Short Take: "Anti-Discrimination" is Just Communism via Race Guilting
Note: "Short Takes" are short essays I write up in a rage or fit of autism. They don't/shouldn’t impact the rate at which my longer content comes out.
"Anti-Discrimination" is the belief you do not have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation/gender identity, even on your own property or in your own business. The remedy is lawsuits and the loss of property.
OK how do they know you've discriminated?
Sure you might say something racist or sexist, but more likely than not, you just don't hire someone, or don't promote someone, or don't take on a client...
How is the court to know?
This is where DISPARATE IMPACT assessments come in.
If there is an inequality between groups in your hiring, not enough of X or Y are represented.... that is treated as smoking gun evidence of your covert discrimination, and not even your documented intentions can count as evidence in your favour...
Ie. If any inequality exists between any groups, at all... a condition that will hold in all places at all time... your property can be violated and confiscated by the state to redistribute.
Anti-Discrimination is the idea that any property of anyone can be redistributed at any time to address "inequality" ie. Communism.
And boomercons are such cucks, such cowards, that when communism came knocking to straight up void all property rights in the whole of America... They rolled over and insisted they weren't racist.
Even the boomer conception of "Anti-Discrimination" that your property can be taken from you if you explicitly say the N-Word to a job applicant or say that "Blacks need not apply" is a systematic nullification of First Amendment free speech, freedom of Association, and basic property rights.
Think about it, you’re a small business owner, it is 100% your store, 100% your money, and 100% your effort that produced both… And yet if you don’t hire a black person to entrust what might be your life’s savings to for the night shift, or HEAVEN FORBID, when they insist you hire them, you call them a racial slur and tell them to get the F off your property… suddenly they can sue you, for not giving them your money and entrusting them for entire shifts straight with your life’s work.
It is not your store, it’s their store. Or rather, it’s the government’s store.
If the federal government can take your property for telling someone of a different color to fuck off you don't want to pay their kind to work for you... then you have no free speech rights, no association rights, no property rights, and... since two private persons merely exchanging harsh words and NOT engaging in a transaction is just about the smallest non-event conceivable in a nation of 330 million... no separation of powers or local independence at all.
The "Civil Rights" movement was a communist coup that voided all American property rights, speech rights, political rights, and constitutional divisions of power, in favour of an all powerful, unaccountable federal bureaucracy that need respect none of them.
And boomercons and “bleeding heart libertarians” are such traitors to the republic, the American people, and the constitution, they cannot stop falling over themselves to praise the communist funded arch-traitor who made it happen.
If America ever restored its republic and constitution... Martin Luther King would not have a statue on the Washington mall, but rather his grave would be dug up and his head placed on a pike before the Capital building such as Charles II did to Oliver Cromwell when Cromwell's usurperous government fell.
Follow me on Twitter: @FromKulak
Tip:
BITCOIN: bc1qdhj7637sgcssxgxygjaa3ddljwy8tzg5mzw325
MONERO: 8AhA3g9hbtDcAJE5MPmeQsFwwGsf3H9fq9tC6giQ4a6vKnTXv4J4MivKXrPKDpXyEeNc9mfFejbq84kSWkC8pjuj18rAEij
Follow me on Twitter: @FromKulak
In law school (in the late '90s, I have some idea that this would not be taught today) - there is a particular case that ALWAYS causes problems - Shelley v. Kraemer. Everyone knows it is entirely wrongly decided: the finding of "state action" in the court's enforcement of racially restrictive covenants makes no sense in the larger context of what "state action" the Constitution limits. Robert Bork pointed out in a 1971 law review article the obvious problems with Shelley, as well as a bunch of other hot button civil rights cases. That article was used to call him a racist and crater his SCOTUS nomination. (Link to the offending scholarly piece - https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2720&context=ilj).
We had a professor who had worked in the Civil Rights Division of RFK's DoJ during the 60s. He pointed out that RFK as AG wanted to "end racism" but ran up against the problem Bork identifies - and you have as well - it smacks right up against the 1st Amendment and Free Association clause. The Supreme Court - largely infested with the "progressives" of any area - has been the architect of all of the mischief around race relations, from Dred Scott causing the Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson enshrining "separate but equal" to Brown v. Board's attempts to un-ring the bell. All of it has been caused by the Supreme Court.
I have thought something like this for a while. Making a law about something allows for litigation on that thing and discrimination laws are a slippery slope to take away people's freedom of action and eventually, thought. I think society eventually comes around to doing the right thing----it just takes a long time. A true Christian wants only good for his fellow man---which is ideal for society. But you cannot MAKE someone become a Christian. They have to come to it in their own mind. It seems like whenever we try take control of others, it does not work out. We need to remember this. It is so difficult to see someone being treated unfairly, but the answer isn't always to make a law.
Also, according to Thomas Sowell, more black families were intact and in or moving towards a good place before the 60's than after.