He directly said that when presented with a crowd cheering and yelling in celebration at the mention of a mosque burning down “I don’t see anything that would constitute a lack of freedom of religion”.
It’s not that he didn’t post a condemnation, it’s that he said those types of people are all for freedom of religion, and when proven otherwise , he shrugged his shoulders and said “I see nothing wrong there”.
Now, he’s in here bringing in random bits of bigotry and claiming that just because 91% of cases of attempting to buy a house involve discrimination, that doesn’t mean anyone is really being locked out of finding a place to live.
This is after in a previous thread on this subject he was quoted as saying directly contradictory things in the same thread, and when called on it, he once more left the thread and refuses to acknowledged it.
So I am just going to repeat my question to him - what level of hate, of discrimination, of bigotry, do you find unacceptable and worth stepping in for? How far do people have to be pushed out of communities for you to care?
Face it - no matter what they claim how they “really feel”, the “property rights” people are all for ensuring that communities can be made whites-only. They wouldn’t have self contradictory arguments that ignore evidence.
(PDF)Studies shown that yes, racial discrimination still exists in terms of housing even though it’s illegal. To make it illegal again would be to make it worse, as it could be more widespread, and would have no checks on it. There would be places where people could not find homes or forced into places they may not want to live just because of racists. I encourage the people who think otherwise to show any sort of facts to the contrary.
Yes, though not exactly under the same context. There’s a paper called “Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies”. It’s pretty involved reading, but it examines ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ societies. The model that they build requires collectivist societies to be those that appoint trade agents and trust only those agents that belong to the culture. ‘Individualists’ trade with and trust agents from outside the culture also. Their model predicts that the culture that trades with outside agents will out compete the one that does not, if they are both competing with each other. It offers as evidence the Maghribi and Genoese traders from the eleventh/twelfth century, ad examines that case(the Genoese won out, as predicted by the model). It’s a pretty well recognised and cited paper. For what it’s worth.
Trespassing? Through a door and a sign that no doubt says “Open?”
I suspect a cop would say “Throw them out? Why?” Actually in your favored scenario the cop would probably arrest the four on some charge or other. Any government that helps enforce not allowing someone to EWB would be racist. A non-racist government would say, “your problem. Feed them and they will go away. And don’t call again, Lester.”
If a guy cared about his property rights he wouldn’t invite anyone from the street in.
“African American travelers regularly carried buckets or portable toiletsin their car trunks because service station bathrooms and roadside rest areas were usually closed to them.”
From the same link: “Black motorists also found it difficult to find places to stay: most roadside motels–north and south–refused to admit blacks. Diners and fine restaurants alike regularly turned away black customers.”
Further: “it wasn’t uncommon for African American travelers to pack meals, blankets and even containers of gasoline in their cars for long trips.”
According to James Loewen’s book Sundown Towns, by the end of the 1960s there were at least 10,000 (ten thousand!) sundown towns in the country. In Illinois, for example, over half the incorporated communities were sundown towns. Only 6% of the hotels in Albuquerque along Route 66 allowed black people to stay!
Do you really, honestly see this as ‘small potatoes’? Was this just a minor inconvenience for black people? I hope your eyes are able to open just a little bit, and admit to yourself that it was not just state actors that were terribly oppressive (and, indeed, violent) towards black people in our history.
But I asked this of someone who claim to support property rights, but who also asked “What the hell is a human right?” indicating that he supports the subset, but not the greater set of human rights. The separation is not mine, but his.
Ok, fair enough. This issue amounts to a balancing of rights, so I feel it’s important to recognize that property rights are a human right too.
For what it’s worth, I took this:
…as support for a natural-rights position, as opposed to one where rights are defined by the people and differ over time, and not outright rejection of non-property human rights. Perhaps WillFarnaby can clarify.
Not that it really changes anything, there is no question that remaining on private property after you’ve been asked to leave is trespassing. Even if you’ve been invited in.
(Just coming in isn’t trepassing, but remaining after being asked to leave is almost certainly trespassing).
