Mar 1st 2014, 18:04:14
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 Supertodd:
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?