# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/121 "2013-12-13T21:05:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think he’d be on firmer ground if he’d avoided the gay-rights comparison altogether, the OP included some other issues (“everything from voter ID laws to Food Stamps”…), but the discussion has centered exclusively on gay rights, precisely because it is such an apt comparison. If he avoided the gay rights comparison, this thread wouldn’t exist in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/122 "2013-12-13T21:07:49Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If 51% of the population wants a local business to discriminate against Asians, then it’s more profitable for a business to seek\* that \*custom. The profit motivation doesn’t just go one way. But if 51% of the population wants the government to discriminate against Asians, then it’s better for a politician to seek the support of that group, so that’s hardly a reason to prefer political control over businesses to letting the businesses control themselves. Right now, as we debate this, the governments of many states do actively discriminate against Asians. By contrast, no businesses that I know of show the slightest desire to do so, or give any indication that they would even if it were legal. So among those of us who agree that racial discrimination is always wrong, businesses look pretty good and government looks pretty bad. Of course, the plain fact of the matter is that those who support affirmative action but claim to be against racial discrimination hold a contradictory position. Affirmative action is a type of racial discrimination. Right now in many states, it’s illegal for a baker or any other business person to clearly treat any race better than any other, and also illegal for public universities _not_ to do so. I believe that it should be exactly the other way around. Ending racial discrimination at public universities is the government’s job, while ending racial discrimination by bakers is not. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/123 "2013-12-13T21:19:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But if 51% of the population wants the government to discriminate against Asians, then it’s better for a politician to seek the support of that group, so that’s hardly a reason to prefer political control over businesses to letting the businesses control themselves. So are you then agreeing that, on this measure, political and private control are equal on this basis? Just so i’m clear if you’re actually conceding this point, since your argument here relies upon that. > [@](#): > > Right now, as we debate this, the governments of many states do actively discriminate against Asians. By contrast, no businesses that I know of show the slightest desire to do so, or give any indication that they would even if it were legal. So among those of us who agree that racial discrimination is always wrong, businesses look pretty good and government looks pretty bad. Are you honestly arguing that we can accurately judge what businesses do nationwide by your _own personal experience_? I mean, of all the Christians i’ve met, over half of them were unpleasant people. By that measure, will you simply accept that half of all Christians are unpleasant? Or would you put that down, reasonably, to the fact that the personal experience of a single person is a godawful basis to declare that you understand what happens to \*all \*people in a country? I’m white. If I had been alive and lived in the US during the '50s and '60s, I likely would have had an excellent experience with little-to-no discrimination. So, Civil Rights were pointless, right?\* I \*wouldn’t experience any problems, and I can generalise to all people, right? Because that’s your “Well, gosh, I haven’t seen any businesses discriminate against Asians, therefore none of them do!” argument means we have to accept. > [@](#): > > Of course, the plain fact of the matter is that those who support affirmative action but claim to be against racial discrimination hold a contradictory position. Affirmative action is a type of racial discrimination. Right now in many states, it’s illegal for a baker or any other business person to clearly treat any race better than any other, and also illegal for public universities _not_ to do so. I believe that it should be exactly the other way around. Ending racial discrimination at public universities is the government’s job, while ending racial discrimination by bakers is not. This is simply stating what you believe. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/124 "2013-12-13T21:42:24Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So are you then agreeing that, on this measure, political and private control are equal on this basis? Just so i’m clear if you’re actually conceding this point, since your argument here relies upon that. No. Private control is much better. Imagine we’re in a hypothetical country where Asians are 10% of the population, while 51% of the population wants to see Asians discriminated against. From a political standpoint, it’s a good idea to discriminate against Asians. You get the most votes that way. From a business standpoint, it’s not. Each Asian has some money, and if you’re willing to sell to an Asian, you can make money from them. Even if the 51% would prefer that you discriminate against Asians, it’s unlikely that they’d leave your business en masse. Most people buy from the business that they perceive as having the best products, regardless of whether that business shares their prejudices or lack thereof. But not so in politics. That’s the fundamental difference between government and business. It’s been said, “a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” Likewise for a government that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit. It doesn’t lose any tax money from Peter, because Peter is forced to pay taxes. But a business that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit loses Peter’s business, because Peter can choose not to shop there. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/125 "2013-12-13T21:48:43Z")
