Fox News poll on civil rights law

[werepossum]

A lot of this is common sense and deals with power. White males are judged to be the most powerful group, followed by males in general, then white females, and so on. Therefore Hooters can discriminate against men if they can show a valid business reason and demonstrate minimal effect on those seeking work in that field, and Curves can serve only female clientele, but neither would be able to do so if they were the only such business in the area. A hypothetical Chalkies would not be able to hire only white wait staff for the same general business model, whereas Zululand might be okay with not hiring white wait staff if they had a strong African motif going. Business accommodation is a higher bar though; Curves can demonstrate a compelling business model for serving only women, but neither of our hypothetical Hooters clones would be allowed to serve only whites or non-whites as neither could demonstrate a legitimate non-racist reason for the public to need such accommodation.

Warts and all, our current system is probably the best we can do, much as it hurts my libertarian core to say it. While I don't think the country would return to Jim Crow-type segregation if all government intervention stopped, I can see small pockets of businesses springing up serving only whites or only blacks or only Hispanics. That kind of societal stress and division is probably not worth the increased freedom.

 

[theeedude]

I think 70% of Fox viewers would say yes to "No, the federal government shouldn't decide whether ____" no matter what you fill in the blank.

 

[Infohawk]

His reason is valid. You just pick race as your point of contention. What about the other factors that the gubment says you can't discriminate based on. Gender? Religion?

If people want to live in a free society they have to accept the good AND the bad of that freedom. That means people are free to deny service to whomever they want.

Just like if I was going to sell puppies. I wouldn't sell them to someone I knew was going to abuse them or raise them for dog fighting.
In business ultimately it is my property that I am selling and I get to choose who can purchase it regardless of their differences to me.

Put it this way. Would it be OK for a black man to refuse to sell an Obama doll to a white guy wearing a klan outfit and a carrying a can of gas anda lighter?

I think gender depends on the situation. One should be able to discriminate on religion as its a choice. Your puppy example is ridiculous and is not relevant. Neither is the klan guy. Neither of those are about race.

 

[Infohawk]

The hamster in your head fell off its wheel. There are clear differences between races too. It's not the "clear differences" that legitimize a form of discrimination and you know it. After all, if that were actually your standard you would be on the opposite side of the race question (unless you meant something different by "clear differences" - perhaps not morphological differences but some of the softer social differences between the genders that are vociferously denied, yet accepted with a wink and a nudge by feminists). Once you surrender unilateral consistency (as you do by admitting discrimination based on gender and not race) then the only standard is ideological fashionability, and nothing more.

Might I propose a more defensible standard (IMHO) for discrimination? Perhaps the nature of the discrimination shouldn't be the focus but rather the nature of the service, specifically the necessity of the service. Yes this is still a "soft" (i.e. socially determined) standard, but it gives a reasonably clear impetus to mandate non-discrimination for utilities, groceries, pharmacies, lodging, etc. while keeping government out of the business of shutting down Curves, Augusta, fraternities, and the like.

There is no contradiction between not supporting gender discrimination in all cases and being against racial discrimination. Racial differences are much more superficial than gender differences.

 

[nonlnear]

There is no contradiction between not supporting gender discrimination in all cases and being against racial discrimination. Racial differences are much more superficial than gender differences.

Basically there is no contradiction because you say there isn't one. The "these aren't the droids you're looking for" defense. Very compelling.

What exactly do you mean by superficial? That sounds like weasel words for "I choose to attach significance to these differences and not those differences and I reject any attempts to pin down my real justification because I have no sensible rationale other than ideological fashion." There might be a case to be made there, but I'm going to have to see you actually make it rather than just allude to it.

 

[rjl]

BTW, men also go to Curves so it doesn't even count.

What sort of a man would go to Curves?

 

[rjl]

As near as I can tell curves is women only. Even their website says they are created specifically for women. Curves was created so women could go work out without being bothered by men.

Their moto:
“no makeup, no men, and no mirrors”



If catering to wome is ok, is catering to men ok? If catering to one is ok, then catering to each group should be ok. We cant have some people be more equal than others.

Curves is really for fat chicks. It's a place where they can go and not feel self-conscious while working out...before quitting three weeks after they join.

 

[Red Dawn]

What sort of a man would go to Curves?

A Chubby Chaser?

 

[Infohawk]

Basically there is no contradiction because you say there isn't one. The "these aren't the droids you're looking for" defense. Very compelling.

