Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

That's not different.

Apply it only to publicly funded services.

At the time, that wouldn’t have solved anything.

It would have solved exactly what it would have been intended to solve.

[San Lumen]

No that isnt what they said. They said that people who want to be bigoted should make their own country where they can be bigots

And how would you change it?

That's not different.

Apply it only to publicly funded services.

How?

That would have changed nothing. You would still have hotels, restaurants and stores any other private business denying service to people. Racism and homophobia is still a thing.

[Kowani]

At the time, that wouldn’t have solved anything.

It would have solved exactly what it would have been intended to solve.

Out of curiosity, what do you think it was intended to solve?

[New haven america]

well thats what they should have done.

Where did anyone say political action is wrong? Should we not have passed the Civil Rights Act and let the free market sort out everything?

Well Kat seems to think that people who would otherwise engage in political action should instead just go make their own country.

Not in the form it was passed.

No no, she thinks that you should take your bigotry elsewhere, not that you shouldn't partake in political action. (That action should just involve taking your terrible ideals somewhere else)

[Telconi]

Well Kat seems to think that people who would otherwise engage in political action should instead just go make their own country.

Not in the form it was passed.

No no, she thinks that you should take your bigotry elsewhere, not that you shouldn't partake in political action. (That action should just involve taking your terrible ideals somewhere else)

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat dislikes?

[New haven america]

No no, she thinks that you should take your bigotry elsewhere, not that you shouldn't partake in political action. (That action should just involve taking your terrible ideals somewhere else)

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat the vast majority of the US dislikes?

FTFY

[San Lumen]

No no, she thinks that you should take your bigotry elsewhere, not that you shouldn't partake in political action. (That action should just involve taking your terrible ideals somewhere else)

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat dislikes?

Id like to know what you think the Civil Rights Act was intended to solve?

[Telconi]

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat dislikes?

Id like to know what you think the Civil Rights Act was intended to solve?

Racial discrimination, presumably.

[San Lumen]

Id like to know what you think the Civil Rights Act was intended to solve?

Racial discrimination, presumably.

and therefore what is wrong with it?

[New haven america]

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat dislikes?

Id like to know what you think the Civil Rights Act was intended to solve?

To unfairly persecute those who want to discriminate and tyrannically force ideas they don't agree with on them.

[Telconi]

So not all political beliefs, just beliefs Kat the vast majority of the US dislikes?

FTFY

A meaningless distinction.

[Telconi]

Racial discrimination, presumably.

and therefore what is wrong with it?

Methodology.

[Kowani]

Id like to know what you think the Civil Rights Act was intended to solve?

Racial discrimination, presumably.

And it stopping government discrimination would have stopped private discrimination (which was the majority, mind you), how?

[San Lumen]

and therefore what is wrong with it?

Methodology.

What is wrong with the methodology?

[Telconi]

Racial discrimination, presumably.

And it stopping government discrimination would have stopped private discrimination (which was the majority, mind you), how?

It wouldn't.

[Telconi]

Methodology.

What is wrong with the methodology?

The same thing that myself and others have been expressing this entire thread.

[Kowani]

And it stopping government discrimination would have stopped private discrimination (which was the majority, mind you), how?

It wouldn't.

So it’d be useless.

[Conserative Morality]

Racial discrimination, presumably.

And it stopping government discrimination would have stopped private discrimination (which was the majority, mind you), how?

Presuming this argument is in good faith is a fool's errand. People who argue against the CRA are typically those who know exactly what would have continued without it - and would prefer that.

[New haven america]

What is wrong with the methodology?

The same thing that myself and others have been expressing this entire thread.

You and one other person does not constitute "others."

You need one more person.

[Telconi]

And it stopping government discrimination would have stopped private discrimination (which was the majority, mind you), how?

Presuming this argument is in good faith is a fool's errand. People who argue against the CRA are typically those who know exactly what would have continued without it - and would prefer that.

I dont think you understand what "good faith" means.

[Telconi]

It wouldn't.

So it’d be useless.

Only if we assume that "ending private business discrimination for particularly defined traits" is the only use of laws.

[San Lumen]

What is wrong with the methodology?

The same thing that myself and others have been expressing this entire thread.

So why have it at all then?

[Telconi]

The same thing that myself and others have been expressing this entire thread.

You and one other person does not constitute "others."

You need one more person.

Lucky for me I'm not responsible for teaching you to count.

[Telconi]

The same thing that myself and others have been expressing this entire thread.

So why have it at all then?

To eliminate discrimination by publicly funded entities.

[Kowani]

So it’d be useless.

Only if we assume that "ending private business discrimination for particularly defined traits" is the only use of laws.

The purpose of laws is to improve the physical well-being of the public.