Well, there’s a quick and easy acid test, isn’t there ? After a round of boycott, then counter-boycott, did Chick-fil-A lose money, gain some or break even ? > [@Wiki](#): > > In response to the controversy, former Arkansas Governor [Mike Huckabee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee) initiated a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day movement to counter a boycott of Chick-fil-A launched by same-sex marriage activists.[[52]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#cite_note-abcnews.go.com-52)[[53]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#cite_note-latimes.com-53)[[54]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#cite_note-guardian.co.uk-54) More than 600,000 people RSVPed on Facebook for Huckabee’s appreciation event.[[53]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#cite_note-latimes.com-53) […] A consulting firm estimated that the average Chick-fil-A restaurant had 29.9 percent more sales and 367 more customers than on a typical Wednesday.[[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#cite_note-ocr20120811-1) Hurray, invisible hand ! ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/126 "2013-12-13T21:56:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well, there’s a quick and easy acid test, isn’t there ? After a round of boycott, then counter-boycott, did Chick-fil-A lose money, gain some or break even ? > > Hurray, invisible hand ! This is really worth stressing. When the free market was asked the question _“Should we murder people just because they’re gay?”_ the answer it returned was _“HELL YES!”_. The free market doesn’t solve shit, and anyone who relies on it is just shrugging their shoulders at violence. Which is pretty consistent with ITR Champion’s previous opinions on civil liberties, like how “supporting freedom of religion” involves cheering when the places of worship of people with different religions are burned down. Free market solution supporters are always for more violence. ---
**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 13, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/127 "2013-12-13T22:00:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > A strong case can be made that such mandatory discrimination is worse than private discrimination, because as **ITR** argues, it can’t be escaped by shopping around. This same uniformity, however, means that once the law _is_ changed, the public discrimination is ended in one fell swoop. By their nature, private entites are more numerous and varied and resistant to uniformity. Right. An equally strong case can be made that mandatory non-discrimination is better because it cannot be escaped by being a giant dick. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/128 "2013-12-13T22:04:38Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Are you honestly arguing that we can accurately judge what businesses do nationwide by your _own personal experience_? No, I am not. > [@](#): > > This is simply stating what you believe. Yes, it is. > [@Karrius](#): > > ITR Champion’s previous opinions on civil liberties, like how “supporting freedom of religion” involves cheering when the places of worship of people with different religions are burned down. That is not one of my previous opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/129 "2013-12-13T22:05:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Imagine we’re in a hypothetical country where Asians are 10% of the population, while 51% of the population wants to see Asians discriminated against. From a political standpoint, it’s a good idea to discriminate against Asians. You get the most votes that way. From a business standpoint, it’s not. Each Asian has some money, and if you’re willing to sell to an Asian, you can make money from them. Even if the 51% would prefer that you discriminate against Asians, it’s unlikely that they’d leave your business en masse. Most people buy from the business that they perceive as having the best products, regardless of whether that business shares their prejudices or lack thereof. But not so in politics. …you don’t seem to understand how business and the free market works. If I live in a country of 1 million people, I don’t need to target 1 million customers. I’m a photographer, and I only need about 150 customers every year to make a healthy profit. I can happily ignore almost every target segment and still make money. So if I wasn’t willing to sell to Asians (but I can assure you that I most certainly would!) I wouldn’t have to and could be happily profitable without their business. And so would everyone else. I don’t need every potential customer. I only need a few. And I can get those few customers without getting a single Asian customer. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/130 "2013-12-13T22:17:16Z")
The takeaway I’m getting is that ITR is so afraid that governments might do bad that he ignores every instance in which governments do good. It takes a whole lot of ignorance to get from “the government sometimes discriminate” to “the government will always discriminate” and ignore all of the examples where government ends discrimination. ITR, you need to accept that we don’t live in the wild west anymore, and any time government flexes its power on the issue of civil rights, its to grant more rights and protect more minorities and not the other way around. And please don’t reply with that god awful link on Affirmative Action and Asians, that’s been proven wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/131 "2013-12-13T22:19:21Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > This is really worth stressing. When the free market was asked the question _“Should we murder people just because they’re gay?”_ the answer it returned was _“HELL YES!”