Were there?
I don’t think that’s the case. I think that covenants that run with the land title are fairly lumped into “law,” since they are enforced by law.
According to my reading, there are examples in which nothing was written to enforce these practices, and it was all through informal agreements. I’ll look for a cite when I’m able.
Good point!
And if there were, that unlucky class of people certainly deserve protection, just as the smallest integer that has no interesting properties whatsoever deserves recognition as something rather special.
Obviously I meant a contextually relevant protected class.
For what it’s worth, I agree that there could have been sundown towns that did not have explicit laws related to segregation. Not every municipality needed to have the cops know to “not let those types hang around here”, or to turn a blind eye when white citizens took things into their own hands in order to enforce segregation. That was what I meant when I said the social and political milieu was quite different a few decades ago. Segregation was usually the norm, explicitly enforced either legislatively or otherwise.
Riemann: As I noted earlier, I think you meant “suspect class”. That is the legal term of art. It sounds a bit weird because it makes them sound guilty of something, but that is the term used.
I did take note, but is there any good reason to favor this rather unintuitive legal term over the more intuitive “protected class”, unless perhaps we are discussing some more technical aspects of legal rulings rather than the underling moral and ethical principles?
Because you get people saying that everyone is a member of a protected class, but not everyone is a member of a suspect class. We are discussing the latter in this thread, not the former.
The distinction is that a “protected class” refers to a criterion, and we all fall somewhere under that criterion - we all have a race, for example, and in principle we are all protected from discrimination on that basis. Whereas the “suspect class” is (in the race example) the particular race or races that has historically been subject to widespread discrimination. Is that correct?
I didn’t refer in any way to an incident in 1964. I’m referring to the situation today, where blacks who attempt to take up residence in Vidor are chased out of town by the KKK. This situation is still current, as evidenced by the ludicrously small number of black people resident in Vidor right now.
From the wikipedia cite:
*Strict scrutiny is applied to government actions that affect groups that fall under a “suspect classification.” The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.
Some of the criteria that have been cited include:
The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
They possess an immutable or highly visible trait.
They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.)
The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.*
Allow me to point out the first flaw in your logic:
What evidence do you have that blacks have been trying to move into Vidor “today”?
There’s no straw in my side of the argument. I’ve been responding to the examples you presented.
And I haven’t dodged the questions you’ve asked. I’ve given you answers, even if you don’t like them.
I’ve explained several times why I think this argument is wrong. You may not agree with my answer but don’t say I didn’t give it.
If there is such a thing as a tradition of free speech (as opposed to a right of free speech) then I’ve been a nice guy in not invoking it. Because your argument is on the wrong side of such a tradition. I’m the guy saying people should be allowed to get their messages printed on t-shirts and you’re the guy saying they should be refused. Which of us is standing up for free speech here?
It’s me.
No, I actually said the exact opposite. If you go back and check, you’ll see I said that gay people are not a protected class in West Virginia and therefore the judge ruled correctly that they were not entitled to any legal recourse. And I pointed out that Nazis probably are a protected class in West Virginia and would therefore be entitled to legal protection in an equivalent situation.
Then, having noted what the law was, I argued that the law was wrong and should be changed.
With great ease. This has nothing to do with the right of free speech in the First Amendment. That says the government cannot restrict speech. This is a transaction between a private business and a private citizen.
It would be handled the same way as any other claim made about discrimination of a member of a protected class. There would be a legal hearing to establish if the event occurred, whether it was illegal, and whether if was the result of the individual’s membership in the protected class.
And now I need to acknowledge I have been wrong on one issue.
There are two current threads on this board concerning homosexuality as a protected class and I have been participating back and forth in both of them. And in doing so, I confused the details of the two separate cases.
The t-shirt case being discussed in this thread occurred in Kentucky. The other thread concerned a ruling in West Virginia. My apologies for any confusion I’ve caused.
That said, I stand by the underlying principles I stated here.
And let me add that I think the whole Vidor = sundown town is a hijack of this thread, so I’m going to drop it. Anyone who really wants to continue that discussion can open a thread about it, and I’ll jump in.