ADVERTISEMENT

Indianapolis Star offers solution to RFRA dilemma

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
17,548
4,542
113
1498814_800757610013766_4335287069702264132_o.jpg

Looks like a good idea to me and it follows a similar suggestion made by Indianapolis Republican Mayor Greg Ballard.
 
The only question I'd have with any proposed fix is...

...."Could a wedding photographer, cake baker, etal decline on religious grounds to offer their services for same-sex weddings without the threat of legal action?" If the answer is "yes", then I'm all for it. If the answer is "no", then I'm not.

Once again, one of the core arguments in favor of equal marriage rights has always been that extending all of the rights and privileges of marriage to gay couples would have no impact on the lives of those who object to the concept. It was, and is, a very good argument. Let others do what they will, according to their values and such. And they, in turn, should return the favor.

Frankly, I'd rather that laws like the RFRA weren't even seen by anybody as necessary. If I was gay and wanted to marry my partner, of course I'd hope that everybody would regard this as no different than a man marrying a woman. But I'm pretty sure I'd understand if they didn't -- and, more importantly, allow them to hold these feelings (and in accordance with them) without seeking to have them prosecuted, fined, shut down, etc.

That's the real "fix" to this: just live and let live...instead of trying to dictate to others what they must or must not accept. It's one thing to have the law reflect equal protection -- I'm all for it and proudly so. But it's quite another thing to demand equal treatment from other people....particularly regarding something that, like it or not, has deep religious roots (which marriage does).
This post was edited on 3/31 10:19 AM by crazed_hoosier2
 
That's a pretty bold statement by the Indy Star

One thing folks need to remember. Pence is getting all the heat for signing this, but it should have never gotten to him. Nearly everyone of the GOP reps voted for it. They need to be held accountable too, not just Pence.
 
Someone (I think it was Noodle) . . .

Suggested early on that this might blow up in the proponents' faces for just this reason -- it would build pressure for legislation that would protect LGBT people from discrimination. And indeed, if the proponents have no intention to authorize discrimination, it should be a simple matter to say so. But as the governor's recent Sunday show appearance illustrated, it isn't a simple matter to say so, because the proponents' intention is in fact to encourage discrimination.

I'm afraid this will end up as a worst case scenrio for the state: That the General Assembly will fail to take the simple action that would be necessary to fix this, and as a result, the state's intention to encourage discrimination will become unavoidably clear. And we'll continue to see long term economic damage to the state as a result. What a blunder.
 
Let's ask a slighly different question

Could a wedding photographer, cake baker, etal decline on religious grounds to offer their services for [interracial] weddings without the threat of legal action?

Same answer?
 
Personally, I'd say yes.

Of course, as I've made clear, I'm something of an absolutist on the question of freedom of association. You've made clear that you look differently at, for instance, blacks-only fraternities as you do (the prospect of, anyway) a whites-only fraternity. I, however, think that fails even the most simple of logical tests...not to mention the laugh test.

That said, my personal feelings aside, I think somebody would probably have a hard time identifying any rational basis for this particular objection. As I told Marvin, there's nothing inherently moral involved in the question of race. Race is not a behavior. It's a physical characteristic.

I suppose somebody could just invent some religious objection to interracial marriage out of thin air. But good luck to them in trying to demonstrate the basis for it. It would not, however, be difficult to demonstrate a basis for a religious objection to same-sex marriage -- starting with any one of the world's 3 major religions and going on from there. Nobody would have to invent that.

Besides, race is a protected class under federal law, isn't it?
 
Live and let live, bake the damn cake, and take their money



they ain't paying you to be their preacher
This post was edited on 3/31 11:53 AM by outside shooter
 
Live and let live is a two-way notion.


Live and force other people to accept how I live is not the same sentiment.

"Letting (other) people live" means letting them act in accordance with their values, not yours.
This post was edited on 3/31 12:10 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
"Live and let live"

The suicide rate of LGBT youth is 2-4 times that of the general youth population. Live and let live, my ass. Let's quit pretending that sexual discrimination has no real victims; that the targets of discrimination should be understanding and even accepting of other peoples' intolerance toward them. It's mind boggling that some ignore the real harm against members of the LGBT community, yet believe that the tolerance of homosexuals by a religious minority is apparently too high of a burden for them to bear.

Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. How many people disagree with their God? Places of worship in my town fly rainbow flags; anti-gay is not religious dogma, it's a choice. We would not be having this discussion if it were another minority being victimized. But yet it's OK to be intolerant of gays in our society. I fully understand that attitudes have evolved, and there are naturally going to be people at the tail end of the curve. But we're at a point where sexual discrimination cannot and should not be part of our legal and social fabric. We should learn something from our all too painful history with race.
 
There's nothing theoretical about my question

People could and did raise religious objections to interracial marriage, and until 1967 those religious objections not only authorized discrimination against interracial couples, they justified the criminal prosecution of interracial couples. You can argue now that the overtly religious opposition to interracial marriage was merely a rationalization for bigotry -- and you'd be right. That's exactly what's going on here today.

Nor is sexual orientation a "behavior". It's an imutable characteristic over which an individual has no choice.

There's a long history in this country of imagining that there is a rational basis to discriminate against gay marriages, just as there was a long history of imagining that there was a rational basis to oppose interracial marriages. But they're both irrational.
 
So once again, are we striking down the Civil Rights Act?

Because your notion of what "live and let live" means has not been the law in this country since 1964.
 
There was nothing theoretical about my answer.

Let them challenge declining to be party to an interracial marriage. I doubt they'd be able to convince any court of it. But they're certainly free to try.

But it would be pretty easy, I think, for somebody to declare a religious objection to same-sex marriage.
 
It was indeed me, however....

I'm not convinced that Pence (and many of the other supporters of this law) really want to encourage discrimination against gays. Yes, there are most definitely supporters that do--or at least want to permit such discrimination.

But the problem Pence and others have is that it's a political nightmare for them if they come forward and propose legislation declaring gays as a protected class in the state of Indiana. Is that cowardly? Perhaps. On the other hand, could they muster enough votes to even have a prayer of passing such legislation? I'm not sure.

They have indeed put themselves into the worst of all worlds--some want to use the new law to discriminate, others do not, but there may be no way to fix it without going the full distance on protecting the rights of gays. Of course while that may not be politically possible at the moment, perhaps an extended period of suffering by the state of Indiana because of this law might be enough to move things in the other direction. Money (or a lack thereof) has a funny way of affecting change.
 
Oh, I'd have voted against it....

...for one of the two reasons that Barry Goldwater did: that it prevented people from conducting business with whom they wanted to.

Goldwater also cited federal overreach as a second reason for his vote against the bill. I'm not so sure I agree with that reasoning. But I very much agree that the government -- at the local, state, or federal levels -- shouldn't be dictating such personal conduct. And, as far as civil rights, Goldwater was no George Wallace. In fact, he quite proudly noted that this was the only major piece of civil rights legislation he opposed. And his principles for doing so were, and still are, IMO sound. You may not think his reasoning was sound. But anybody who says Goldwater's vote was grounded in bigotry probably doesn't know too much about the man.

That said, it's not really a relevant question here: as homosexuals are not a protected class in that law...unless I'm missing something.

This post was edited on 3/31 1:35 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
Those are fair points

This is politics, and people act for lots of reasons. In particular, I make no claims about what Gov. Pence subjectively believes.

The political problem is precisely as you describe it. They say the law doesn't sanction discrimination, but they conspicuously won't say they oppose discrimination. The only way to "fix" this is to make LGBT people a protected class. If/when they fail to fail to do that, no one will much care about distintguishing between the bigots and their enablers, and the state will have to eat a big shit sandwich.

Credit where it's due: Indy's Republican Mayor Greg Ballard has been all over this. He opposed the law beforehand, denounced it afterwards, called for legislation to protect LGBT people, and aggressively reached out to businesses to emphasize that Indy (which by ordinance protects LGBT people) is open to everyone. I have a soft spot for mayors, who at the end of the day actually have a city to run. Attaboy, Mayor Ballard.
 
OK, crazed . . .

you've lost me, I don't like your absolutist position on association because it can be used to cut people out of markets, and I'm a market-oriented guy. Frankly, I think the protection of markets - and all people's access to them - is one of the primary functions of government.

