People have the natural right to freedom of association. Whether or not being racist makes someone an a-hole is a different question than whether free individuals have an inherent right to be a-holes if that is their choice.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 needs to be revisited, because it grossly overstepped the boundaries of government power by prohibiting individual action.
Laws against racism and discrimination should be exclusively about limiting government power to discriminate and/and or force segregation with regard to the government policies, law enforcement, government institutions and facilities. The injustices of the Jim Crow era were legally enforced by the government, and the Jim
Crow era laws needed to be eliminated.
But free individuals have a right to choose with whom they will or will not associate. If society wants to impose sanctions on racist a-holes, that's fine, as long as it's done socially (i.e. boycotts and shunning) and not legally.
Much of the government over reach we have seen in the past 50 years is due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being commandeered by the left to limit the rights of the people relating to pretty much all private activity, instead of being limited to curtailing the powers of the government.
If black people want to live exclusively with black people at private colleges, that is their right if the college chooses to adopt that policy. But that same right also must be recognized for all other races and ethnic groups as well.
Try reversing it and see what happens. “No women allowed.” Try that.
But this is okay. It excludes men. That’s cool.
And I want women to be banned from being in Infantry Rifle companies as I damn sure would not provide a security patrol in the bush for them to urinate or crap in private.
I agree. Freedom of association is also freedom from association. The FedGov has way overstepped and we deserve freedom and liberty.
Bravo, Maceman! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Nice concept — fails in practice.