• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Reparations

But you’re against those reparations.
 
Junebug said:
Before you start accusing people of posting in bad faith, it would behoove you to read the thread. From the OP:



If you have a problem with discussing reparations in the context of slavery, take it up with the OP, or, better yet, the congressional subcommittee.

If you want to have a more general discussion on here about reparations, that’s fine by me. We should start by addressing the reparations that the federal government has already put in place, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the Civil Right Act of 1991, section 1981, affirmative action in government employment and contracting, etc., etc., etc. The list of laws designed, not only to stop de jure and de facto discrimination, but to positively advantage African Americans since the Civil Rights movement goes on and on.

Or are you just talking about stroking a check to people based on the color of their skin?
Click to expand...

And you skipped the part that is integral to the issue, "its continuing impact on the [African America] community and the path to restorative justice."

The continuing impact includes but isn't limited to:

Jim Crow
Voters Rights
Schools
Redlining
Criminal Justice

Those and many other ills were created because of slavery and continue to this day.
 
Junebug said:
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Do you think it should be?
 
Junebug said:
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Actually, the group that has by far benefited the most from Affirmative Action is women. They are the majority.
 
They passed a law in ‘64 to give those who ain’t got nothing more, but it only goes so far.
 
Junebug said:
Our constitution enumerates federal governmental powers, and the bill of rights and the 14th amendment set forth limitations on federal and state governmental power. The constitution does not set forth any prohibitions on private actions. That’s what laws are for.

So, no. The constitution can, does, and should prohibit governmental discrimination, but it should not prohibit private discrimination.
Click to expand...

I've got to ask, based on your last sentence, by "private" I'm assuming you include private businesses and private enterprise. If so, do you mean they have the freedom to discriminate against employees and customers in any way they wish?
 
Junebug said:
Our constitution enumerates federal governmental powers, and the bill of rights and the 14th amendment set forth limitations on federal and state governmental power. The constitution does not set forth any prohibitions on private actions. That’s what laws are for.

So, no. The constitution can, does, and should prohibit governmental discrimination, but it should not prohibit private discrimination.
Click to expand...

Strengthen and expand the old boys network!!!

Let non-governmental companies discriminate against black people, Hispanics, women, LGBTQ!!!

What a GREAT position Junebug is championing!!!
 
Junebug said:
Under the constitution, private actors, including businesses, have the absolute freedom to discriminate against employees, customers, or anyone else on any basis and in any way they wish. The constitution simply doesn’t apply against private actors.
Click to expand...

And, just so I'm clear, you believe this applies to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Correct?
 
Junebug said:
Correct, but my “belief” has nothing to do with it. It’s the way the constitution works. This is about as fundamental as it gets.
Click to expand...

So, all those laws preventing racial discrimination in employment are unconstitutional?
 
Junebug said:
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

You don’t have to resort to insults just because you got called out. You listed many laws and said they advantaged minorities. Can you explain how protection from discrimination imparts an advantage?
 
Junebug said:
How could you possibly conclude that based on what I have said? I mean, what the actual fuck?

The fact that the constitution does not prohibit private discrimination does not mean that it forbids governments from enacting laws that prohibit private discrimination.
Click to expand...

Dude, you just said that the constitution doesn't prohibit private discrimination, and then you all but agreed with my post regarding gender, racial, and sexual orientation discrimination. Based on your own statements, it's hardly a leap of logic to conclude that what you were saying was that the government can't prohibit discrimination in private industry and businesses because the constitution doesn't allow it. That's why I was asking you the questions, junebug.
 
Junebug said:
How can Wake grads be this dumb? Maybe I’m overestimating what an average Wake grad is capable of grasping, but this feels like high school level Con Law.
Click to expand...

Do your black friends know???
 
Junebug said:
It prevents people from discriminating against you?

I’m just spitballing here.
Click to expand...

How is that an advantage? The laws only prevent discrimination if people follow the law and if the law is enforced. Much of the time the people in charge of enforcing the law share your belief that discrimination is fine so they don’t enforce the law. That’s not an advantage. That’s an even playing field that can tilted at the whims of those in power.
 
Junebug we've had this argument before, but I think you misunderstand what the Fourteenth Amendment protects re: discrimination
 
Junebug said:
It’s not just a leap of logic; it’s a total non-sequitur.

The constitution does not apply to private actors, so it necessarily does not prohibit private discrimination. But that is completely unrelated to the question of whether the constitution empowers congress to enact laws that prohibit private discrimination. And, of course it does. There are two provisions that are commonly invoked as justification for anti-discrimination laws: the commerce clause and section 5 of the 14th amendment. The commerce clause allows regulation of discrimination in commerce, which would include things like employment, hotel accommodations, etc., and section 5 allows congress to enact laws regulating private actors, including prohibiting discrimination, so long as the remedy is congruent and proportional to the harm.

I really can’t fathom how you could read my prior posts and think I was saying the government can’t pass laws prohibiting private discrimination.
Click to expand...

Then I would suggest that you go back and read your posts and see how they sound. They didn't sound like what you were saying above.
 
Even I can't unite as many disparate people against me as Junebug so regularly does.
 
Junebug said:
You mean like this one?
Click to expand...

And what about your second sentence - "does not prohibit private discrimination?" Does that not sound as if you're contradicting your first sentence? Given the gist of your overall argument, you certainly don't sound as if you're a fan of laws restricting the actions of private businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top