So I respect your right to your opinion, and I respect both your right to express it and the manner in which you express it, but I don't respect the opinion at all. I think it's nuts.
 
The problem, however, is that a court has no business determining....

whether someone's claimed religious objection to an interracial marriage or a same-sex marriage is somehow rational or supported by the tenets of a particular religion. And that is precisely what you are proposing a court should do.

There are indeed people opposed to interracial marriage based on their religion, including Christian sects that point to particular passages in the Bible that they claim support their belief that interracial marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. It's not too hard to find a multitude of website professing such beliefs. You and I might think these people are wacko racists, pulling snippets from the Bible that they claim support their views, but their beliefs certainly seem to be genuine and faith-based.

So why do you think that this should be treated differently than someone opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds? Sure there are more people who believe that gay marriage and homosexuality are morally wrong than those who believe interracial marriage is morally wrong. And perhaps those opposed to gay marriage can find more in the Bible (or Torah or Quran) to support that view. But so what? A court has no business deciding that a religious objection to gay marriage was legitimate, while a religious objection to interracial marriage is not. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting:



"Let them challenge declining to be party to an interracial marriage. I doubt they'd be able to convince any court of it. But they're certainly free to try.

But it would be pretty easy, I think, for somebody to declare a religious objection to same-sex marriage."


and:

"I think somebody would probably have a hard time identifying any rational basis for this particular objection. As I told Marvin, there's nothing inherently moral involved in the question of race. Race is not a behavior. It's a physical characteristic.

I suppose somebody could just invent some religious objection to interracial marriage out of thin air. But good luck to them in trying to demonstrate the basis for it. It would not, however, be difficult to demonstrate a basis for a religious objection to same-sex marriage -- starting with any one of the world's 3 major religions and going on from there. Nobody would have to invent that."


Now, courts will investigate faith-based beliefs in many instances in order to determine if someone's belief is sincere and religious in nature. But that's as far as a court may go. A passage from the Supreme Court's 1944 decision in U.S. v. Ballard might be helpful in this regard:

Thus, the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."


Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.


Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased, and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. As stated in Davis v. Beason:


"With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with."


So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents."


Now, one could, I suppose, craft a very logical argument that someone, say a baker, should have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial marriage or a same-sex marriage, based on a sincere religious belief on the part of the baker.

But, you cannot assert that it's OK to refuse the cake for a same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but not for an interracial marriage on religious grounds because they could not demonstrate some basis for it in a particular religion or otherwise. As long as someone has a sincere religious belief that interracial marriage is wrong, it makes no difference if that belief is based on scripture, or what they were told by aliens via an anal probe.

I should also point out that nothing I have said here is intended to address the other issue of whether gays should be a protected class under federal or state law. That's a different issue.


And for the cake bakers of the world, if you truly are mortified by the thought of baking a wedding cake with two guys (or two girls) on top, I've got an easy solution: stop making wedding cakes. The Constitution protects the free practice of your very own religion--you can even make up your own based on what those aliens taught you. But the Constitution does not protect your right to sell wedding cakes.
 
Re: Those are fair points

Originally posted by Rockfish1:

Credit where it's due: Indy's Republican Mayor Greg Ballard has been all over this. He opposed the law beforehand, denounced it afterwards, called for legislation to protect LGBT people, and aggressively reached out to businesses to emphasize that Indy (which by ordinance protects LGBT people) is open to everyone. I have a soft spot for mayors, who at the end of the day actually have a city to run. Attaboy, Mayor Ballard.
Not only that, as a friend and colleague taught me years ago during a debate over Cincinnati's struggle with the very same issue, our cities have often been led the way with respect to civil rights issues as well as various other unpopular changes in the law that states and the federal government only later enacted. I was much younger (and naïve) back then, and questioned his assertion. But he was right.
 
How so?

You see, I see acts of commerce as an agreement among two parties -- neither of which are obligated -- to willfully make an exchange. I would no sooner say that people can't decline to do business with Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby (citing these companies' -- or, at least, their ownerships' -- well-publicized social positions) than I would to say that a cake-baker must sell wedding cakes to gay couples.

