I will add one thing, and be done. If you go back to the hotel of atlanta case, testing the civil rights act of 1964, that should show you how much racial discrimination in a very real way limited the ability of african americans to move about in our society. I think you should read up on that subject if you are going to continue that stance, assuming you haven’t done so already. This is no minor inconvenience we are talking about.

And you are standing up for the right to be unreasonable and to discriminate. Lovely.

> [me] And that is assuming that private individuals should be allowed to discriminate. How far do you take that friend? If a store said “whites only” you would be cool with that? How about if it said “no jew will be hired?”

> [you] Right, you don’t want an inclusive world because that means some people will do very mean and unfair things. Just don’t pretend that you do this is some spirit of inclusion.

> [you] An intolerance of intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.

Wow, so what this really comes down to is you oppose the entire project of protecting any person from private discrimination. And indeed, you also think that the state should be able to outsource to bigots.

Well, as the man who wrote the 14th Amendment said, “no distinction would be tolerated in this purified republic but what arose from merit and conduct.” That was his vision, and I agree.

And is that in a limited sense intolerant? Guilty. I think in general we should be more intolerant of intolerance. For instance, that guy who shot up Ft. Hood? He was a fricking intolerant man and if we were a little more intolerant of his intolerance, maybe 13 soldiers would be alive today who aren’t.

Not that I assume disagree with me about ft. hood. I just don’t get why you think tolerating bigotry is a good thing. Of course you can feel free to harbor bigotry in your heart and even express it (though I would say not in the army), but while what you think and say is your freedom and your right, what you DO is not.

> State actions must be actions taken by the state. (And the State cannot get around the requirement to comply with the law by ‘outsourcing’ because if the State chooses to outsource, that choice is State action and that choice is what should be subject to legal attack.)

But whether we are talking about the SAT or your BK example, they are outsourcing it. they are taking something they could have done themselves and asked someone else to do it for them. Are you having trouble with the concept of outsourcing like you are with the concept of conformity?

> Ford would have to make a square steering wheel. So would Toyota. So, too, would Lexus.

Your hypothetical named one man.

And are you under the impression that there is presently a great diversity in steering wheels?

> Presumably, if Ford deliberately designed a car such that it could not accommodate a square steering wheel, that would also cause the same problem.

Um, seriously, I have had it with your silly example. Seriously, would you care to explain why a steering wheel has to be round? And how could a person possibly make it impossible for the steering wheel to be a square?

> That you style this as having anything to do with choice, when it’s about legal compulsion is likewise stunning.

Of course it is compelling ford to offer the person that choice. And?

When you tell an employer that he has to hire without regard to race, you are compelling him, and giving prospective employees a greater set of choices. When you tell a hotel chain that they can’t exclude black people, you are compelling them into giving black customers a choice. Seriously, do you have any idea how difficult it was for black people to go across this country before the civil rights act of 1964?

And are you saying you want to reverse that?

And you would say to disabled people that they can be barred from entering stores, enjoying television, and so on, and then turn to them and say, “isn’t freedom grand?”

Compelling everyone else to design the world around *your* disability is utterly exclusive. Everyone else’s design must yield to your peculiarities. Apparently, if you are disabled, the whole world must be designed around your specifications, assuming such a design is ‘reasonable’.

To say that forcing everyone else to accommodate you is “inclusive” is bizarre. An “inclusive” world includes things that are exclusive. An all-inclusive world can only exist by prohibiting exclusion.

“And that is assuming that private individuals should be allowed to discriminate. How far do you take that friend? If a store said “whites only” you would be cool with that? How about if it said “no jew will be hired?””

Right, you don’t want an inclusive world because that means some people will do very mean and unfair things. Just don’t pretend that you do this is some spirit of inclusion.

An intolerance of intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.

As for whether I would “be cool with that”. No, I would not be. And I would do everything within my power to combat it. However, where government action is not involved, my just power does not extend to compulsion.

And I utterly reject your argument that choosing to do business with the state transforms private action into state action. State actions must be actions taken by the state. (And the State cannot get around the requirement to comply with the law by ‘outsourcing’ because if the State chooses to outsource, that choice is State action and that choice is what should be subject to legal attack.)

Ford would have to make a square steering wheel. So would Toyota. So, too, would Lexus.

Presumably, if Ford deliberately designed a car such that it could not accommodate a square steering wheel, that would also cause the same problem. Otherwise, one could circumvent the law by deliberately making accommodations difficult.

OF COURSE it’s a recipe for homogeneity. That you don’t see that is stunning.

“but apparently choosing a square steering wheel is somehow the end of the world to you.”

That you style this as having anything to do with choice, when it’s about legal compulsion is likewise stunning.

Bob

> The government cannot transform private action into government action without the private actor’s consent.

Well, the consent is when they deal with the government. So when the SAT sends its test scores directly to the schools I don’t see how they can be surprised when someone say “you are performing the school’s function.”

Even in your BK example, you know BK is consenting too. They don’t have to fulfill the government’s order. They can say, “you know what? Working with you carries too many strings. Take a hike.” For instance that is why Ford refused stimulus money, because they knew that our idiot president would make them pay dearly.

And more fundamentally, the government should not be using a test that discriminates against a person in an unfair manner.

And that is assuming that private individuals should be allowed to discriminate. How far do you take that friend? If a store said “whites only” you would be cool with that? How about if it said “no jew will be hired?”

And let’s suppose that you wouldn’t allow a company to refuse to hire jews, or more precisely to discriminate according to faith. Then how do you deal with the obvious loophole, where the employer says, next, “okay from now on everyone has to work on Saturday.” Then he can say, “I’m not discriminating against jews. I am just discriminating against people who refuse to work on Saturday.”

And your strict no-accommodation-even-when-reasonable approach starts to stink particularly bad when it comes to disability. A person can compromise their faith. Disability is a little more stubborn. A paraplegic can’t choose to suddenly walk. A blind man can’t choose to suddenly see. A deaf person can’t choose to suddenly hear. But you would say that even if the accommodation they are seeking is reasonable, that they should still be excluded. And bizarrely you call that exclusion inclusive. Yike. I thought it was mostly liberals who abused the language.

> That’s a recipe for forcing homogeneity.

Taking your silly hypothetical for the 5th time, all fords having round steering wheels but one that is square is literally NOT HOMOGENOUS. I mean as an issue of the definition of the word “homogenous” that is incorrect. You can rightfully call it enforced diversity, but not forcing homogeneity.

And its bizarre again. The average car buyer can choose:

Automatic or manual transmission
Cruise control or not
Radio/cd player/ipod dock
Electric or manual locks and windows
The color of their car
Leather interior
Often convertible or not
Climate control options
Often hatchback or sedan.

and so on. but apparently choosing a square steering wheel is somehow the end of the world to you. And then weirdly you pretend this is going to make all cars alike, when we are only talking about making one different.

The point, this means one private party can force another private party to do anything reasonable, simply by putting the right ideas in their head. If you think that’s a recipe for *inclusion* you are out of your mind. That’s a recipe for forcing homogeneity.