# Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement are overused, incorrect, and insulting. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105 "2013-12-11T21:25:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/181 "2013-12-20T18:33:04Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Why not? > > (I’m not inclined to care about differences between races–I’m more interested in why people justify keeping the significance of the differences between genders). Then maybe you could start another thread? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/182 "2013-12-20T18:34:46Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > This shows a misunderstanding of what we mean when we say race is a social construct. While there are biological differences between people, both historically and right up to this moment, “race” has been defined in arbitrary ways. People with wildly differing physical characteristics and genetic backgrounds have been lumped together (Danes and Slavs and Iranians as “white,” Bantu and Khoi-san and Australian Aboriginal as “black,” for some notorious examples). Of course they are arbitrary (and meaningless). Doesn’t mean they aren’t based on real, observed characteristics. Blondes are no different from the rest of us, and if we called “Blonde” a race, it would be arbitrary too, but blondes still have blonde hair. That’s all I’m saying. > [@](#): > > People from different genetic heritage do have minor phenotypical differences, but this has little or nothing to do with how “race” has been used, and the belief that it does is a major part of the reason racist assumptions still exist. Sure. The reason those minor differences have been used to make racist assumptions is because they aren’t so minor when it comes to appearance. Skin color is a tiny genetic variation with little functional difference, but it’s really obvious. People in different groups we call race look really different. I’m not saying it’s good science, just explaining why it happened. I’m basically agreeing with you. My concern was social differences we attached to physical differences, not the significance of the physical differences themselves, in the context of different-sex bathrooms and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/183 "2013-12-20T18:36:46Z")
I don’t have time to scroll back through three-plus pages, but I’d like to say I don’t care if people who support discrimination feel insulted. In fact, I like it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/184 "2013-12-20T18:37:04Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Then maybe you could start another thread? I think it’s on topic. I meant that comment to explain my question better. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/185 "2013-12-20T18:39:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, private clubs should be exempt from discrimination laws. People have the right to associate in their private lives with whom they choose, and this is how it should be. This isn’t exactly controversial. Then the problem is defining private vs. public. Suppose a restaurant in the South kept out blacks, until the law came along and declared that it can’t because it’s a public space. It declares itself a private club and starts handing out membership cards at the door, only to any white who enters, for free. What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/186 "2013-12-20T19:40:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Then the problem is defining private vs. public. > > Suppose a restaurant in the South kept out blacks, until the law came along and declared that it can’t because it’s a public space. It declares itself a private club and starts handing out membership cards at the door, only to any white who enters, for free. What’s the difference? In that case, the problem is defining _club_. What you’ve described is not a club; by giving memberships for free to all white applicants, the restaurant isn’t actually closed to the public in any meaningful way, and is thus not a private club. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/187 "2013-12-20T19:45:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In that case, the problem is defining _club_. What you’ve described is not a club; by giving memberships for free to all white applicants, the restaurant isn’t actually closed to the public in any meaningful way, and is thus not a private club. But now you’re dictating who the members can associate with! You’re saying they must close themselves to the public, save the members they choose to associate with, to qualify. I guess your beef is with their really easy application process, but that’s their business too, isn’t it? If they put a sign up that says “Whites Only Club” would that make it work for you? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/188 "2013-12-20T19:57:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But now you’re dictating who the members can associate with! No, they are not, and never are, barred from associating with someone. They may be barred from _excluding_ someone. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You’re saying they must close themselves to the public, save the members they choose to associate with, to qualify. Yes, to qualify for a private club exception, the organization must be a private club. A private club is (in part) defined by being closed to the public, the term only has meaning when contrasted to public facilities. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I guess your beef is with their really easy application process, but that’s their business too, isn’t it? Not when they are trying to qualify for an exception to the law. Consider the issue of churches being untaxed. Can I call my Valvoline Instant Oil Change franchise a church, and operate tax-free? No, there are criteria for qualifying as an untaxed religious organization. Is that infringing on my First Amendment rights? Maybe a tad, but it’s within the powers of Congress. