A few years ago, a restaurant/bar in a neighboring community refused to serve black people in their main dining room, requiring them to use a back entrance and back door. This was (maybe) 8 years ago. They were prosecuted by our state AG. That's the standard that private businesses are held to, and this JP should be held to the same standard. He is not above the law, nor is he a law unto himself.
This is no different from the Denny's discrimination lawsuit...
Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits - The New York Times
NOr is this something that should be thought of as a uniquely southern issue, this sort of thing can occur anywhere. REALLY.
Pittsburgh, for instance: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/31/pen...orkers.racism/
Walmart, nationwide: http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2...settles_5.html
Discrimination is still real, still out there, and still a problem. And, our system needs to put some real teeth into enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 10-20-09 at 08:42 AM.
I agree that he didn't handle this the proper way. IMO enforcing a personal policy to require pre-marital counseling before he would offer his signature would have been the best way to handle any high-risk couple.
Also, he should've kept is fat mouth shut on why he thought they were a high-risk couple. You can make an intelligent argument based on nothing but pure data but no one will hear anything if you so much as hint at race.
I wouldn't reveal the reasoning to anyone who couldn't force me to, saying only "knowing why doesn't change my answer".
Last edited by Jerry; 10-20-09 at 06:17 PM.
Even if the answer is yes, the decision still isn't justifiable. Because if you follow the logic, then the JP should not marry people who had a divorce before. Re-marriage wouldn't be justifiable if we were to follow that logic.
Do I believe in racial preferences to eliminate that disparity, though? No. I think they cause further harm by continuing to put emphasis on race as a condition of employment/education. I'd prefer civil litigation against those who discriminate.
One of my african-american friends told me, though: "We have no more excuses." I wouldn't have gone that far, personally.
Why is it that the justifications against gay marriage is the same one people use against interracial marriage? The welfare of the children, states rights, etc... it's hard to not see the modern gay rights group as a civil rights movement when the arguments they fight are the same ones people in the 60s went against.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
I would passionately support legislation banning re-marriage when either or both people (same or opposite sex) have minor children; "equality" be damned.