I disagree with you. The Jim Crow laws were not designed to protect business owners who didn’t want to serve blacks (though they certainly did do that.) They were put in place to prevent business owners from selling to blacks.
One of the beautiful things about capitalism is that it doesn’t care about race. Capitalism says take the money. Period. It doesn’t care about race. To counter this tendency of businesses wanting to make money off of blacks thereby mainstreaming blacks into society, the Jim Crows laws were enacted. (If we are going to be fair, the flipped of this virtue is that capitalism also takes the money from the Nazi with the bucketful of teeth he took from the jews.) Capitalism has no moral or prejudice.
I tend to believe in free speech, free association, freedom in general. I don’t think the government should be getting involved with things it doesn’t have to be involved in. Here’s how I would like it to play out. Joe Baker refuses to bake cake for gay guys as is his right. His right to make a stupid business decision causes him economic loss. He loses gay customers he didn’t know he had. He loses customers that support gay rights. He goes out of business, and somebody who doesn’t make stupid decisions fills the void.
There is no need to make him a free speech martyr. It’s more than he deserves. Similarly, if a restaurant doesn’t wish to serve a Republican staffer, that is also their right to make a bad business decision.
I don’t think the government should be telling people what they have to do, enforcing behavior and association unless it absolutely has to.
When must it do so? If a business is a business is providing a public trust, healthcare, gas, groceries, and other essentials I would say that the right to attain those outweighs the merchant’s right to free association. That he has to subordinate his right to free association as the cost of working within a public trust.
I’m not homophobic or racist, and I try not to tolerate people that are. I drive 1/2 an hour to a pool store instead of using the one 2 miles away because the owner made a racist comment to me (I know, I’m such a hero for my courageous stand.)
I see problems with forcing a baker to bake a cake that he doesn’t want to bake. It looks like a slippery slope to me. I think he is making a bad choice morally and from a business standpoint. I would not patronize him. However, I don’t think it’s a federal case. I don’t think he should be compelled.
Now, I don’t speak for all Republicans or Conservatives, but I think that my stance is pretty mainstream along that group, the vast majority I daresay.
Am I a racist in your eyes. Have I arrived at my conclusion out hatred or bigotry?
I think this is the Patriot fan phenomenon. Confirmation bias prevents them from seeing how awful the Patriots are no matter what evidence is presented.
Some people are Republican. Trump is Republican. That’s where their analysis stops.
Eh, I think he’s working “within a public trust” even if he sells solely chainsaw sculptures or little glass figurines. All businesses are dependent on public resources to stay in business: the roads their customers and suppliers drive on, the police who protect their goods and property, the airwaves over which they advertise, and so forth.
If you want to operate within that framework as a business—any kind of business—serving the public, then the government gets to set some limits on how arbitrary you can be in refusing to serve certain subsets of the public. If our national principles explicitly reject discrimination on grounds of race or religion, say, then the government has the right to forbid businesses to discriminate against customers on grounds of race or religion.
I agree that individual rights to freedom of association in their private lives overrule the government’s ethical mandate in this regard. But businesses aren’t the same as individuals.
I don’t think he’s trying to convince anyone to agree with him. He’s asking if you can believe him when he says he did not arrive at his views from a racist or bigoted starting point.
Jim Crow laws applied to a whole host of non-capitalism things like public restrooms, public transportation, and public schools. They were enacted, and enforced, despite the fact they were bad business decisions. They worked in concert with voter suppression laws, laws keeping blacks from sitting on juries, and a host of other laws that had nothing to do with capitalism and were there simply to suppress blacks and keep them politically and socially powerless. That, not stopping capitalistic savior businesses from creating racial equality, was the reason for Jim Crow laws.
