Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis
Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I believe this country works best when we define our culture and our national religion as open and free competition and keep our private hatreds private. I think government has a legitimate role in removing barriers to full participation.
Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where businesses put up signs "Whites only," "No Irish need apply," "No dogs or Jews" (which my father grew up with) or, as likely as not, "No Arabs."
|
My apologies. Being told I must approve of slavery momentarily got the better of my temper. Lunch and an hour gazing upon Maria Bartiromo and watching my continued employment become a bit more likely have evened the keel.
Absolutely I don't want to live in a world with the signs you ask about. However, I am a person of certain principles about government and some of those principles lead to results I don't particularly like. And as I said on this particular issue I'm not exactly upset about the principle not being observed.
However, if you asked me whether, on principle the guy running the greasy spoon down on the corner should be allowed to only hire cute young women and refuse to serve Hmong then my answer would be yes, that should be his privilege. I would not eat there if I was aware of it. I would be ok with the government refusing official business (no more catering office meetings, perhaps), I do think that on principle he can refuse his services as he wishes. Similarly, while I don't like it, I view it as within their privilege for the Boys Scouts of America to deny me employment for my atheism; I don't like it and I choose not to support them and wish more wouldn't as well. But it is their right.
However, I do not think it follows that on the same principle slavery would be allowed as there is an entirely different issue of force involved.
Therefore, since I have three consecutive clauses begining with however which is only slightly removed from whereas, I tack on this last paragraph.