_. The free market doesn’t solve shit, and anyone who relies on it is just shrugging their shoulders at violence. Which is pretty consistent with ITR Champion’s previous opinions on civil liberties, like how “supporting freedom of religion” involves cheering when the places of worship of people with different religions are burned down. Free market solution supporters are always for more violence. Oh, for fucks sake. Nonsense like this is not helping. Please stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/132 "2013-12-13T22:20:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No. Private control is much better. > > Imagine we’re in a hypothetical country where Asians are 10% of the population, while 51% of the population wants to see Asians discriminated against. From a political standpoint, it’s a good idea to discriminate against Asians. You get the most votes that way. From a business standpoint, it’s not. Each Asian has some money, and if you’re willing to sell to an Asian, you can make money from them. Even if the 51% would prefer that you discriminate against Asians, it’s unlikely that they’d leave your business en masse. Most people buy from the business that they perceive as having the best products, regardless of whether that business shares their prejudices or lack thereof. But not so in politics. Again, with the rational behaviour thing. Racism isn’t rational. Racists are, by definition, not rational. And a lot of racists, if they were in favour of discriminating against Asians, would actually follow that behaviour in their lives. And i’d add even on top of that that I strongly suspect that racists would percieve that a shop which catered to Asians would likely have worse products because of that. Again, because they’re irrational holders of irrational beliefs. And the same argument works both ways. If 51% wants to see Asians discriminated against, that doesn’t mean that they would vote for it. If it does - if we can assume that people vote with their actions - then we can also assume they wouldn’t patronise a store that services Asian people either. Profit (or bargains, or better products, or whatever) are not a magical racism bypassing tool. > [@](#): > > That’s the fundamental difference between government and business. It’s been said, “a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” Likewise for a government that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit. It doesn’t lose any tax money from Peter, because Peter is forced to pay taxes. But a business that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit loses Peter’s business, because Peter can choose not to shop there. And a business that doesn’t discriminate against Peter can gain Paul’s business, because Paul can choose not to shop there. Works both ways! There’s no fundamental difference between government and business in the way you’re drawing, because the free market isn’t free of taint by personal preference. Business owners, and customers, make irrational decisions. Again, for which one piece of evidence was in the original OP. It happens. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/133 "2013-12-13T22:31:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No, I am not. Let’s quote, just for clarity. [QUOTE=You] Right now, as we debate this, the governments of many states do actively discriminate against Asians. By contrast, no businesses **that I know of** show the slightest desire to do so, or give any indication that they would even if it were legal.\*\* So among those of us who agree that racial discrimination is always wrong, businesses look pretty good and government looks pretty bad\*\*. [/QUOTE] My bolding. You’re generalising from your own personal experience (citing businesses that you, personally, know of) and declaring that to be the case for “those of us who agree that…”) You’re comparing what “the governments of many states do” against, again, your own personal experience of just the businesses you know do. That is _exactly_ generalising from your own personal experience to nationwide. You are saying businesses look pretty good to people, because hey, \*you \*haven’t seen any problems of this kind! It is the same argument as a white person in 50’s America saying, you know what, i’ve never been treated in a racist or discriminatory way, therefore the US to those of us who think racial discrimination is always wrong looks really good. Because _they’ve_ never seen any negative effects of it - they don’t exist! ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/134 "2013-12-13T22:32:56Z")
Conservatives have specifically shown they are willing to spend _more_ money if it means hurting minorities. How does that effect your “Well, businesses will just be even-handed and fair to make money” calculation, ITR? ---
**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 13, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/135 "2013-12-13T22:33:54Z")
Also, there doesn’t have to be 51% racists in the country for a business to profit from being racist… there just has to be 51% racists _among their customers_. Ever hear of sundown towns? If 51% of a little tiny town in the middle of nowhere is racist, then their businesses might profit from discriminating. Suppose everytime a black/asian family drives through and stops for gas/lunch/hotel room/etc, the business owners say “sorry, we’re full/closed/etc”… that _really happened_, and in very recent history (like the last few decades). Sundown towns should not be legal. From what I understand of your position, **ITR Champion** , it would allow sundown towns to be legal, as long as 51% of the town was fine with it. To make this closer to the OP, your position would allow sundown towns for gay couples, for example, to be legal, provided the majority of the town was OK with it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/136 "2013-12-13T22:40:38Z")
I mean, flip it around. Let’s say that we want to buy a TV. Imagine everywhere, each and every store in the entire country stocks shitty, terrible TVs that only show black and white, frequently lose picture, and the price is uniformly highly expensive. One store in the entire nation stocks great, HD-quality, cheap TVs; it is run by the Phelps clan. Is there anyone in this thread who would, if they had to buy a TV, buy it from Phelps Co.? How about Jeffrey Dahmer? I know I wouldn’t. Would\*\* ITR\*\*? That would be the _rational_ thing to do. Taking into account product quality and price and all those lovely things that magically make everyone ignore their own personal beliefs. ---