The OP doesn’t make a compelling case. He points to an example of one idiotic restaurant owner and concludes that Jim Crow and sundown towns would return with a vengeance should the CRA be repealed. It simply does not follow.
Laws are passed (or kept on the books) to prevent problems that are more that minimal or apply only to kooks. I’m not sure that I would advocate full repeal of the 64 CRA, but in the intervening fifty years, society has changed (and yes, it has changed in large part because of the law). To say that if the law were repealed tomorrow that segregated water fountains, restaurants, and refusal of service at hotels to black people would return with full force is without any evidentiary support at all.
A good example of this is discrimination against gay people. It’s perfectly legal in most states and at the federal level. How many businesses openly refuse service to gay people? And yes, I’m sure someone can post a link from Bettesburg, KS about the Sunstop Hotel refusing service, but I’m talking about a significant problem that needs legal action.
I think that if the CRA was repealed tomorrow and the Days Inn in Norcross, GA refused service to a black family, it would make the national news and be met with scorn and derision, even in the southern states.
I’m not absolutely certain it would. But this one restaurant shows that the arguments that the market would crush such businesses is false. It also shows that some communities would welcome the opportunity to discriminate, even if it’s just a small number.
I’m not saying they would return with full force. I’m saying that without the protections of the CRA (which we, apparently, agree should stay on the books), it’s likely that some communities might return to something similar to sundown towns, in which black people are not welcome or even able to conduct day-to-day business in some neighborhoods or communities.
I hope so, and I think that’s likely. I also think that there are many people and even majorities in some communities who would welcome such scorn and derision if it meant they could return to discriminating the way they did in the past.
Funny you should mention that. At the University of Missouri there’s a young man named Michael Sam. He’s an All-American defensive end and was projected to go as high as the third round in the NFL draft.
On Sunday Michael Sam publicly announced he was gay. He had come out to his teammates in August. That revelation had caused no tumult in the locker room, as evidenced by Missouri having its best season in decades.
On Monday, it was widely predicted that Sam’s prospects in the NFL draft would drop considerably. And the lower the place in the draft, the lower the contract.
The NFL is notably ruthless when it comes to evaluating talent, and teams have been known to draft convicted felons and players with known drug problems. Of course, we won’t actually know until the draft takes place in May, but as of today, it seems that an acknowledged good player will likely not be able to sell his services at a fair market value because he is gay.
Let’s stipulate that the teams will not draft him because he is gay (which, AFAIU, is not certain. He’s not that great a player). What kind of legislation would you suggest that would prevent such an outcome? A quota of gay players in the NFL? Separate draft of gay players to make sure some make it through?
When did I claim that? I don’t recall claiming any such thing.
Well, I’m opposed to Barack Obama’s mass slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East using drones. I’m opposed to the Obama administration’s attack on the religious freedom of Catholics. I’m opposed to the type of racial and gender discrimination known as “affirmative action”. I’m opposed to the war on drugs, which has far worse consequences for black and Hispanics than other races. I’m opposed to the segregationist policies that southern Democrats had in place during the Jim Crow era. I’m opposed to the segregationist policies employed by Democrats such as Richard Daley in northern cities to keep blacks out of the majority of the city. I’m opposed to more recent Democrats such as Coleman Young who have deliberately driven away whites. I think of all of these actions should have been illegal.
There is no way to 100% prevent that type of outcome, but if it were illegal to discriminate wrt sexual orientation, he would have the ability to sue. It might be a difficult case to prove, but it would probably make the NFL teams more reluctant to discriminate.
Same is if they didn’t draft him because he is black.
This seems to me like a rather poor argument. The NFL sells entertainment. Entertainment companies hire or refuse to hire based on whether they think a certain person will provide what the customers are looking for. Such decisions naturally involve questions of race, religion, gender, age, etc…, Civil Rights Act or no Civil Rights Act, so how could anyone expect that sexual orientation would have no effect on a person’s marketability in the entertainment world?
The argument is whether the free market has made civil rights legislation unnecessary. Michael Sam’s talents were considered to be at one level when he was presumed to be straight and another level now that he’s known to be gay. The fact that it happens in other segments of business does not make it appropriate.