In addition, this idyllic vision of capitalism of yours, as if it can be separated from the realities of society, is complete and utter bullshit. More than that, it’s been proven wrong over and over and over and over in the real world. There were thousands of businesses that were successful under segregation, many because of segregation. It wasn’t until the courts and federal government stepped in that change was made. And I know the whole “just give it time and capitalism would have done what the legislation and courts had to do to try and stop racial discrimination” canard is a huge deal for many, but it’s based on the impossibility of removing capitalism from the society around it.
How long do you think victims of racial, religious, gendered, national or sexual discrimination should have to wait until your idealized view of capitalism works?
My answer would be that I don’t believe anyone could arrive at those views except in a historically and persistently racist society, although I certainly admit that someone could arrive at them without consciously endorsing racial discrimination or bigotry. So I suppose it depends on what you call “a racist or bigoted starting point”.
So, what, then? Do you want a wall built on that border, too? Do you want increased patrols on the border with Canada? Do you want Canadians who wish to visit the US to be treated as though they have no intention of leaving? Do you want Canadians in America to be considered rapists and murderers? What realistic issues do you really have with the open border with Canada?
Searching for “canada AND border” for poster The Other Waldo Pepper returns three posts:
Your “introduction” to me in this thread.
A post in a Captain America movie thread.
A post in the Should Northern Mexico become part of the US? thread.
Changing the search keywords to “canada AND immigration” returns zero.
Care to link to such posts (if they exist) where you stated your problems with that border?
(Bolding mine). So you’ve come up with a definition of “groceries” that excludes cakes? How about cookies? Muffins?
Or does it only include wedding cakes? If so, how is that term defined? Does it encompass any cake purchased with the intention of serving it at a wedding, or only cakes decorated in a “wedding”-y way?If the latter, well, I know it when I see it, but actually objectively defining it sounds like a tedious exercise.
Also, wouldn’t your test end up being dependent on the social milieu the business operates in? After all, a gay person is only trivially inconvenienced by being turned away from a gas station,** if** there is another station across the street which is happy to serve him. So if the non-discriminatory gas station goes out of business, does that mean that the bigoted station owner now has an obligation to serve gay customers, where he previously hadn’t?
Seems a heck of a lot simpler to just say that businesses serving the public are public accomodations covered by anti-discrimination laws and leave it at that.
And in answer to your question, no, I don’t believe that the argument you are making necessarily marks you as being motivated by hatred or bigotry. But it’s an argument that is likely to be far more convincing to people who aren’t members of a historically discriminated-against group than to those who are. So I think it would be fair to say that it is a philosophy rooted to some degree in racial and gender privilege.
I don’t . . . wait, are you genuinely not following this? Your response, just upthread, was, literally to a copy-and-paste quoting me saying the exact opposite. You’re in with a quick “too”, when there’s nothing to “too” to. How did you do that?
I’m truly having trouble working up the enthusiasm to respond, here, since you’re quoting me and then getting it 100% wrong. There’s no sign that you’re posting, like, even a little bit in good faith. It was so danged short a post!
Still, this maybe cries out for something:
As far as I know, nobody here ever asked me before. As far as I know, nobody here ever asked me to state whether I have a problem with counterfeiting or wire fraud either. Now, you could of course be the first — you could ask me some multi-part question about what issues I have with counterfeiters, and whether I think they should be considered rapists and murderers, and so on — but why would you?
Wouldn’t you just default to figuring I’m on the right side, there?
Good grief. The too means in addtion to the trumpian wall down south. The question is one in a set of questions. Do you not see what those questions have in common?
So, what problems do you have with the open border with Canada?
I agree, though, that Trump doesn’t actually give a hoot about the success or stability of the Republican Party as an institution, or about the fortunes of any Republican politician other than himself. If he thought it would bring him more money and adulation, he’d return to the Democratic Party tomorrow. (Another reason to keep the resistance strong and active, because we do not want this guy slinking over here with a bunch of convenience-store flowers thinking he can con us into taking him back.)
