'Right To Discriminate' Bills

[PhantomWolf]

When discrimination is legal, where does it stop. I lived through the Civil Right Era and I don't want to go back to that insanity.

It stops where Society says it does, by Society policing itself. The trouble during the US Apartheid Era (Let's call it what it was) is that the Law actually enforced discrimination so there was no way for Society to combat it without breaking the law. Without the force and protection of law that held sway during the US Apartheid Era, any trying to discriminate today would face a backlash from those around them. Unless you believe that at heart every business owner is a bigoted individual who would prevent those they hate shopping there. If you don't believe that, then it is clear that most shops would serve everyone, and those that tried to refuse people would reduce their market substantially to the point of business failure.

 

[Corsair 115]

And you apparently don't. Have you that little faith in the morals of your fellow Americans?

When one-third of Americans refuse to accept evolution as real, then yes, I have some doubts over their ability to conduct themselves in a rational and reasonable manner.

 

[BStrong]

If it's their business why can't they feel free to refuse service to whoever they want?

Probably could if they did it on the QT while not admiting they are doing it to a class of individual, but the state passing a law to allow them to do so won't stand up in court.

 

[PhantomWolf]

When one-third of Americans refuse to accept evolution as real, then yes, I have some doubts over their ability to conduct themselves in a rational and reasonable manner.

Nice Non sequitur.

However, even in the extremely unlikely case where a third of Americans were willing to discriminate, how long would that third of businesses last when they reduce their customers by 2/3? And that's assuming that all of that third are willing to shop at a place that marks them out as bigoted as well.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Probably could if they did it on the QT while not admiting they are doing it to a class of individual, but the state passing a law to allow them to do so won't stand up in court.

And none of the customers that were turned away would make a fuss on YouTube or Twitter or....?

 

[blutoski]

Nice Non sequitur.

However, even in the extremely unlikely case where a third of Americans were willing to discriminate, how long would that third of businesses last when they reduce their customers by 2/3? And that's assuming that all of that third are willing to shop at a place that marks them out as bigoted as well.

I think the reality is that these events will happen in segregated regional pockets.
The demographic affected will be a minority and the impact to the business will be negligible.

The impact to the customer will be significant and the morality is repugnant. Thus the argument to prohibit this type of behavior.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It stops where Society says it does, by Society policing itself. The trouble during the US Apartheid Era (Let's call it what it was) is that the Law actually enforced discrimination so there was no way for Society to combat it without breaking the law. Without the force and protection of law that held sway during the US Apartheid Era, any trying to discriminate today would face a backlash from those around them. Unless you believe that at heart every business owner is a bigoted individual who would prevent those they hate shopping there. If you don't believe that, then it is clear that most shops would serve everyone, and those that tried to refuse people would reduce their market substantially to the point of business failure.

Strangely, that didn't work before the Civil Rights Act.

 

[blutoski]

Strangely, that didn't work before the Civil Rights Act.

My impression is that PhantomWolf's model is typical of libertarians: segregation was law so the problem was state-level segregationist government intervention in the first place, not the absence of the federal CRA.

 

[quixotecoyote]

My impression is that PhantomWolf's model is typical of libertarians: segregation was law so the problem was state-level segregationist government intervention in the first place, not the absence of the federal CRA.

Why was segregtion law? Because racism was extremely popular in our society and only as that weakened could the law be overturned.

Now the majority would probably blanch at explicitly racist businesses discriminating, but there's a hateful minority out there fighting to keep their high school proms segregated and other such nonsense, and if you're unfortunate to live in a region they control, you'll really miss the protection of law.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why was segregtion law? Because racism was extremely popular in our society and only as that weakened could the law be overturned.

Now the majority would probably blanch at explicitly racist businesses discriminating, but there's a hateful minority out there fighting to keep their high school proms segregated and other such nonsense, and if you're unfortunate to live in a region they control, you'll really miss the protection of law.

