The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a photography studio violated the the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. Vanessa Willock was told that Elane Photography had a moral objection to her gay wedding and sued under the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation.” The case is the latest in a growing number of such conflicts between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws. Because this is an expressive activity, it raises some difficult questions under the first amendment rights of the owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. As one justice noted in concurrence, this is “the price of citizenship.” However, there remains the question of the right of citizens not to be forced to express ideas or values with which they disagree. That concern rests on a distinction between an expressive activity like photography and a cab or a movie theater in public accommodation.
The decision is well-written and well-conceived. I particularly like the part of the concurring opinion by Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, where he states that the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.” I happen to agree with that sentiment. However, I remain concerned over the impact on first amendment rights.
The Court made a reasonable distinction between the Huguenin’s conduct as opposed to their beliefs. The law governs conduct in public accommodation. Thus, “in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”
The New Mexico Human Rights Council ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs after finding a violation of the law.
The Court takes on the first amendment issues directly. The Court drew a compelling comparison to the Supreme Court decision against law schools who had refused to permit military recruiters to participate in their recruitment or placement activities:
Elane Photography’s argument here is more analogous to the claims raised by the law schools in Rumsfeld. In that case, a federal law made universities’ federal funding contingent on the universities allowing military recruiters access to university facilities and services on the same basis as other, non-military recruiters. 547 U.S. at 52-53. A group of law schools that objected to the ban on gays in the military challenged the law on a number of constitutional grounds, including that the law in question compelled them to speak the government’s message. Id. at 52, 53, 61-62. In order to assist the military recruiters, schools had to provide services that involved speech, “suchas sending e-mails and distributing flyers.” Id. at 60.The United States Supreme Court held that this requirement did not constitute compelled speech. Id. at 62. The Court observed that the federal law “neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything.” Id. at 60. Schools were compelled only to provide the type of speech-related services to military recruiters that they provided to non-military recruiters. Id. at 62. “There [was] nothing . . . approaching a Government-mandated pledge or motto that the school [had to] endorse.”
The problem is that a photographer does more than offer a facility. He uses an interpretive skill and art form to frame an event. This is more akin to a writer or painter as an expressive form. Of course, the problem is that many forms of public accommodation could claim expressive components from bakers to tailors. The Court has drawn a line at the government requiring newspapers or publications to carry opposing views. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 244 (1974) (invalidating Florida’s “‘right of reply’” statute);
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 475 U.S. 1, 4, 20-21, 26 (1986) (plurality opinion) (holding unconstitutional an order to allow a third-party group to send out message with a utility’s billing statements). In one such case, Hurley v. Irish- Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) where it ruled that a parade could exclude a gay rights groups rather than force it to include an expressive component in its banner and advocacy.
The Court again draws a compelling distinction:
“Elane Photography does not routinely publish for or display its wedding photographs to the public. Instead, it creates an album for each customer and posts the photographs on a password-protected website for the customers and their friends and family to view. Whatever message Elane Photography’s photographs may express, they express that message only to the clients and their loved ones, not to the public.”
Yet, a photographer does not simply produce robotic or reflective images. They interact with subjects of their photos and arrange scenes to capture the essence of an event. For that reason, I was not convinced that photographs of this kind are solely the expression of the couple and not the photographer.
My concern is with the speech as opposed to the association. While the couple argued that third parties could conclude that their pictures show approval of same-sex relationships, the Court correctly notes that “They may . . . post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.” Yet, I wonder if such statements could be challenged next as creating a hostile environment.
In the end, I remain torn by this ruling. I see the logic and the precedent for the decision. However, I have lingering discomfort with a required expressive act like photography. It is in my view a close question and I would love to read the thoughts of our blog on the issues. There may be no way to accommodate such expressive rights in a public accommodation law. However, that would require deeply religious businesses to either shutdown or engage in ceremonies that they find morally objectionable. It is a tough call despite my long-standing support for same-sex marriage and gay rights. What do you think?
Here is the opinion: sc33687
Randy,
I’m not obfuscating. The arguments in the first six minutes rely on a self-serving oversimplification of the facts that make the political arguments a foregone conclusion. Prostitution was just one example of it.
I didn’t ignore your other question. I had already answered it above, when I was talking to David: People delegate authority to the government, but the delegation of authority includes their consent to be bound by its decisions, outside of a set of rights.
Vestal Virgin
Vestal Virgin, you need to listen to the video again. the prostitute he specifically referred to was the one who exchanged what was rightfully hers. Your attempt at obsfucating this issue is weak.
And BTW, you ignored my earlier post to you where I asked:.
Are you of the opinion that governments of the people should be founded on the principle of assumption of authority or on the principle of delegation of authority?