However, Trump chose to run his current scam through identifying as a Republican, so the Republicans bear the blame for him. They didn’t have to nominate or vote for him or continue supporting him after he won, but they did, and that makes him a Republican President. The Republicans don’t get let off the hook for that one.
This is a fair rebuttal. Our disagreement seems to be a matter of degree Over where we draw the line about what constitutes a public trust. I think with discussion and compromise we could probably come up with something that we could both live with.
It is true that I did not provide an entire, complete and definitive history of Jim Crow laws in my reference. I was only speaking to the fact that by design they were restrictive to business rather than defensive of the same.
More than that, it’s been proven wrong over and over and over and over in the real world. There were thousands of businesses that were successful under segregation, many because of segregation. It wasn’t until the courts and federal government stepped in that change was made. And I know the whole “just give it time and capitalism would have done what the legislation and courts had to do to try and stop racial discrimination” canard is a huge deal for many, but it’s based on the impossibility of removing capitalism from the society around it.
How long do you think victims of racial, religious, gendered, national or sexual discrimination should have to wait until your idealized view of capitalism works?
[/QUOTE]
We were doing so well, and I was really enjoying the discussion. I know this is the pit but do you really think it’s fair to mischaracterize my arguments this way. I did point out in the very next sentence that the same capitalistic tendency is racially blind is also happy to take Nazi gold. I think it is an extreme mischaracterization to suggest that I am painting capitalism in an “idealized’ form or as a ‘savior’.
It’s had to respond to what you wrote as a rebuttal since it fails to reflect my argument.
You said: “They [Jim Crow laws] were put in place to prevent business owners from selling to blacks.” Then, I pointed out that there were a multitude of Jim Crow laws that had nothing to do with “business”, so your claim is most likely post-hoc fabricated bullshit. So I asked for a cite. And got none.
Jim Crow laws weren’t enacted to stop prevent smart white business owners from selling to blacks, they were enacted to keep blacks poor, uneducated, disenfranchised, and disempowered.
To, once again, quote you: “One of the beautiful things about capitalism is that it doesn’t care about race. Capitalism says take the money. Period. It doesn’t care about race.” How is that not an idealized version of capitalism that has little to no bearing on the real world? Capitalism (or communism or socialism) is only as good as the people who are using it and the society it is used in.
My reading of your comments was that you were positing that the government shouldn’t have become involved (outside of your “public trust” exception) in regulating discrimination on the basis of race because capitalism would, eventually, resolve racial discrimination. To which, I pointed out that capitalism hadn’t, in fact, done that, and asked you how long people should wait for capitalism to get around to resolving racial discrimination. If that’s not a fair reading of your comments, just let me know.
Uh, yes; I think I do; I posted that I don’t see a need for a wall — and you helpfully quoted me as stating that — and then you asked whether I want a wall built on the Canadian border too. If I state that I don’t see a need for a wall there either, would you be able to see what those responses have in common?
Um. I don’t want folks crossing it illegally? You could maybe even say I have a real problem with that? It’s probably not a stretch to figure I also have a problem with folks who come here legally but then illegally overstay — and, while I don’t think anyone ever asked me, you can also figure I have a problem with it regardless of whether they come from Canada or Mexico; or from Australia, or Zanzibar?
And, again, I also have a problem with counterfeiting; also, wire fraud.
Does this seem like a worthy digression to you? If it’s really important, I guess we can give it a shot, but, as you seem to acknowledge it does seem a little tedious. I would venture to say that this problem we are discussing is not a huge problem in this country. I consider the idea that one idiot cake dealer not selling to gays being the kind of thing that makes the national news and enters the public consciousness to be an actually really good piece of news for gay rights. The news focuses on the unusual, right? This is unusual and exceptional enough that it’s a national issue. That this is rare enough to be remarkable and to be remarked on is kind of cool. The cake dealer is on the wrong side of history here. We probably do not at this time need to make a careful set of rules to deal with this on an ongoing basis. I am more in the favor of a broad law that just gets the gist of it. The gist I would go for is that you are free to do what you want or sell to who you want as long as you are not denying anybody the basics of life which would be considered a public trust. I would guess that a wedding cake wouldn’t make the cut. A restaurant probably would. It gets sticky the deeper you dive into this. Can you deny somebody service because of race? Sexual orientation? Religion? Their politics? No shirt, no shoes, no service? Would a cake maker be obligated to bake a cake of a giant penis? Must all businesses except all commissions?
