Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 12, 2019 at 22:08 comment added Brilliand @ZachLipton That's a very good reason at the time, though it seems to me it isn't a good reason to continue forcing restaurants in the present day? Once the damage has been reversed, prohibiting the states from passing another such discriminatory law should be sufficient.
Aug 11, 2019 at 1:48 comment added Zach Lipton @isakbob Jump back to the historical context. Consider List of Jim Crow law examples by state. In Alabama, the law was "It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room..." This was state-enforced segregation, and surely wasn't the free market: a business couldn't legally be integrated even if they wanted to. To remediate that, it wouldn't have been enough to just abolish the law; restaurants needed to be forced.
Aug 8, 2019 at 8:46 comment added Luaan The thing is, yes, it's definitely the government's job to ensure things like people being equal before law. No public agency should ever treat people differently based on race, gender, whatever, and this is still a huge problem in the US, both in agencies like the police departments, and in law making; the only thing that really seemed to have changed is that the laws persecute e.g. blacks through some correlated activity, rather than directly saying e.g. "blacks can't buy guns". But how does that translate to not allowing business owners to choose who they want to serve?
Aug 7, 2019 at 21:24 comment added isakbob I'm now saying duh to my self: a federal check on state government intervention. That said, could you include some sources? Common sense to me and you might not actually be common elsewhere.
Aug 7, 2019 at 21:17 history answered Rupert Morrish CC BY-SA 4.0