Is the term “White privilege” discriminatory?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Sounds like AA is good only for those we support..

Haven't we been having this discussion the last three days or so?

 

Where did I say that? You invented it. I said you could support any beneficiary of AA you wish. Do you disagree?

 

How can someone support someone that benefited from a discriminatory policy according to that person?

Person A says said policy is discriminatory vehemently.

Person B benefited from said policy.

Person A supports person B.


What....?

 

that's stupid -I support Thomas because he writes good decisions. You seem unable to distinguish between a flawed process versus how he has made out. Souter had a wonderful record and sucked as a justice IIRC he was a Rhodes Scholar, among other things. GHWB had the best resume of any president I can think of-he was not a great president.

 

Thanks for the rant — but it in no way addresses what I said. Should business be allowed to discriminate against black customers?

 

it is a simple issue that apparently escapes you

First issue-how did the person get his job-we can criticize that

Second issue-how did that person do in the job-completely different

for example-lots of Obama fans admit that he benefitted from affirmative action -both getting into Columbia and Harvard and becoming president but they correctly noted he was a very good student at Harvard and they liked his politics. I can guarantee that if Thomas was voting along the lines of Souter, Stevens or other GOP disappointments, you all wouldn't be upset

 

depends in what way. should a car dealer refuse to sell a car to a financially qualified black? NO. should a restaurant refuse to serve a black for that reason-NO. should a baker be able to say NO if a black wants a cake that says BLM rules and white cops should die-YES. should a Jewish baker be able to refuse to decorate a cake for a Nazi party with swastikas? of course. should a Jewish hotel manager refuse to allow a participant in a KKK or Nazi party rally to book a room-No. but I think he should be able to refuse to rent a gathering area to a Nazi group

 

The arguments being made by most people here is that it is their business and they should not be forced to commit their labor to someone that they do not wish to do so.

How does that track with the above?

I think it should be all or none — either we allow all forms of discrimination or we allow none. The argument that it’s creative and thus discrimination should be allowed is a vague line — just about any job requires some type of creation.

 

Want examples or do you already know about them?

 

The origin of the term is an obvious racist source from 1910. It is associated with the white man's burden, which was a popular concept for British colonialists back then. It is a shame the term is still being used as a talking point among sociologists.

 

IT is pretty easy to see the difference and why the court ruled the way it did. Theoretically, I don't think the government-especially federal government , has the power to tell private businesses who they have to deal with. Under the tenth amendment, I cannot find any such power.

 

Anti white rhetoric at the political level is generally a votes-hunting method, not genuine racism.

Because racism is so widespread and ingrained in every culture, it's fairly easy to use it as a tool. The anti white rhetoric you're referring to is not proof of racism. It's the result of decades of aggressive, subversive anti western propaganda spread by the former Soviet Bear in order to win minds, hearts, and wallets in non-white parts of the world. Simply put, clashes between the west and the communist east over hegemonic ambitions, and aggressive attempts to create spheres of influence and friendly governments in non-western countries during the cold war, have been presented by the far left as a fight against western colonialism and greedy capitalism, leading to a vilification of western nations in general, and white skinned western people in particular. The far left is using the language of human rights to deny certain groups of people (western white Europeans and ideological opponents) their human rights.

The UN served as a very useful tool to further spread and strengthen anti western (hence selective anti white) rhetoric, given that western powers have been trying not to alienate their non-white friends and allies.

The Soviet Bear is still laughing in its grave.

 

So...should we allow a convicted pedophile to get a job at a kindergarten, because discrimination....?

Some forms of discrimination are not only useful, but strictly necessary in a functioning society.

 

This is a state issue. All powers not given to the federal government is given to the states.

Should states not be allowed to set their own policy as they see fit?

 

Is pedophile a protected class?

And to answer your question about pedophiles being denied jobs, any person that society deems as a danger shouldn’t be free and any person that has been released should be deemed as reformed.

 

yes unless it runs afoul of the bill of rights as incorporated through the fourteenth

 

Can you tell us what portion of the bill of rights that anti-discrimination ordnances violate?

 

first amendment

 

Is the first amendment absolute?

By your position are you saying all anti-discrimination ordinances should be removed?

 

no though theoretically, I have issues with the government having that sort of power but at a state level, some police power in this area is constitutional

 

At what level do you support states forcing anti-discrimination ordinances? I support it from the moment someone take a business license to serve the public. If they do not wish to do so then the option is to open a private club closed to the general public

 

You said "I think it should be all or none — either we allow all forms of discrimination or we allow none". Protected classes can't exist in either of these cases.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Pedophiles can't be reformed.

Should a pedophile be able to win in court against a web designer who refuses to make a child porn site?

 

I am sorry I didn’t explicitly state for protected classes. That is usually implied as it is written within the context of the law.

I don’t disagree

Lets see if you can answer your own question — are they a protected class?

 

Individuals are usually members of more than one class, protected or not. Rights are a complex issue.

Suppose a black female pastor - yes, I'm rising your protected class claim to four protected classes in one, deal with it - writes a children's book about reward and punishment from a religious point of view. She asks an atheist artist to draw illustrations for her book, including imagery about eternal torture in hell. Should the atheist artist have the right to refuse, or must he become a tool for religious indoctrination of children?

 

When you are comparing burning in hell to marriage this becomes a flawed analogy. If this artist specialized in creating artworks that depicted such imagery and then refused because this woman was black then yes, I think his business license should require him to serve all equally.

If he is an artist that doesn’t crate said imagery for anyone then no, I don’t think he should have to create something he doesn’t normally.