Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

I want him to say it. If he can't bring himself to say it, then he realizes on some level that there is a problem with the concept.

Who made a comparison to slavery? I haven't been keeping up with this thread too much.

He already said it twice.

Is saying it a third time going to change anything?

in the strictest sense, that's a description of every job ever.

true, you can always quit - but said baker can always quit baking cakes too so...

As gul pointed out, the buyer has qualified for the mortgage in all respects other than Buying While Black. Take your hobo somewhere else.

So what? It still doesn't change the fact that the deal between lender and borrower is still a separate deal from the one between buyer and seller.

He said, "banks don't have to lend mortgages to blacks buying in white neighborhoods," that's what he said? I missed that in his generic talk about buyers and sellers. If he can't directly answer the question, falling instead to something that barely resembles an answer, then he is bothered by the actual answer. Yes, I get that in his statement he used the word buyer instead of borrower, and seller instead of lender. But why be so blatantly obtuse? Why can't he just say that he's fine with banks red lining to protect segregation?

I think I've answered your question, but let me make it clear:

A bank should be free to lend to whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes under whatever terms it can get.

A bank isn't likely to CARE what color your skin is, so long as you can pay for the loan. If for some reason, a bank were refraining from giving qualified people loans, it would provide an opportunity for another bank to step in and pick up the business at a higher profit (because less competitive).

But we're not talking about the employee/employer contract. We're talking about the buyer/seller relationship.

Sounds good, but what if all the banks develop a joint standard on these loans, which is what actually happened. Can they all agree not to lend to blacks wanting to buy in white neighborhoods?

They could and they did, until the Mean Ol' Gubmint made them stop.

Jesus Christ, I'm black and I couldn't care less if some racist assclown wants to refuse me service. I had lunch at a Jamaican restaurant today, I had Cuban yesterday and Chinese over the weekend. I think I'll be just fine. In fact I'd prefer allowing the racists to be racist, it makes it easier to identify them and spend my money elsewhere. I kinda want to open a restaurant now and refuse service to liberals. Since being liberal is a choice I'm assuming you'd all be okay with it.

Sure. Why would they? It isn't 1950 any more. If banks colluded to discriminate against blacks, many of their white customers would be unhappy. I don't see what they have to gain.

And look how beautifully that worked out.

Sounds like fun, but how would you do it? Ask every would-be patron to fill out a questionnaire at the door?

I disagree. It would be quite a significant societal failure.

No. I'd hang crosses and put a copy of the bible on every table.

No, it wouldn't. The market is one of the ways in which society speaks. If society indicates, via the market, that it has no problem with such practices, then that society is operating successfully despite them -- or, possibly, even because of them.

Geez, if you guys are gonna whine and dig your feet in on every little bit of minutia of every little step, you're not gonna have tears left for when I just throw the lever that opens the big metal gates that sets free the swarming mass of all the ass-and-mouth-rapists in fairy costumes who have been starving for your holes.

This assumes that the market accurately reflects the will of society. I've already explained one way in which it does not. And there are many others.

Then you'd remain clueless.

Back in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s, when this was actually happening, banks apparently saw it in their interest. What if they still did? And by the way, do you know why red lining stopped?

I can see the threads on Ye Olde Wordforge:

"Women's Suffrage, Forced on Everyone???"
"Desegregation, Forced on Everyone???"
"Labor Laws, Forced on Everyone???"
"Equal Rights, Forced on Everyone???"

The war is coming to an end, and the bigots are losing badly.

In cases where government interference is strictly limited or absent entirely, it absolutely does. People don't buy things they don't want, or use services they don't wish to, without coercion.

If you didn't need a car to pretty much exist in this society, what exactly would you ever use gasoline for?

Not at all. The only liberals left who still believe in god are black and they're easy enough to spot.

Done a comprehensive study, have you? Love to see your data.

Yeah, what's the deal Clyde, remember you trying to make that same argument in another thread a few months ago when no-one was talking about it then either. You realize that there is a century of time between the 1860's and 1960's right?

Hardcore libertarians like Paladin amuse me, because they exist in a very similar world to hardcore communists. That being one where their system doesn't work unless the world is perfect, but if the world is already perfect then their system isn't needed.

So, the state should be able to use its power to crush those with unpopular views?