>it might be better if we know who the >segregationists are
I suppose if there existed an equivalent non-segregated alternative for every segregated business (equivalent in terms of product, service, cost and convenience), then it might be better to allow segregated businesses to exist so customers can make more informed choices (and hopefully ... See Moreput the segregated businesses out of business). However, this condition (i.e. equivalent alternatives everywhere) has never existed and is never likely to exist.
I should add that it's ridiculous to claim that separate sections within a business are equal sections. Any business that chooses to create separate sections based on race are not likely to treat the customers in the non-White section the same as they treat the customers in the Whites-only section. The SCOTUS declared separate is not equal back in the 50s I believe.
What to do then? There are a few options:
1) Allow segregated businesses to existing without competitive alternatives?
2) Subsidize non-segregated alternatives where needed to create competition?
3) Mandate that all businesses be non-segregated (as was done via the Civil Rights Act)?
Which option is best? That depends on who is doing the judging and what criteria is being used to judge 'bestness'. I bet I can guess which option the owners of the segregated businesses would chose. Snark aside, it comes down to what is better for the country. Mandating non-segregation creates a precedence saying government can limit some of the choices of business owners, but increases the options, opportunity, and dignity of non-Whites. Different people will evaluate these trade-offs differently depending on their personal value system. To me, I think the choice is clear. Mandating non-segregated businesses results in the greater good, but it's important to realize that it does come with a price. The price is that the government now has the power (via SCOTUS rulings) to limit some of the choices of business owners. It's up to us as voters to make sure that power is not used inappropriately.
>it might be better if we know who the
>segregationists are
I suppose if there existed an equivalent non-segregated alternative for every segregated business (equivalent in terms of product, service, cost and convenience), then it might be better to allow segregated businesses to exist so customers can make more informed choices (and hopefully ... See Moreput the segregated businesses out of business). However, this condition (i.e. equivalent alternatives everywhere) has never existed and is never likely to exist.
I should add that it's ridiculous to claim that separate sections within a business are equal sections. Any business that chooses to create separate sections based on race are not likely to treat the customers in the non-White section the same as they treat the customers in the Whites-only section. The SCOTUS declared separate is not equal back in the 50s I believe.
What to do then? There are a few options:
1) Allow segregated businesses to existing without competitive alternatives?
2) Subsidize non-segregated alternatives where needed to create competition?
3) Mandate that all businesses be non-segregated (as was done via the Civil Rights Act)?
Which option is best? That depends on who is doing the judging and what criteria is being used to judge 'bestness'. I bet I can guess which option the owners of the segregated businesses would chose. Snark aside, it comes down to what is better for the country. Mandating non-segregation creates a precedence saying government can limit some of the choices of business owners, but increases the options, opportunity, and dignity of non-Whites. Different people will evaluate these trade-offs differently depending on their personal value system. To me, I think the choice is clear. Mandating non-segregated businesses results in the greater good, but it's important to realize that it does come with a price. The price is that the government now has the power (via SCOTUS rulings) to limit some of the choices of business owners. It's up to us as voters to make sure that power is not used inappropriately.