Some people say: well, sure, consumers should maintain the power to decide who they do or don't want to do business with citing any reason they want....but merchants shouldn't.

Why? Why would one party to a prospective transaction have the right to discriminate, but the other one should not?

This was Goldwater's reasoning in opposing the CRA of 1964, namely Title II. As easy as some find it to rail against Goldwater's vote by likening him to the racist segregationists of the day who did have bigoted reasons for opposing it, the truth is that he cited reasoning that strikes me, anyway, as perfectly sound.

Now, just like homosexuals, swingers are not cited in that law as a protected class. So, as to my point above about a caterer refusing to cater an orgy on religious grounds, the CRA is silent on this particular question.

But I was simply answering Rock's question. If somebody proposed repealing that provision in the CRA, I'd be all for it....not because I'm a bigot, but because I think that people who sell things should be entitled to the same latitude as people who buy things.
 
People who sell things . . .

don't do so in a vacuum of private property. They do so in the context of the rest of society, in reliance on the benefits that society provides to them, both in terms of governmental support (roads, utilities, legal framework and the like. Taking those benefits requires a response, and IMHO the minimum response required is to make available the products one sells to all members of society. It's the segmentation you're advocating that causes dislocations for those left out of the market that your "business" serves, not through anything that they've done . . . and the biggest sin, IMHO, is the inefficient allocation of goods, services and other resources as a result.

BTW, I'm not advocating that a business owner has to participate in a swinger's party to be in business . . . but if a guy's selling liquor and soft drinks and a swinger comes in to buy, what business is it of the liquor store owner what use the swinger wants to make of it?

Like I said, I think your position is nuts . . . .
 
Have you examined the


legislative districts for the House and Senate?

How would you hold someone "accountable"?

Whose district do you live in?
Run against them!

Run on the premises you so ably enunciate here.
 
When did I say it *should* be treated differently?

I didn't say that it *should* be treated differently. I said that I strongly doubt that any court would side with the plaintiffs if they tried to make a case that interracial marriage created this "substantial burden" on them. But that doesn't mean courts are never going to side with plaintiffs on any religious objection claim.

And, if you doubt me on that, I have two words for you: Hobby Lobby.

So whether you think courts should be involved in determining what is and is not a valid religious objection, it seems clear they already are.
 
How does this distinguish them from people who buy things?

Don't consumers also "...do so in the context of the rest of society, in reliance on the benefits that society provides to them, both in terms of governmental support...and the like"?

I couldn't drive to the store and buy groceries if it weren't for the roads and such. That doesn't mean I don't retain the power to discriminate who I do and don't buy from, though. So why wouldn't we say, about consumers, that "taking those benefits requires a response"? And why would we require anything different from sellers than we require from buyers?

There really is no logical reason why it should be any different for people who sell things. The law regarding this was, and remains, a visceral reaction to the segregated south -- separate bathroom facilities, etc. And I understand that. And, no, I'm not aching for us to "go back to Jim Crow" or anything else like that.

But, as I've said before, the vast majority of segregation we have in our society is actually a matter of mutual choice. It doesn't have anything to do with racist white business owners saying "we don't serve your kind here" or anything along those lines. It's actually entirely innocent and not terribly controversial -- at least, IMO. Go hang around your nearest college campus. You will clearly notice that, to a large degree, blacks socialize with other blacks, whites socialize with other whites, etc.

And so what? It's not because anybody's forced to.

But have you ever wondered why we bristle at the thought of, say, an all-white country club....but don't give a second thought to an all-black fraternity (or other social organization)?
This post was edited on 3/31 6:04 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
You're being obtuse . . .

and for the moment I'll disregard your Jim Crow remark, but will reserve comment about that later since you clearly have exactly Jim Crow standards in mind . . .

. . . but getting back to the issue at hand, sellers collectively define the marketplace for the goods and services available to consumers. Consumers select the goods and services they want to buy based on the marketplace available from the sellers . . . they define which sellers are successful and the degree of that success by either buying or rejecting a seller's goods or services. They can decide whether to pay more for a type of convenience or service level they prefer, whether to drive further to get a preferred item . . . but they don't get to define the available marketplace . . .

