Then maybe you could start another thread?
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.
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.
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.
I think it’s on topic. I meant that comment to explain my question better.
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.
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?
No, they are not, and never are, barred from associating with someone. They may be barred from excluding someone.
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.
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.
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.
That’s twisted logic. The right to associate includes the right not to.
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?
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.
The right to associate does not include the right to exclude some people from your public business if they are in certain protected categories.
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’d be perfectly fine with not exempting churches from taxes.
Generally, but not always, just as the right to free speech includes the right not to, but not always.
[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.
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.
Why not?
I’m pointing to the blurred lines (sometimes) between club and business. But I’m just being devil’s advocate.
Okay. You got me.
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.