What exactly do you mean by superficial? That sounds like weasel words for "I choose to attach significance to these differences and not those differences and I reject any attempts to pin down my real justification because I have no sensible rationale other than ideological fashion." There might be a case to be made there, but I'm going to have to see you actually make it rather than just allude to it.

Skin is literally superficial. Having different internal organs and hormonal patterns is not. It's not that complicated.

Maybe you can educate me on how races are so different.

 

[nonlnear]

Skin is literally superficial. Having different internal organs and hormonal patterns is not. It's not that complicated.

Maybe you can educate me on how races are so different.

The most striking of the physical differences is height,but other obvious proportional differences that go along with that (weight, bone proportion, etc.). Put a Masai tribesman and an Eskimo woman beside each other and tell me that skin is the only difference. It's pure ROFL. Then there are marked differences in propensity for various diseases and conditions like sickle cell anemia, and even alcoholism. With alcoholism I'm not talking about cultural trends but a real physiological differences in how some groups metabolize (and thus tolerate) alcohol. But carry on with your trivializing notion that the only difference between racial and ethnic groups are color (and I'll grant facial features, etc. as also falling in your "superficial" category). It is simply untrue.

A better case against discrimination is built upon a notion of moral equality, but that's a tricky case to make. To be clear I wasn't arguing that the subtler "non superficial" differences form an a priori defense of discrimination - only that they make it more difficult to make the quick hand-waving "superficial" argument stand up to scrutiny.

By your apparent standard for superficiality, I don't see what is SO much less superficial about the differences between the genders. Or if I am misinterpreting and misapplying your interpretation of superficial, then how do you propose to handle hermaphrodites and all the other "doesn't quite fit one of the labels" people? There are more of them than most people think, you know. And no this isn't a ridiculous question - after all, these differences are NOT superficial, right? So how then is the bouncer at the door supposed to judge this SOOOO non-superficial trait by anything other than a superficial standard? It's a tougher case to make than you realized...

 

[Rainsford]

Curves is really for fat chicks. It's a place where they can go and not feel self-conscious while working out...before quitting three weeks after they join.

Maybe, but I can see another reason that would appeal to many women. I go to the gym regularly, and quite often when I'm there, I see a few guys treating it like a place to pick up chicks instead of a place to work out. I can't say for sure since I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect many, if not most of the women there could do without that sort of thing.

 

[Rainsford]

A lot of this is common sense and deals with power. White males are judged to be the most powerful group, followed by males in general, then white females, and so on. Therefore Hooters can discriminate against men if they can show a valid business reason and demonstrate minimal effect on those seeking work in that field, and Curves can serve only female clientele, but neither would be able to do so if they were the only such business in the area. A hypothetical Chalkies would not be able to hire only white wait staff for the same general business model, whereas Zululand might be okay with not hiring white wait staff if they had a strong African motif going. Business accommodation is a higher bar though; Curves can demonstrate a compelling business model for serving only women, but neither of our hypothetical Hooters clones would be allowed to serve only whites or non-whites as neither could demonstrate a legitimate non-racist reason for the public to need such accommodation.

Warts and all, our current system is probably the best we can do, much as it hurts my libertarian core to say it. While I don't think the country would return to Jim Crow-type segregation if all government intervention stopped, I can see small pockets of businesses springing up serving only whites or only blacks or only Hispanics. That kind of societal stress and division is probably not worth the increased freedom.

I think history is the big difference here. White men aren't just arbitrarily determined to be the most powerful group NOW, it's based on a lot of history of that being a very true fact of life. As a while male, a gym that refuses me entry doesn't remind me of a time when I couldn't go in most businesses, because that time never existed. Sure, it's important to not move towards a future where we all segregate, but the symbolism for individual businesses is much different for me than it would be for a woman, or someone with darker skin.

That's why I tend to disagree with the notion that all discrimination, segregation, etc, is perfectly equal. You could make the argument that it might be equal today, but everything comes with historical baggage. And as much as we might like to ignore that, I honestly don't think we can.

 

[shortylickens]

By and large I think businesses should run themselves, including who to serve or not serve.
Is there potential for abuse?
Hells yes.

But thats a million times better than the government running things which pretty much ensures failure.

 

[Infohawk]

...

You're really trying to compare the differences in race to the differences in sex? Are you familiar with x and y chromosomes? Women can grow fetuses in their wombs. Men cannot. There is no racial difference that is as significant.

Anyway, let me make myself clear and get back on topic. I don't think an accounting firm should be able to discriminate against women on account of gender. There are limited situations where the sexes should be treated differently, and this is usually in cases directly related to sexual differences like maternity.

