About black nationalism, I wonder whether they can be bought off. Like, black nationalists want more and better stuff for blacks, higher status. Seeing as they can’t what they really want, they settle for things like anti-discrimination, forced integration, no bail and procedures limiting the police (which they stupidly see as anti black because criminals are disproportionately black).
Also, I think religious exemptions are good strategy because reform has to start with small carve outs. Like, people need to see that free association is fine, in small doses. I get that religion is dumb reason. Why does some cult get rights that I don’t? But I see it as a useful and politically expedient stepping stone to exemptions for small businesses and landlords (like by revenue or employee headcount).
Congress will never make this happen unless the GOP gets a supermajority.
The only way to push back on civil rights law is through the courts and executive action. People should prioritize educating their legislators and any friends at nonprofits about disparate impact.
Trump is going to be implementing policies to pare back disparate impact. And there is an argument that disparate impact itself violates equal protection (see scalia concurrence in ricci v distefano).
People should be aware of affirmatively furthering fair housing, a democrat regulation passed pursuant to FHA which directly undermines residential freedom of association by tying municipal receipt of federal funds to affordable housing numbers.
Some applications of hostile environment cause of action violate free speech clause.
Section 2 of the voting rights act (basically applying disparate impact to voting requirements and congressional redistricting) also needs to be reexamined
At the very least we should be vigilant about immigration from africa (and I would still argue non-Brahmin india), as they will swamp out any positive legal action in the direction of free association through voting power.
This is so true. Repealing the CRA is the one issue even more important than immigration control because eve n if we grant (unjustifiably IMO) unlimited right of invitation, if we have an equally unlimited right of discrimination we can form restrictive covenants that make it prohibitively expensive for undesirables to move here.
Loved your podcast with Walt Bismark btw. Very informative.
Arguments about quota or disparate impact policies being bad are one thing. But you're never going to see Americans agree that we should let restaurants and bars and hotels post "no Blacks, Italians, or Chinese" again.
I doubt most Americans would like that either, but they would certainly agree that a restaurant has the right to throw out or refuse to serve people who are being disruptive.
Disruptive, sure, but that’s because it makes other customers massively uncomfortable and disrupts the functioning of the restaurant. If they’re mentally ill but not bothering anyone, would it really be fair or justified for restaurants to kick them out?
To use an extreme example, imagine a known person with an attraction to minors entering a restaurant but not bothering anyone and instead simply buying and eating their food. Would restaurants be justified in expelling them “just in case”? Should restaurants serve them but force them to eat outside? If they want to go to the restroom, should they be forced to do so elsewhere?
Yeah, see, that’s the problem as to why I think that protected classes should remain and even be expanded. (This is also why I oppose banning things such as child sex dolls/robots, since the alternative that people often propose to this, specifically executing, imprisoning, and/or exiling minor-attracted people en masse, would likely be unconstitutional, especially for the virtuous minor-attracted people.) But I loathe disparate impact doctrine and would thus like to see it scrapped or at least massively reduced in scope. If too few black firefighters qualify under a firefighting exam, for instance, well, tough luck for them.
How would the restaurant even know that a person was mentally ill if they weren't bothering anyone? Ditto with the latter case.
Restaurants barely make even a lot of the time, they don't have time to go around carefully assessing every person that comes in. In practice a lot of these concerns are purely theoretical.
About black nationalism, I wonder whether they can be bought off. Like, black nationalists want more and better stuff for blacks, higher status. Seeing as they can’t what they really want, they settle for things like anti-discrimination, forced integration, no bail and procedures limiting the police (which they stupidly see as anti black because criminals are disproportionately black).
Also, I think religious exemptions are good strategy because reform has to start with small carve outs. Like, people need to see that free association is fine, in small doses. I get that religion is dumb reason. Why does some cult get rights that I don’t? But I see it as a useful and politically expedient stepping stone to exemptions for small businesses and landlords (like by revenue or employee headcount).
Congress will never make this happen unless the GOP gets a supermajority.
The only way to push back on civil rights law is through the courts and executive action. People should prioritize educating their legislators and any friends at nonprofits about disparate impact.
Trump is going to be implementing policies to pare back disparate impact. And there is an argument that disparate impact itself violates equal protection (see scalia concurrence in ricci v distefano).
People should be aware of affirmatively furthering fair housing, a democrat regulation passed pursuant to FHA which directly undermines residential freedom of association by tying municipal receipt of federal funds to affordable housing numbers.
Some applications of hostile environment cause of action violate free speech clause.
Section 2 of the voting rights act (basically applying disparate impact to voting requirements and congressional redistricting) also needs to be reexamined
At the very least we should be vigilant about immigration from africa (and I would still argue non-Brahmin india), as they will swamp out any positive legal action in the direction of free association through voting power.
This is so true. Repealing the CRA is the one issue even more important than immigration control because eve n if we grant (unjustifiably IMO) unlimited right of invitation, if we have an equally unlimited right of discrimination we can form restrictive covenants that make it prohibitively expensive for undesirables to move here.
Loved your podcast with Walt Bismark btw. Very informative.
Arguments about quota or disparate impact policies being bad are one thing. But you're never going to see Americans agree that we should let restaurants and bars and hotels post "no Blacks, Italians, or Chinese" again.
What about restaurants denying service to mentally ill people?
I doubt most Americans would like that either, but they would certainly agree that a restaurant has the right to throw out or refuse to serve people who are being disruptive.
Disruptive, sure, but that’s because it makes other customers massively uncomfortable and disrupts the functioning of the restaurant. If they’re mentally ill but not bothering anyone, would it really be fair or justified for restaurants to kick them out?
To use an extreme example, imagine a known person with an attraction to minors entering a restaurant but not bothering anyone and instead simply buying and eating their food. Would restaurants be justified in expelling them “just in case”? Should restaurants serve them but force them to eat outside? If they want to go to the restroom, should they be forced to do so elsewhere?
I don't know.
Yeah, see, that’s the problem as to why I think that protected classes should remain and even be expanded. (This is also why I oppose banning things such as child sex dolls/robots, since the alternative that people often propose to this, specifically executing, imprisoning, and/or exiling minor-attracted people en masse, would likely be unconstitutional, especially for the virtuous minor-attracted people.) But I loathe disparate impact doctrine and would thus like to see it scrapped or at least massively reduced in scope. If too few black firefighters qualify under a firefighting exam, for instance, well, tough luck for them.
How would the restaurant even know that a person was mentally ill if they weren't bothering anyone? Ditto with the latter case.
Restaurants barely make even a lot of the time, they don't have time to go around carefully assessing every person that comes in. In practice a lot of these concerns are purely theoretical.
"These groups can span from the intimate, like families,"
Does freedom of association include the right not to be a legal parent to someone? Or would that fall under freedom of contract instead?