. . . government has a legitimate role in making the markets for goods and services as efficient as possible. Denying access to resources presented in the marketplace on the basis of immutable characteristics of a consumer makes the markets inherently inefficient, and likely unstable.

And that argument works without getting into the personal effects on individuals imposed by your Jim Crow stuff.

FWIW, the fraternity I lived in in college was racially diverse. It worked fine. I live in a racially and sexual orientation diverse neighborhood consisting of 11 houses. For the purpose of the neighborhood - safe and friendly living for the residents - it works. I work in a racially diverse department of a racially and sexual orientation diverse business enterprise. (BTW, I saw the formerly pregnant man back at work today . . . with his beard far more fully grown than 8 months ago.) When focused on the purpose of a business, all of this works, based on a relative meritocracy. All of this is rational. Denying someone access to goods or services based on an immutable characteristic, that's pure emotion, not logic, and government has no business denying any member of society access to goods and services on the basis of those immutable characteristics.

Sometime we might have a beer or two to discuss our "bristling" experiences . . . from the outside base on this conversation and other posts of yours it seems yours run only one direction, i.e., in those circumstances when the line leaves you out. I bristle at those too - and have some stories to tell as a result. The difference is that my bristling isn't based the application of Jim Crow standards, where they're foused only on what I and mine get . . . .
 
Re: Let's ask a slighly different question

Race is a protected class that is why I think we need a Constitution Amendment to expand the classes.
 
Quibble.

You're making a false comparison between race and same-sex marriage, when the proper comparison is between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. There is every bit as much of a behavioral characteristic to the marriage itself in each case.
 
Re: When did I say it *should* be treated differently?



Originally posted by crazed_hoosier2:
I didn't say that it *should* be treated differently. I said that I strongly doubt that any court would side with the plaintiffs if they tried to make a case that interracial marriage created this "substantial burden" on them. But that doesn't mean courts are never going to side with plaintiffs on any religious objection claim.

And, if you doubt me on that, I have two words for you: Hobby Lobby.

So whether you think courts should be involved in determining what is and is not a valid religious objection, it seems clear they already are.
What the majority in Hobby Lobby held is that, under RFRA, the only things a court should consider is whether someone has a sincere religious belief and whether that person believes some government mandate imposes a substantial burden on their religious belief. It's not up to the court to decide if that burden is, in fact, substantial. The court's only task is to determine if the line that someone draws for themselves "reflects an honest conviction." Courts do not determine if a religious objection is a valid one--only whether the person has a genuine religious belief that that person believes would be violated.

And whether or agree with Hobby Lobby or not, look at it this way. The owners of Hobby Lobby had a genuine belief that it was immoral for them to provide insurance coverage which could be used to pay for the destruction of an embryo. Ginsburg, in her dissent, argued that the connection between the owners' religious objections and the contraceptive requirement was "too attenuated to rank as substantial." Do you really think a court should make that determination under RFRA? Sure it's statutory rather than a constitutional protection given that the law in question is neutral and genuine applicable. However, once Congress made the decision to provide the RFRA protections for religious beliefs, that does not give a court carte blanche to decide what is and is not a substantial burden. That sort of thing entangles the court way too deep into religion and faith--in my opinion, to the point of violating the First Amendment in a roundabout way.
 
No examples make me bristle.

It has never actually bothered me once that there are such things as all-black fraternities. I make a point of it only to demonstrate our collective hypocrisy on such issues.

I actually think that people should be able to form whatever kinds of organizations they want -- all male, all black, all Jewish, perfectly interracial, inclusive, exclusive, all Muslim, all but Muslim, whatever. And it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me that women might form a group like Junior League where I'm simply not welcome.

I said that "we" bristle at the prospect of all-White (or even all-WASP) country clubs...but don't care about all-black fraternities.

We'd be a better society if we were cool with either and both.
 
Not surprising

I don't have an informed view on the new law out of Indiana, but since we're on this slight detour, debates on anti-discrimination legislation tend to reveal the meaninglessness of libertarians' professed commitment to "freedom." You can have a whole population that is systematically denied the opportunity to participate in the economic life of a country based on private prejudices, but as long as that denial is not the result of some government action, they're cool with it. Meanwhile, if your local government places a 1 percent tax on sugary drinks, they're talking about oppression.