**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 13, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/137 "2013-12-13T22:47:02Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I mean, flip it around. Let’s say that we want to buy a TV. Imagine everywhere, each and every store in the entire country stocks shitty, terrible TVs that only show black and white, frequently lose picture, and the price is uniformly highly expensive. One store in the entire nation stocks great, HD-quality, cheap TVs; it is run by the Phelps clan. > > Is there anyone in this thread who would, if they had to buy a TV, buy it from Phelps Co.? How about Jeffrey Dahmer? I know I wouldn’t. Would\*\* ITR\*\*? That would be the _rational_ thing to do. Taking into account product quality and price and all those lovely things that magically make everyone ignore their own personal beliefs. Is it 4K? Because I might buy one of those from Hitler if it were cheap enough. Or Walmart, which is worse. ---
**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 13, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/138 "2013-12-13T23:28:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Right. An equally strong case can be made that mandatory non-discrimination is better because it cannot be escaped by being a giant dick. Well, yeah. Noting that public discrimination is potentially more harmful than private isn’t, by itself, an argument that private discrimination should be legal. If it’s to be defended, it must be on its own merits. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/139 "2013-12-13T23:43:11Z")
I thought it would be interesting to put these two posts from **ITR** next to each other. The bolding is mine. > [@ITR champion in post 68](#): > > Well I think it might as well be; what I’m against is anyone who objects to a supposed “civil right” to force a baker to bake a cake being compared, directly or indirectly, to politicians and white supremacists from the segregated South. I think that if the government wanted to make life better for Blacks or anyone else, its resources would be better spent fighting violent crime, improving education, and building infrastructure, rather than managing the schedule of bakers for any reason (except food safety). So in response to the question **jsgoddess** asked: yes. Though I’m sure some people will try to misrepresent what I’m saying, I’ve already made clear that I’m opposed to any use of violence to remove blacks or any other group from any public place, as happened 60 years ago. But that’s a different question from whether a black or any other group should be able to legally force a baker to make a cake. Regarding that, “The merchants will manage commerce the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves.” **The market would react swiftly to a baker who refused to serve Blacks without any need for the law to be involved.** > [@ITR champion in post 124](#): > > No. Private control is much better. > > Imagine we’re in a hypothetical country where Asians are 10% of the population, while 51% of the population wants to see Asians discriminated against. From a political standpoint, it’s a good idea to discriminate against Asians. You get the most votes that way. From a business standpoint, it’s not. Each Asian has some money, and if you’re willing to sell to an Asian, you can make money from them. **Even if the 51% would prefer that you discriminate against Asians, it’s unlikely that they’d leave your business en masse. Most people buy from the business that they perceive as having the best products, regardless of whether that business shares their prejudices or lack thereof.** But not so in politics. > > That’s the fundamental difference between government and business. It’s been said, “a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” Likewise for a government that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit. It doesn’t lose any tax money from Peter, because Peter is forced to pay taxes. But a business that discriminates against Peter to Paul’s benefit loses Peter’s business, because Peter can choose not to shop there. Note how he goes from arguing that people would deliberately not shop at a store that violates their sense of right and wrong in the first post, thus invalidating the need for civil rights legislation, and then turns around and argues that people wouldn’t really care about shopping at a store that violated their sense of right and wrong, thus invalidating the need for civil rights legislation. Care to explain the contradiction there, **ITR**? Are consumers guided in their shopping habits by their morals, or not? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105/140 "2013-12-14T00:13:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The Alabama statutues that required segregation in buses can be read [here.](http://www.blackpast.org/primary/browder-v-gayle-1956) No, that can’t be right. After all, conservatives are insisting this has nothing to do with racism. They claim on and on that the only reason they oppose civil rights is because they object to the idea of the government interfering with the rights of business owners. So surely these staunch defenders of business owner rights would have been up in arms if Alabama had enacted a law interfering with the way bus companies ran their business. These conservatives would have been out there demanding that the government back down and allow bus companies to seat whoever they wanted to. For them to have stood by and not protested would have revealed all their later complaints to be nothing but rank hypocrisy. Okay, enough. Some southern governments (like Montgomery) enacted laws requiring segregation. Some southern governments did not. Some (like Baton Rouge) even enacted local laws _prohibiting_ some forms of segregation. But the result was always the same: blacks were segregated into second class facilities. It happened even in cases where the law might prohibit it because local whites just ignored anti-segregation laws. Segregation continued until the federal government stepped in and forced local communities to integrate. Which was, of course, completely legal. The Constitution says so: _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States_ and _nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_ and _The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article_. So this is not a state rights issue; the states lost that right in 1868 and a state trying to enact segregation is illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comparisons-to-the-civil-rights-movement-are-overused-incorrect-and-insulting/676105.md?page=8)