Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

You've done nothing of the sort, but please do so now. How, pray tell, is my argument intellectually and morally bankrupt? Intellectually my reasoning is as sound as possible. Morally I oppose Bardwell's actions, along with racism and discriminatory action of all kinds.

Why not just take the next step and call me a racist myself? By your line of so-caled reasoning it'd be easy. I'll even make it easier for you - I have had black friends. I have had sexual relations with a black female. I happily share restaurant space with black people. I allow black people to use my bathroom. I acknowledge that blacks and people of mixed race in America often face harassment, discrimination, and other shameful hardships based on nothing more than the color of their skin.

Pretty racist, huh? I should be banned.

 

You've got be kidding me.

 

Not at all. It proves nothing - absolutely nothing - about racism. Is it suggestive of it? Perhaps, but taken with his other statements I don't think it amounts to much of anything at all.

But go ahead. Tell me how he is shown conclusively to be a racist by the highlighted statements. You might just succeed in convincing me that I am in error.

 

In other words, it's not his motives that matter, but the consequences of his actions.


Marian

 

Kind of late to this party, but anyone who has spent actual time in the southern states should know how racist it still is. My wife is from a city of 10,000 in south Arkansas and the stuff I have to listen to every single time about "blacks" and "mexicans" makes me so mad just keeping my mouth shut is monumental effort of self restraint. But they don't know any better. I mean they watch Fox News 10 hours a day and think Obama is a muslin terrorist who wants to eat their kids. What can you do about these people?

Why don't we just let them have their few states and just ignore them?

 

That's because it's impossible for what you're saying to be true. Whether he's motivated by hatred or ideas of superiority is debatable, but the racism is not.

 

He made a decision and prevented two people from exercising their rights based on race.

That's the definition of "racist."

He doesn't have to hate black people to be a racist, all that matters -to me at least- is that he made a decision to stop two people from exercising their rights and his only reason for doing so was because of their race.

 

It's not opinion. His actions racially motivated. Aside from the fact that race doesn't even exist, his actions were based on a belief in it, therefore he was motivated by racism.

 

Segregationism does not necessarily beget racism, my friend. Your conclusions on this matter are based solely on supposition, and/or a misunderstanding of what racism entails. He might be a racist, but I see no direct evidence of this.

 

It's not the segregationism, it's the motivation. If he was segregating the boys from the girls, he'd be chauvinistic. If he was segregating the wealthy from the poor, he'd be classist. If he were segregating the religious from the atheist, he'd be ideological. What he wants to do is segregate the Blacks from the Whites, therefore he is racist. You're confusing racism with hatred; they are not the same thing.

 

No, you're confusing racism with segregationism. Racism by its very definition involves a motivation of hatred or ideals of superiority. Simply believing that its better for everyone involved if black people and white people don't get married and have kids isn't racist. Furthermore he didn't stop anyone from getting married or reproducing - simply did not want to be a part of it himself. If that's racism, its far too broad a definition for my liking. I think a lot of people are a little too free with the term whenever anyone does anything non-PC in the world of race relations.

 

Read my previous Post again; confusing segregationism with racism is the exact opposite of what I'm doing. There are multiple forms of segregationism. What you're saying is that hatred is intrinsic to racism, and it's not. That's why "separate but equal" is a racist concept.

 

No, I don't think it is. Your opinion on what constitutes racism seems to differ somewhat from the actual definition.

rac⋅ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

 

All of the definitions that I see include not only that it is a belief that race determines character and culture (a belief which the Justice in question held), but also prejudice and discrimination based on the belief in race (which the Justice in question demonstrated). Take a look at the "Definitions" section of the Wiki page on "Racism" for an overview.