By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sc94597 said:

As a non-heterosexual (yes I said hetero), athiest, and ethnic "minority" I support the right to freely associate. That means discrimination shouldn't be illegal in people's private affairs. I also recognize that the majority (not all) of discrimination before the Civil Right's Act was state enforced (mandated by state law.) In today's very welcoming society such businesses would not last very long, and if they did, there is always competition.


Very true, but this is being done on the state level, which means any and every business that had an underlying amount of discriminatory thought could enforce it. Padoras box would've been opened up.

Yes, but the key difference is that people who don't want to discriminate are not mandated by law to discrimate, as they were before the Civil's Rights act. The provision in said act to make private businesses open to every race/gender/etc was meant as a correction for the state priorly skewing the market by forcing everyone to discriminate, whether they wanted to or not. It might've made sense, like affirmative action, in that era, but it doesn't make much sense today. Forcing the racists, homophobes, etc to act a certain way just increases their resentment and forces them to hide their true feelings. I'd rather know what these people honestly think, and know who is the homophobe or racist, so that I can avoid them and also so that I don't act as a patron to their business and benefit them. I don't want to associate with such people, and such legislation makes it harder for me to identify them.