Comments on: Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:18:27 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke. Tom - I don't understand your point. Are you saying wearing Klan outfits is an immutable trait?

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:45:47 +0000

First, we all should admit that anti-discrimination activities are more and more dissolving civil liberties.
So, for the sake of civil liberties, we have to restrain anti-dicrimination activities. When and where is a matter of debate. (Re-publishing Nymeyer is a useful tool for promoting such a debate, even if you don’t share Nymeyer’s point of view.)
I see that it is a possible restraint for anti-discrimination activities when you restrain them to “immutable” traits (and insofar I sympathize with Dr. Throckmorton). On the other hand we must see that on the long run, less and less traits will be “immutable”. (As I’ve said before: A hundred years from now, there will be some kind of effective SOCE – perhaps by genetical or hormonal changement).
On my opinion, the superior point of view must be the Golden Rule. If you think that black-only associations are justified, you ought to accept white-only associations, too. If you think that gay-only associations are justified, you ought to accept heterosexual-only associations, too.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:27 +0000

Patrocles# ~ Sep 5, 2013 at 5:41 am
“First, we all should admit that anti-discrimination activities are more and more dissolving civil liberties.”
I don’t believe that is true.
“I see that it is a possible restraint for anti-discrimination activities when you restrain them to “immutable” traits”
that would mean that there would be no religious protections, nor would there be protections for political affiliations (which are a matter of public record).
And given how some use the term “immutable” (i.e. it is possible for some people to change under the right conditions), gender isn’t immutable either.
“As I’ve said before: A hundred years from now, there will be some kind of effective SOCE – perhaps by genetical or hormonal changement). ”
Again I disagree, I suspect 100 years from now people will look at the idea of trying to change a person’s orientation, the same way many today would look at the idea of trying to change a person’s race (i.e. a sad and offensive commentary on how discrimination by the majority adversely effects the minority).
“If you think that black-only associations are justified, you ought to accept white-only associations, too.”
1st, if you are discussing PRIVATE organizations, then the law already allows such things.
2nd, after you have gone through a semester or 2 of being the only (or 1 of only a few ) white person in your classes perhaps then you might start to understand the need for minority-based (but not necessarily minority-only) organizations.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:27 +0000

Funny. The "immutable" issue seems to b a strong argument for why a black person should not be able to discriminate against whites, but be perfectly justified discriminating against whites wearing Klan outfits. This of course touches on why gay-agenda advocates tend to insist that homosexuality/homosexual attractions are "immutable," an unalterable function of what a person is, not a free will choice of what one does.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:25 +0000

Warren# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Tom – I don’t understand your point. Are you saying wearing Klan outfits is an immutable trait?
No, the opposite, of course, and why it’s OK to discriminate against behavior we find objectionable or offensive.

By: Gregory Peterson

Gregory Peterson — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:19:41 +0000

Making freedom from unjust discrimination contingent upon “immutable characteristics,” is obviously racist, at least to me. “Race” is an evolving modern era social construct… an artificially chosen collection of inherited and imagined characteristics which can and has changed over time for various reasons…often having to do with maintaining whiteness and privilege. (Actually, rather true for “homosexuality” as well, and both have a lot of long discredited scientific baggage. I was just talking to someone about Evelyn Hooker and Franz Boas…)
I think that maintaining a state of unearned privilege is indeed the main reason for the conservative drive to make anti-discrimination laws contingent upon “immutability.” Conservatives usually don’t include sexual orientation as being an “immutable” characteristic, and the GLBT community is multiracial, multi-most everything. So are Hispanic communities. To conservatives, then, since they don’t regard Gay and Hispanic as being immutable characteristics, they shouldn’t be protected classes.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:33:42 +0000

Because religious beliefs are explicitly protected by the Constitution, that's why.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:24:32 +0000

Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm
“No, the opposite, of course, and why it’s OK to discriminate against behavior we find objectionable or offensive.”
Race isn’t a “behavior” and neither is sexual orientation.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:01:56 +0000

ken# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 8:41 am
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 6:33 am
“That is not a rebuttal. ”
I was simply highlighting what Warren was originally pointing out about your post. that YOU inappropriately compared an immutable characteristic, race, to a behavior, wearing a clansman outfit.
You misunderstood, silly.

By: Boo

Boo — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:04:40 +0000

I’m pretty sure anti-discrimination laws don’t cover having sex in a restaurant, Tom.