 

[nonlnear]

You're really trying to compare the differences in race to the differences in sex? Are you familiar with x and y chromosomes? Women can grow fetuses in their wombs. Men cannot. There is no racial difference that is as significant.

Don't worry, we do agree on the obvious points here. [this part removed after I read and responded to your last line. No need to prepare the coup de grâce when this wasn't where you were going anyways!]

Anyway, let me make myself clear and get back on topic. I don't think an accounting firm should be able to discriminate against women on account of gender.

Gender discrimination happens all the time and it's virtually impossible to detect - EEO forms and government statistical tracking tools be damned. I assume then that you are saying as a matter of government policy that they shouldn't be "able" to. That's all well and good, but such laws are only useful in the most egregiously obvious cases of workplace discrimination.

There are limited situations where the sexes should be treated differently, and this is usually in cases directly related to sexual differences like maternity.

Oh...

If this kind of narrow policy arena is all you were getting at originally I think I may have misinterpreted your point to be something much broader than you intended. I thought you were arguing for justifying gender discrimination in very broad settings for private establishments but outlawing discrimination for such groups on other grounds. Was I wrong? In the light of this comment I think I really might have been...

 

[piasabird]

Government only wastes money it collects. Government uses the money to bribe their supporters.

 

[Argo]

Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Not because they receive government benefits, but because if we cannot engage in commerce with each other we really have absolutely nothing that binds us together as countrymen.

Why not? If somebody wants to open a "whites only" store, I have absolutely zero problem with it. If the business is stupid enough to cut off large percentage of their clientèle (I for one would refuse to shop in a store like that) it's their right.

A stupid owner like that will be out of business in matter of weeks.

 

[Narmer]

Why not? If somebody wants to open a "whites only" store, I have absolutely zero problem with it. If the business is stupid enough to cut off large percentage of their clientèle (I for one would refuse to shop in a store like that) it's their right.

A stupid owner like that will be out of business in matter of weeks.

Not in the South.

 

[Amused]

Not in the South.

Wow, mythical stereotypes are fun, huh?

I spent the better part of the last 20 years living in GA. SC and NC and can tell you any store that went "whites only" would fail.

I love how people think "whites only" was all a personal choice and not forced by Jim Crow law in a majority of cases.

The vast majority of businesses would not cut off a signifigant % of thier business. Not only would they lose minority business, but a VAST number of whites would stop going too. It would be death.

 

[silverpig]

That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. If there are, they won't get as much business. I fully supported Augusta National for standing behind their right to allow only men just as I fully support Hooters for only having hot women waitresses. Just as much as I would support a Blacks Only club or business.

That's the point of liberty. You have to take the good with the bad. That whole personal responsibility thing and I don't really see anything bad about my Augusta, Hooters, etc. example.

Augusta is a private club and is not open for business to the public.

 

[Sacrilege]

What is the primary motivator for wanting to discriminate? Are conservative White Americans intimidated and/or offended by African Americans?

 

[nonlnear]

Augusta is a private club and is not open for business to the public.

Yes but these days the line between a private club and a store open to the general public is getting pretty blurry. Sam's club is a private club, although they apparently don't want to bother restricting their customer base. However any run of the mill grocery store with a personalized discount card could become a private club by having a greeter at the door steer new customers over to customer service. With the proliferation of customer data mining there are a lot of other stores that could similarly tweak their business model to become private clubs if they so desired without really changing their daily operations very much at all. Or there are bars that have you sign your name when you walk in so they can be "private clubs" to justify later hours. The distinction is virtually meaningless.

The only reason people believe that being a private club is a substantial legal test is because there are so few private clubs that elect to use their privacy as a means to discriminate in ways that would otherwise violate the various anti discrimination statutes.

 

[nonlnear]

What is the primary motivator for wanting to discriminate? Are conservative White Americans intimidated and/or offended by African Americans?

What makes you think conservative white Americans are the group that primarily wants to discriminate? Not that any large demographic actually wants to as a whole. I think most large segments of American society don't want to discriminate at all, but for a few notorious pockets of ignorance.

 

[Patranus]

What makes you think conservative white Americans are the group that primarily wants to discriminate? Not that any large demographic actually wants to as a whole. I think most large segments of American society don't want to discriminate at all, but for a few notorious pockets of ignorance.

La Raza
NAACP

 

[nonlnear]

La Raza
NAACP

I was trying to avoid naming names.