Reply To: New Indiana Law

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee New Indiana Law Reply To: New Indiana Law

#1070228
NotABochurAnymore
Participant

@charliehall:

“Yup. It got rid of the “No Jews or Dogs” signs. It got rid of most of the Judenrein housing developments. It got rid of the Jewish quotas in colleges. It got rid of most of the Judenrein law firms.

Yup. It went too far.”

First, you missed my point. I didn’t say that there was nothing good in the Civil Rights act. I said it went too far.

More importantly, yes I think that putting a sign that says “No Jews or Dogs” is disgusting. I also think that the Westboro Baptist Church coming to Brooklyn and protesting Jews is disgusting. The point is that government should not have the right to compel anyone to say or not say something or to engage in business or not engage in business with anyone just because the government, or even the majority of people, find the practice objectionable. I don’t like the No Jews or Dogs sign, but if a proprietor wants to have such a sign, t should be protected speech. The entire reason we have the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech or expression. By your logic, a yeshiva should be compelled to host a same-gender wedding.

The Civil Rights Act should have been limited to making it illegal for a government entity to enact laws that directly restrict the rights of minorities. Where I think it went too far is where it compels individuals to not be discriminatory. We all know it’s nasty and disgusting to be discriminatory. That happens to be one of the prices of freedom: people will misuse it.

In addition, of all people who should get this concept, I think minorities like Jews and blacks and gays should get it most. It was not long ago when laws were used to compel each of these groups to do things that they found objectionable simply because they weren’t conforming to what was considered the accepted norm (Blue Laws, Jim Crow and slavery, mandatory chemical treatment, respectively).

Again, does it happen to work to my personal benefit that people can’t refuse service to me because I am Jewish? Sure. But that is a temporary advantage that is outweighed by the long-term effects of such a law. That is why I do not support the compulsion of anyone to do business with anyone whom they do not wish to enter into business with. So if a golf club wants to put up a “No Jews or Dogs sign”, I will find it disgusting. I will NOT demand that the government compel that proprietor to take down the sign. Not only would taking down the sign not help me (the proprietor would still hate my guts and I wouldn’t really want to be using the business anyway), but it would violate the proprietor’s freedoms and that makes the day that my freedoms are violated much closer.