Margaret Wente and all the people who agree with her arguments want to keep prostitution illegal because they’re judgmental toward prostitutes? I mean, really.
Randy,
Check this out. It’s an argument against legalization of prostitution published in the Toronto Globe & Mail last June.
Surely the situation is more complex than “The Outcasts of Poker Flat”.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/legalize-prostitution-are-we-nuts/article12753194/
Vestal Virgin
Randy,
Surely there are people like the citizens in Bret Harte’s story “The Outcasts of Poker Flat” that we had to read in high school, and surely there are also prostitutes who are able to carry out their trade without the ugly things that are usually associated with prostitution, but both public attitudes toward prostitution and the sex trade industry itself are far more complex than the guy in the YouTube video would have it.
If you Google news search for the word “prostitution”, the first page of results gives you such a diversity of people and circumstances that it makes the fact scenario described by that guy look hopelessly simplistic and naive.
Vestal Virgin
“Ineptocracy”
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or suceed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
YIPPEE, WERE THERE!!!!!!!!!!
Vestal Virgin wrote: “At 0:58 he says that prostitutes have “less to be ashamed of than any political whore”. Then he goes on to say that people worship “political whores” in the form of the state, and that people are just moralists who look down on thieves, street thugs, and prostitutes while doing the same thing and worse, but less honestly through the power of government.
At 4:32 he mentions the word prostitute again. This time it’s in reference to the story about Jesus saving the woman from being stoned. He talks about how people self-identify as Christians, but are inauthentic followers of Christ because they put prostitutes in jail.
If the word “hate” doesn’t suit you, you can replace it with “having a severely hypocritical, moralistic, and judgmental attitude toward”.
I don’t happen to be a Christian myself. However, I know that some of the most important work in America today to stop the trafficking of girls and women is being done by Christians.
To that, I say, well done Christians, very, well done indeed!!!”
I am happy that Christians are working to stop trafficking of girls and women also, but how does that good work excuse them of some other hypocrisy?
But you attempt to conflate and confuse the situation of women forcibly held in prostitution rings who needs protection with the prostitute that chooses of her own volition to to sell her body. The latter situation often produces shame in the woman due to the fact that she is often used by her clients in a degrading way. This is the shame to which the speaker on the video refers. However she may feel she has no other way of supporting herself and that alone may work despair and shame.
A woman held as a sex slave against her will has nothing of which to be ashamed.. But the Christian, voter or legislator who finds the actions of the willing prostitute distasteful or immoral and seeks to correct the situation by the passage of a law that will cage said prostitute is the one that should be ashamed. The prostitute trades only with what is rightfully hers while the Christian, votor, and legislator is willing to engage in violent immorality and steal from everyone in order to fund the cost of her incarceration. Which do you believe is more hypocritical?
By the way, if any of that confused you, it wasn’t because of the Groucho Confusion Ray being used on you.
It’s an innate failure of reason on your part.
Bron,
“What is it in itself?” –
Have you ever wondered why I don’t use Webster’s? It’s not the best dictionary. For example, the definition of “egalitarianism” you provided is not the only kind of egalitarianism nor is it the fundamental underlying concept the Founders relied upon.
Have you ever wondered why I use the OED? Other than it is the accepted authority on the English language?
“The OED is one of the largest dictionaries in the world and the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language, tracing the use of more than 600,000 words over the last 1,000 years through 3 million quotations. The OED defines:
how a word has been used
where it came from
when it first entered the English language
how its meaning has changed over time and around the world
It illustrates these definitions by quoting from more than 100,000 modern and historical texts, from classic literature such as Shakespeare’s plays to film and television scripts such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as well as wills, cookery books, blogs, and more. Subscribers to the OED can also access the Historical Thesaurus of the OED on http://www.oed.com. This unique resource allows you to explore the riches of the English language by theme, and to chart the linguistic progress over time of a chosen object, concept, or expression.
[. . .]
The OED is a historical dictionary, with a structure that is very different from that of a dictionary of current English. ”
Would you like to know what the OED defines “egalitarianism” as?
egalitarian /ɪˌgalɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities
In addition, let’s look at how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines “egalitarianism”.
“Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. [. . .] Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term ‘egalitarian’ is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.”
Note that last line. It’s germane to what I’m about to explain in greater detail than you deserve considering that I presented the same idea in a more concise fashion above.
Hobbes said, “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself. And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto.” – Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Which is . . . wait for it . . . political and legal egalitarianism.
Which is the kind of egalitarianism that Thomas Jefferson spoke of.
I’ve already stipulated this is what I mean by “egalitarian”.
See, this is the kind of problem you run into when you don’t know the meanings of words.
