Mar 2nd 2014, 16:26:33
Originally posted by Atryn:
Originally posted by Supertodd:
If some racist jackass wants to only associate with other people of his same race, no matter what color he is, he should be free to do that.
Freedom of association is not the same as the laws regulating public commerce.
Here is a hypothetical:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned toll road in Northern Virginia, running for 12.53 miles northwest from the end of the Dulles Toll Road to the Leesburg Bypass (U.S. Route 15/State Route 7). Although privately owned, the highway is also part of SR 267. The road was privately built and is not a public asset. The current owner is "Toll Road Investors Partnership II" (TRIP II), which was a consortium of the Bryant/Crane Family LLC, the Franklin L. Haney Co., and Kellogg Brown & Root (KB&R). On August 31, 2005, Australian firm Macquarie Infrastructure Group announced that they had paid $533 million to TRIP II to acquire its 86.7% ownership of the Greenway, and were negotiating with KB&R for the remaining ownership rights. Initially, as the road was built as a "Design Build Finance Operate" (DBFO) project, the responsibility for operating the road was scheduled to revert to Virginia in 2036 via a concession agreement. In 2001, The Virginia State Corporation Commission extended this period to the year 2056.
Now, let's say the owners of this road put up a sign that says "no blacks or gays allowed to use this road".
1. Should that be within their rights?
2. If so, should the enforcement of their policy be a public burden (i.e. police called to arrest trespassers)?
3. Does the fact that they operate a public commercial service change those rights vs. the property rights they enjoy on private non-commercial purposed land? (i.e. their home)
Now, depending on how you answer the above, if 90% of roads in this country were likewise privately owned and operated and they all chose to refuse to serve blacks and gays, how would your perception of the equality change?
An individual's rights ARE more protected when there is less (or no) public / societal impact. Protected classes (race, nationality, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) exist because of the net effect possible via systematic actions of many individuals (people or businesses) which create societal inequalities.
Another example...
Wal-Mart could choose to no longer serve gays. Sure, you might say, that is protected and the gays can just go shop at Target.
But wait, Target could ALSO choose not to serve gays. And so on and so on.
Do you see how the individual actions in the public realm of commerce lead to a systematic societal inequality?
In your first example, there are some pretty huge differences between that and what most people have been discussing in this thread so far.
Most obvious among these, is that the private highway makes up part of a publically owned state highway. And besides that, road building is one of the very few powers which the founders of this country specifically granted to the Federal Government in The Constitution. Freedom of movement is an absolutely essential human freedom which the Federal Government is right to protect. That's also why I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of our immigration system. Now I'm in danger of getting off track though, so back to the point..... freedom of cake-buying or photo-purchase is not essential.
Your second example does bring up some good points. I believe in the old thread that blid keeps trying to use to defame me, I even mentioned that perhaps it was necessary, due to the abhorrent (government-created) system of segregation, to curtail the freedoms of some people in order to fix the problem. However, we do not today have a situation anywhere in this country where it is impossible for anyone of any race or creed to live equally with any other. As such, I cannot see that it is any longer necessary to continue to assault people's freedoms.
And another key distinction which just occurred to me a few minutes ago. In all of the examples of supposed anti-gay bigotry which have been making news lately, what the supposed bigots are objecting to is not a person, not even a sexual orientation. They are objecting to - and refusing to participate in - an act which they find morally repugnant. Gay marriage. Now, I don't agree with them.. I don't think gay marriage should be banned. I don't think that government agencies have any business recognizing or refusing to recognize anyone's chosen mate. If two men, two women, or two men AND a woman want to swear fidelity to each other, then that is their business and theirs alone. But no one who believes that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah) teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman should be forced to participate in a ceremony which violates that belief.
So, now I have a couple questions. Let's say that you own a photography business. Let's also say that you are of the belief that circumcision is a morally repugnant act of mutilation, especially when performed on children. A Jewish family asks you to take photographs at a bris. If you refuse to participate, does that make you anti-Semitic? And whether or not it makes you anti-Semitic, should the government have the power to force you to violate your own principles and participate in the ceremony?
And if your answer to those questions is "no", then how does that example differ from that of a Christian refusing to participate in a gay wedding ceremony?