I think the reality is that these events will happen in segregated regional pockets.
The demographic affected will be a minority and the impact to the business will be negligible.

The impact to the customer will be significant and the morality is repugnant. Thus the argument to prohibit this type of behavior.

And as the one impacted, would you rather live in an area among people that secretly hate you, but are nice to your face, pretending to be your friend, having you spending your money with them and keeping them in business, or would you rather know what a bunch of scum sucking bigots they really are and have the choice of taking your money and even yourself elsewhere?

 

[BStrong]

And none of the customers that were turned away would make a fuss on YouTube or Twitter or....?

In this day and age, people call 911 over the wrong order at the drive-through.

The only area of commerce I'm aware of that turns away cusctomers w/o it becoming an issue of discrimination are motorcycle dealers that won't sell top performing bikes to kids or adults w/o serious riding experience. I've had guys complain to me about it and I've seen it happen myself a couple of times over the years while I was hanging out at my local dealer.

It's not an issue of anything other than the dealer not wanting the would-be rider in question to be on a bike they have no business being on.

 

[blutoski]

And as the one impacted, would you rather live in an area among people that secretly hate you, but are nice to your face, pretending to be your friend, having you spending your money with them and keeping them in business, or would you rather know what a bunch of scum sucking bigots they really are and have the choice of taking your money and even yourself elsewhere?

Depends on the area. That was my point. I'll take material standard of living over social niceties if it boils down to a need to choose.

I live in BC Canada, and we actually have a law like the one proposed in Kansas. It really sucks, but especially for people in more remote communities where there is no alternative supplier for the items in question.

For example, if the local real estate firm refuses to sell property to homosexuals for 'religious' reasons, this means they control the population demographics. If the pharmacist refuses to provide psychoactive meds (because he's a Scientologist), it pretty much means mentally ill people can't live there. Everybody else is nice, just a few people leveraging their limited powers and making misery.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

And as the one impacted, would you rather live in an area among people that secretly hate you, but are nice to your face, pretending to be your friend, having you spending your money with them and keeping them in business, or would you rather know what a bunch of scum sucking bigots they really are and have the choice of taking your money and even yourself elsewhere?

In practice even if the discrimination is illegal the intolerance is rarely unknown by the individuals targeted after the fact. In practice even if the discrimination is legal the targets may not know before the fact they will be targeted. I would hazard that most people do want to move on from it, but the practical reality of the situation is not always so clear cut. The real life experience of discrimination in this country has brought us to the conclusion that in general it is more beneficial to outlaw the practice in certain circumstances. We don't want large stretches of states where certain people cannot even stay the night at a hotel. Instead of punishing everyone else by not allowing a certain class to safely cross that stretch of the country, we punish the individuals who cause the situation.

 

[Ladewig]

Surely in a free market though, if Society demands that everyone be treated equally, and a Business doesn't, then Society would respond by ceasing trading with said business, and it would go out of business. Seems to be that allowing people to display their bigotry with flying colours and allowing Society to shut them down by refusing them custom is far better than forcing them to hide. After all, would you really want to do business with someone that hated you so much that if allowed they'd refuse to serve you? Is that the sort of person you want to spend your money with? Wouldn't you rather know about it and be able to choose to go elsewhere instead rather than being kept ignorant because of the law?

Free markets can do wonderful things under certain conditions. When sellers can easily enter and leave the market, when information about price and availability flows freely, when market factors can be immediately changed to meet new conditions, and when buyers and sellers exist in abundance free markets are astonishingly efficient.

On the other hand, if an interracial lesbian couple makes a few wrong turns and they find themselves in Bumfeck, West Virginia when their car breaks down, then the Invisible Hand of the Market is not going to help much as the town's only car repair shop refuses them service, and the town's only motel refuses them service, and the town's only restaurant refuses them service.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Depends on the area. That was my point. I'll take material standard of living over social niceties if it boils down to a need to choose.

I live in BC Canada, and we actually have a law like the one proposed in Kansas. It really sucks, but especially for people in more remote communities where there is no alternative supplier for the items in question.

