftists will arbitrarily invoke this argument, because with whom we sleep is magically on the list of "privacy" rights, while from whom we buy stuff is not. Thus the collectivist, utilitarian arguments are discarded only for the former.