"However we still give up certain freedoms like we can't kill people, commit violence against people, defraud people, expose children to what we consider inappropriate behavior or media, drive anywhere we please, etc."
Of course, though like most libertarians, I would suggest a clearer line exists that defines that line and what it becomes once you cross from one side to another. But then we're getting into discussions over positive and negative rights, and which are inalienable or not. That's almost a discussion in its own right, and one that has been had all to often already.
"You know for a fact that if it was not the case, entire towns in the south would close up for black people."
I'm not so certain of this, at least nothing resembling what the south had been in the 60's. I keep thinking of how those who passed Jim Crow laws felt the need to write them, apparently to keep anyone from drifting 'off the segregation reservation'. And if that's the case, then perhaps the cracks were already showing in the system and that it was only a matter of time as it was. Provided the 14th amendment is maintained for the civil (government) structures, where violence and intimidation is prosecuted evenly, then like water, change in private institutions is almost impossible to stop, unless in some rather extraordinary circumstances.
"While we still have a very big race problem in the US, I do not see taking the right to discriminate purely on racial basis as something that is going to severely harm people, on the other hand, it does in a small way help with equality of access to services."
Well that depends. I would consider it a loss not to have to hear from such 'distinguished' business owners like the one in the video in the OP to add to my mental database of places not to patronize. In fact, as I mentioned below, if a business owner was anti-Catholic, I'd rather he be able to advertise his ignorance before I wander into his establishment rather than have the obvious markers covered up by law and have the prejudice take a more surreptitious form during the course of my patronage.
no subject
Of course, though like most libertarians, I would suggest a clearer line exists that defines that line and what it becomes once you cross from one side to another. But then we're getting into discussions over positive and negative rights, and which are inalienable or not. That's almost a discussion in its own right, and one that has been had all to often already.
"You know for a fact that if it was not the case, entire towns in the south would close up for black people."
I'm not so certain of this, at least nothing resembling what the south had been in the 60's. I keep thinking of how those who passed Jim Crow laws felt the need to write them, apparently to keep anyone from drifting 'off the segregation reservation'. And if that's the case, then perhaps the cracks were already showing in the system and that it was only a matter of time as it was. Provided the 14th amendment is maintained for the civil (government) structures, where violence and intimidation is prosecuted evenly, then like water, change in private institutions is almost impossible to stop, unless in some rather extraordinary circumstances.
"While we still have a very big race problem in the US, I do not see taking the right to discriminate purely on racial basis as something that is going to severely harm people, on the other hand, it does in a small way help with equality of access to services."
Well that depends. I would consider it a loss not to have to hear from such 'distinguished' business owners like the one in the video in the OP to add to my mental database of places not to patronize. In fact, as I mentioned below, if a business owner was anti-Catholic, I'd rather he be able to advertise his ignorance before I wander into his establishment rather than have the obvious markers covered up by law and have the prejudice take a more surreptitious form during the course of my patronage.