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > If they put a sign up that says “Whites Only Club” would that make it work for you? Sure, as long as they actually operate as a private club, which involves certain characteristics, including but not limited to being closed to the public, having selective critera for membership, being member-owned and governed, and not operating for profit. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/189 "2013-12-20T20:43:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > No, they are not, and never are, barred from associating with someone. They may be barred from _excluding_ someone. That’s twisted logic. The right to associate includes the right not to. > [@](#): > > Yes, to qualify for a private club exception, the organization must be a private club. A private club is (in part) defined by being closed to the public, the term only has meaning when contrasted to public facilities. That’s a nice legal way to handle the problem, but it doesn’t get to my point, which is why do we make a distinction between public accommodation and private club in the first place? > [@](#): > > Consider the issue of churches being untaxed. Can I call my Valvoline Instant Oil Change franchise a church, and operate tax-free? No, there are criteria for qualifying as an untaxed religious organization. I understand, but I’d be interested in why we don’t tax churches and why we choose to tax other entities, if that were the discussion we are having. I’d be concerned that tax exempting churches means the government gets to determine what a legitimate religion is or isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/190 "2013-12-20T21:04:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s twisted logic. The right to associate includes the right not to. The right to associate does not include the right to exclude some people from your public business if they are in certain protected categories. > [@](#): > > That’s a nice legal way to handle the problem, but it doesn’t get to my point, which is why do we make a distinction between public accommodation and private club in the first place? By not including private clubs in the organizations that must abide by anti-discrimination laws, the right to associate (and not associate) with those you choose is preserved. > [@](#): > > I understand, but I’d be interested in why we don’t tax churches and why we choose to tax other entities, if that were the discussion we are having. I’d be concerned that tax exempting churches means the government gets to determine what a legitimate religion is or isn’t. I’d be perfectly fine with not exempting churches from taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/191 "2013-12-20T21:33:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s twisted logic. The right to associate includes the right not to. Generally, but not always, just as the right to free speech includes the right not to, but [not always.](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/required-disclosures-selling-real-estate-30027.html) [QUOTE=lance strongarm] That’s a nice legal way to handle the problem, but it doesn’t get to my point, which is why do we make a distinction between public accommodation and private club in the first place? [/quote] To balance the perceived public interest of citizens having access to accommodations without regard to race, religion, and etc, with the right to free assembly. It ensures that the restriction on freedom that the CRA Title II represents is as narrowly tailored as possible while still achieving the intended result. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I understand, but I’d be interested in why we don’t tax churches and why we choose to tax other entities, if that were the discussion we are having. I’d be concerned that tax exempting churches means the government gets to determine what a legitimate religion is or isn’t. That is a valid concern, but it naturally follows that taxing churches means the government gets to control them. The power to tax is the power to destroy, after all. Either approach has potential pitfalls. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/192 "2013-12-20T22:08:06Z")
[GOP congressional candidate compares Phil Robertson to Rosa Parks.](http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/oh-jesus-christ-on-a-soda-cracker-phil-robertson-compared-to-rosa-parks/) > [@](#): > > “In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians,” [Ian] Bayne said in an email to supporters. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/193 "2013-12-20T22:17:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The right to associate does not include the right to exclude some people from your public business if they are in certain protected categories. Okay. Why not? I’m pointing to the blurred lines (sometimes) between club and business. But I’m just being devil’s advocate. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/194 "2013-12-20T22:18:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Generally, but not always, just as the right to free speech includes the right not to, but [not always.](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/required-disclosures-selling-real-estate-30027.html) > > To balance the perceived public interest of citizens having access to accommodations without regard to race, religion, and etc, with the right to free assembly. It ensures that the restriction on freedom that the CRA Title II represents is as narrowly tailored as possible while still achieving the intended result. > > That is a valid concern, but it naturally follows that taxing churches means the government gets to control them. The power to tax is the power to destroy, after all. Either approach has potential pitfalls. Okay. You got me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/195 "2013-12-20T23:22:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay. > > Why not? > > I’m pointing to the blurred lines (sometimes) between club and business. But I’m just being devil’s advocate. Because that is part of the boundary that our legal system has determined is part of freedom of association as well as the responsibilities of running a business. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105.md?page=9)