I hate the idea of putting these things in the hands of the government. Than we are all calling the police on each other and suing each other. I’m pretty optimistic that most people are good people and I am content to let people use their own judgement and figure things out and work the out for themselves. When they make mistakes they will reap the consequences. If people are going to be assholes let them be assholes. At the same time I recognize that free markets do not necessarily always provide the most efficient solution to a problem, and or morally agnostic, and therefore need regulation to ensure that they do not create undue hardship.
I tend to go with the “err on the side of freedom.” Side of the argument.
I agree with you except that this can get in the weeds pretty quickly. There are valid reasons to refuse or deny service to people. When you start compelling action you start interfering with people’s ability to do this. Overall, I tend to trust individuals to do this on their own more than I trust the government to set up a series of all-encompassing rules that covers every contingency. Beyond the basic necessities, nobody has a right to services. Businesses and customers should generally be able to negotiate this themselves and live with the consequences.
This is an interesting idea. If I am misinterpreting you, feel free to correct me. You seem to be saying that if I experience discrimination you are suggesting that I am likely to be against the freedoms or libertarian doctrine that allowed that discrimination, and would instead prefer a more restrictive environment that made such discrimination more difficult, or illegal. Conversely, if I don’t experience discrimination and am privileged I don’t see it as a problem and therefore have no downside in believing that maximizing freedom is the way to go. Therefore my belief in maximizing freedom even when it allows for freedom is philosophically rooted in racial and gender privilege.
Is that a fair interpretation of what you are saying?
I am going to guess that it is, and respond as if it is.
I think you are wrong (big surprise.)
Let’s go back to the baker who won’t bake a wedding cake for gay people. For the sake of argument, let us say that you and I are equally offended by this, and both feel equally that something should be done about it, because this kind of thing doesn’t stand.
You (for the sake of argument, I have no idea what you are really like) have strong socialist tendencies, and beleive that the government should be deeply involved in the day to day intricacies and workings of society in order to prevent and rectify wrongs. You think the best way to fix things is through laws and regulations.
I (for the sake of argument) am a Chinese immigrant who spent most of his life under a repressive govenrment that restricted his daily actions and freedoms to a degree that is difficult for a westerner to imagine. I have been repressed and restricted by a corrupt bureaucratic machine my entire life. I have a strong distrust of government and now that I am in America I think that the idea of enacting laws that restrict freedom is a dangerous and scary idea. While I hate the discrimination my mind is boggled that anyone would be willing to sacrifice even a portion of their freedom for something so trivial as a wedding cake.
We are literally making a federal case out of a wedding cake (it’s ok to put our principles aside for a Moment and recognize the ridiculousness of this)
So, in my example above it is actually you, the privileged leftist who has adopted the more restrictive response to the problem, and me, the discriminated against minority who seeks to maximize freedom.
From this, I conclude that you are mistaken.
Whether or not someone thinks a social problem should be solved by government regulation is not a function of their race or gender privilege (it sounds really silly putting it that way, doesn’t it.)
Rather it is more likely a function of how they view government, and its role in society.
I view government pretty negatively. I don’t think that has anything to do with my race or gender, or my privilege.
I think that based on the historical evidence, it is an eminently rational and defensible position.
This seems to be the forum for it, so I’d just like to mention: AFAIC Scylla, you’re a good egg. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but you have always struck me as a principled and thoughtful guy, and I really appreciate your perspective. Even when you’re wrong.
