I defy you to find one example in the 1950s conservative South of someone going out of business because they refused to hire African-American as something other than a janitor.
For the modern age, I point at Chick Filet, which is doing just fine despite its clearly bigoted perspective and policies.
It simply isn't true that discrimination will work itself out on its own. Hell, that's the same argument we made about slavery. How long are we going to make that argument?
For the modern age, I point at Chick Filet, which is doing just fine despite its clearly bigoted perspective and policies.
It simply isn't true that discrimination will work itself out on its own. Hell, that's the same argument we made about slavery. How long are we going to make that argument?
Slavery is something of a special case, because the cotton gin made it so much more economical its lifespan was extended at least a century. Beyond the Civil War via sharecropping and Jim Crow, and the former was a function of class rather than race discrimination that fostered the latter: As long as white sharecroppers had Jim Crow they were not the dregs of society, and the clung to it desperately as a result.
Anyway, no, Southern businesses were in no risk of going under for refusing to hire blacks in the '50s. Neither were Northern ones; if segregation were a purely Southern phenomenon the SCOTUS case that struck it down would not have been brought against Topeka, KS (a state infamously and bloodily formed by Free Soilers in a prelude to the Civil War.) However, the Equal Protection Clause was enough to decide that case and overturn both Plessy and the segregation dependent on it. That is not to say other remedies to restore universal liberty (e.g. the Twenty-Fourth Amendment) were not necessary and invaluable, but the most effective WERE universal (ibid.) Whether affirmative action quotas have done more harm than good remains an open question fifty years later.
I find it hard to support the notion Brown, the Montgomery boycott, the March on Washington and various highly publicized reaffirmations of the Equal Protection Clause would have made modern society any more discriminatory absent anti-discriminatory laws for the private sector. Businesses could get away with discrimination without losing custom when it had public sanction; removing that sanction removes the respectability on which that custom depends.
Chik-fil-A is doing alright now, and part of the reason is that much of their customer base already consisted of people who shared their views of homosexuality (et al.) However, much of it did not, and the backlash they have already experienced is enough they have begun withdrawing funding to overtly anti-gay organizations. Facing a choice between their religion and their wallet, I think we both know which the "Christian" right chooses every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
However, and this cannot be stressed enough, whether or not market forces drive discrimination from private businesses the fact remains they ARE private businesses. Yes, we want to eradicate bigotry, but not at the cost of eradicating independent thought and freedom. Unfortunately, people MUST have the right to bigotry, though if they make it the pretext for crimes they are as much (but no more) subject to prosecution for those crimes as everyone else is. In this case, I think the market can largely banish bigotry, but where it does not, where people are willing to patronize bigoted business owners, they must have that right if society is to truly be free. We dare not dictate, by majority rule or otherwise, how people believe, or dispose of their own property.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
- 1382 Views
Legal rights.
20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
- 785 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
- 383 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
- 371 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
- 713 Views
That's not what I'm saying
21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
- 732 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
- 682 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
- 757 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
- 676 Views
The more fool you.
21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
- 771 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
- 706 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
- 659 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
- 769 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
- 726 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
- 833 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
- 723 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
- 775 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
- 669 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
- 700 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
- 373 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
- 775 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
- 874 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
- 397 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
- 697 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
- 747 Views
Indeed
21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
- 806 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
- 1079 Views
And so?
21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
- 708 Views
Re: And so?
21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
- 876 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
- 377 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
- 640 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
- 703 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
- 672 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
- 621 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
- 678 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
- 610 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
- 660 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
- 757 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
- 683 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
- 620 Views
Much less force, yes.
23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
- 623 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
- 698 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
- 640 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
- 664 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
- 717 Views
Depends on where you look, and for how long.
26/10/2012 01:19:00 AM
- 677 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
- 346 Views