For example, if the local real estate firm refuses to sell property to homosexuals for 'religious' reasons, this means they control the population demographics. If the pharmacist refuses to provide psychoactive meds (because he's a Scientologist), it pretty much means mentally ill people can't live there. Everybody else is nice, just a few people leveraging their limited powers and making misery.

There are free market ways to deal with this though. If the local real estate firm won't sell to certain people, but everyone else is nice, then the everyone else that are nice should stop supporting that Real Estate firm and they'll go bust. If they don't stop supporting them, then they aren't nice, they are the same as the Real Estate owners. If people vote with their feet, then someone else can open a Real Estate business that sells to anyone, and the nice people would use them instead putting the bigoted one out of business.

With businesses like Pharmacies this can even be done from the outside. If the Pharmacy won't stock or sell certain types of drugs, then people outside the area can put pressure on that Pharmacy's suppliers to not supply things to a bigoted business. When the "nice" people lose other supplies, then they put the pressure on the Pharmacist to change, or they get a new one and put the old one out of business.

They only have the power that people grant them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

In practice even if the discrimination is illegal the intolerance is rarely unknown by the individuals targeted after the fact. In practice even if the discrimination is legal the targets may not know before the fact they will be targeted. I would hazard that most people do want to move on from it, but the practical reality of the situation is not always so clear cut. The real life experience of discrimination in this country has brought us to the conclusion that in general it is more beneficial to outlaw the practice in certain circumstances. We don't want large stretches of states where certain people cannot even stay the night at a hotel. Instead of punishing everyone else by not allowing a certain class to safely cross that stretch of the country, we punish the individuals who cause the situation.

You seem to believe that "large stretches of states" are so bigoted that without a law to tell them not to, they would act that way.

I'm not sure which is sadder, your belief that a huge number of Americans are highly bigoted, or if your belief is actually true.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And as the one impacted, would you rather live in an area among people that secretly hate you, but are nice to your face, pretending to be your friend, having you spending your money with them and keeping them in business, or would you rather know what a bunch of scum sucking bigots they really are and have the choice of taking your money and even yourself elsewhere?

You believe those are the only two choices.

That wasn't a question.

 

[blutoski]

There are free market ways to deal with this though. If the local real estate firm won't sell to certain people, but everyone else is nice, then the everyone else that are nice should stop supporting that Real Estate firm and they'll go bust.

And in the meantime?

If they don't stop supporting them, then they aren't nice, they are the same as the Real Estate owners.

They're probably just unaware. I'm not comfortable building a society assuming omnipresence.

If people vote with their feet, then someone else can open a Real Estate business that sells to anyone and the nice people would use them instead putting the bigoted one out of business.

If they have the money. But a minority of the wealthy and connected can conspire. That's the main problem. In theory people can do anything. In reality, we're just people. Rome lost their democracy because wealthy and powerful people took it from them.

In any case: what happens now? I mean in the meantime? To the person in the example?

With businesses like Pharmacies this can even be done from the outside. If the Pharmacy won't stock or sell certain types of drugs, then people outside the area can put pressure on that Pharmacy's suppliers to not supply things to a bigoted business. When the "nice" people lose other supplies, then they put the pressure on the Pharmacist to change, or they get a new one and put the old one out of business..

Seriously? What a fantasy world. Even if these lines of communication appeared (how would the customers learn who his suppliers were?), my perennial question is still important: what about this person in the example in the meantime?

In any case, the mechanics are interesting sophmore chats, but no more than that.
The morality is indisputable, and the laws stand on their moral grounds alone.

 

[Upchurch]

For the record (and so I'm not a post-and-run), I got the rough answer I was looking for, even if it isn't the answer I was expecting.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to go on any tangent.

 

[blutoski]

For the record (and so I'm not a post-and-run), I got the rough answer I was looking for, even if it isn't the answer I was expecting.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to go on any tangent.

Sorry!