It's hard to see how this reflects a commitment to freedom in any meaningful sense. Moreso, it reflects a deep commitment to the prerogatives of historically powerful groups and against those who, historically, have been marginalized by the exercise of that power.
 
Well...who else should make that determination?

It is, after all, the job of the courts to interpret and apply laws to the situations of every day life. N'est-ce pas?

So, if the courts aren't to determine what does and doesn't qualify as "burden" or "substantial burden" in the context of somebody's sincere religious belief, who is?

Because, if that's the criterion a statute establishes, then somebody has to make the call. And I strongly doubt any court is going to find that an objection to interracial marriage clears the bar.
 
No, I've never wondered.

All-white country club....but don't give a second thought to an all-black fraternity (or other social organization).

All-white country clubs were formed to exclude people who were not white. All-black fraternities were formed as a result of white exclusion of black people from their educational and social institutions. Odd example to pick in light of current events.
 
But both are still exclusionary in nature.

Some kinds of exclusivity, we just don't seem to mind. Others are signs of condembable social inequity.

I'd say the primary reason these kinds of organizations were formed is because many, if not most, people prefer to socialize with people with whom they share much in common. But, because of the scars of the past, we have a hard time admitting this, much less accepting it.
 
Re: Well...who else should make that determination?

For the substantial burden aspect of RFRA it would make absolutely no difference if you are talking about interracial marriage or same sex marriage. How could it? If I'm the cake baker, whether I am objecting to baking a cake for an interracial marriage or a same set one, the relevant burden is exactly the same. If it's substantial for one it is substantial for the other. There is simply no possible distinction in that regard.

As for who makes the call, the court does but Hobby Lobby largely says the court should defer to the person claiming it's a substantial burden on that person. What might seem like an insignificant burden to you and I might be viewed by someone else as a ghastly mortal sin if they are required to do it. If someone truly feels that way is that not a substantial burden on their religious belief? Why should a court ignore those genuine views and decide that it's not really a substantial burden?
This post was edited on 3/31 9:04 PM by Noodle
 
Am not.

I'm 100% in favor of equal opportunity and equal treatment under the laws.

I'm also of the belief that, while virtually everybody will claim the same thing, few people actually do -- at least, not consistently.

Look, for instance, at Sandra Day O'Conner's tortured opinion in the Michigan affirmative action decision. In it, she basically conceded that the policies weren't in keeping with the letter of the 14th amendment....but hopefully would only be needed for another 25 years.

I was almost embarrassed for her. Laws can quickly become meaningless if they're so selectively applied. The text she was referring to will mean the same thing 25 years ago as it does today.

Anyway, no, I don't want people shut out of the economy. That's among the primary reasons I oppose the welfare state policies which keep them out of it.
 
Are they?

Are black fraternities really exclusionary? How do you know this?

I'll ask my next door neighbor whether his fraternity excludes whites . . . .

The distinction is between someone who has preferences regarding who they want to associate with as compared to someone who is exclusionary regarding who they will associate with. The former is fine, in all contexts . . . the latter is not OK in business. Access to resources, that's where the line is, and should be, drawn.
 
Is that a distinction without a difference?

A country club may not have a written policy in its bylaws which said "whites only". It just so happens they've never had any black members. Maybe one or two had applied but weren't accepted -- for, ahem, reasons having nothing to do with race. Or perhaps even none applied.

So, as it turns out: they don't have a policy against admitting black members. They've just never had any black members.

Personally, I think organizations should be free to have any policy they want regarding this kind of stuff. And, moreover, I think we'd be better off if we treated all such organizations with the accepting deference we give to black fraternities and the like.

I've never heard anybody whine and moan about the existence of black fraternities (or any other all-black organization, even if "just happens to be" all-black). And that's a good thing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware of the reasons behind this double standard. It's not that I'm ignorant of the past and the scars. It's that I think we'd be better off if we moved onto the next chapter -- which wouldn't be, contrary to some fears, a lot like the previous chapter.
 
ADVERTISEMENT