Contrast this with what came to be known long after Jefferson and Hobbes as economic egalitarianism. If you accept the economic truism that income equates to a greater ability to utilize opportunity, this holds true with the OED definition of the word “egalitarian” as well as Hobbes definition of “egalitarianism” from Leviathan as previously mentioned. Economic egalitarianism, however, is something different. It is the political and economics proposition that not only are equal outcomes possible, but that they are preferable. As stipulated previously, they are neither.
While this notion underpins both various forms of socialism (including to a lesser extent democratic socialism as it is a form of market socialism) and Communism, the notion that equality of outcomes is either possible or preferable is made false by the attempt to put it into action under Soviet Communism. The primary reason that Communism failed is that (like laissez-faire economics) it failed to take into account human nature. In the case of Communism, it failed to take into account it dampens the drive to innovate and make discoveries.
Where laissez-faire fails to take human nature into account is that it can only operate under a Pollyanna world view where both 1) all actors are essentially good when psychology and sociology shows us that greed breeds a greater propensity for bad acts in direct proportion to perceived personal gain and 2) that markets are a rational self-correcting mechanism that guarantee just outcomes when history shows us the exact opposite – that markets can be and will be manipulated to create unjust outcomes and are neither rational nor self-correcting.
But please, quote some more of the crazy woman.
It’s funny when people appeal to authority and that authority is demonstrably nuts.
Greed is not good. Selfishness is not a virtue. They breed tyranny, distrust and social discord.
Altruism is good. Collective action is a virtue. Without either, there would be no civilization.
You have yet, in the years I’ve known you, to make a persuasive argument in favor of Objectivism. Even when you cheat by making up definitions. When most people lose that many arguments, they might consider that their underlying premises are faulty. Unless they’re a binary thinker, trapped in a loop of authoritarian subjugation to a set of concepts they really don’t have a firm grasp on but they like it because it appeals to ego and greed while playing lip service to concepts like “liberty” and “freedom” which they obviously don’t understand or else they wouldn’t adopt a “philosophy” that has as its inevitable outcomes economic tyranny and enslavement.
Objectivism would be as bad or a worse disaster in full application as Communism was.
The only thing you know and you are very good at it, is what you have been taught in progressive school. But it isnt the truth, it is made up from the minds of corrupt little men who could not have made it in a laissez faire world.
“The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.”
Ayn Rand
That last part is oh so true. Socialists know they cannot exist without capitalism. Otherwise you get Detroit.
Gene H:
“Add “egalitarianism” to that list of words you don’t understand, Bron. “All men are created equal” is an example of egalitarianism. In fact, the phrase is a very concise summation of Hobbes. To be precise, the word means the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. “All men are equally created” is not. That would a fine example of delusion that is perfectly counter to observation of the natural world. Even if you are conflating the two to argue against equal outcomes – which also is not an example of egalitarianism. It is especially so when you are not only arguing against egalitarianism but for a systemic basis which is a recipe for tyranny like Objectivism and the ideals of big “L” Libertarianism which pays great service to the word “freedom” without really understanding it. Much like Rand herself and her acolytes such as yourself. Objectivism is, in addition to being anti-democratic, is anti-egalitarian again because it requires an underclass (Untermench).
If you truly value liberty and freedom for what the words truly mean and think it is found in Objectivism, you are sorrily mistaken.”
egal·i·tar·i·an/ɪˌgæləˈterijən/adjective
[more egalitarian; most egalitarian] formal: aiming for equal wealth, status, etc., for all people
Definition of EGALITARIANISM
1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
Yes all men are created equal, we all have the same worth as human beings and before the law, at least that is how it ought to be. But that is not egalitarianism. Equal rights and equal opportunity are not examples of egalitarianism.
And yes I am arguing against egalitarianism in terms of the definition above which says “aiming for equal wealth, status, etc., for all people.” That is clearly not achievable unless you cripple certain members of our society. According to the above definition egalitarianism is exactly about equal outcomes.
Equal opportunity would be 5 guys on a football field trying to get a spot in the starting lineup as quarterback, each guy gets the same football and is asked to throw the same passes. Each is graded on speed and accuracy and perception/awareness. The best player is then chosen.
Egalitarianism would cripple the superior player so that he is competing with a disadvantage which gives the other 4 a chance at the top spot even though they may not be the best player.
Equal opportunity is when all races are given a chance to compete.
Egalitarianism is equality of outcomes.
The word egalitarian didnt exist in Hobbe’s day. He would have used equality and I am pretty sure he meant in terms of people’s natural rights.
As for freedom, you are a demi-tyrant and authoritarian, I suggest you learn what Liberty and Freedom mean. Socialism/Fascism/Communism is all about control of human beings.
“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”
“The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.”
““Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.”
“Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”
Ayn Rand
Maybe you will learn something about freedom and liberty.
Like I said above, your entire shtick is about asking “when did you stop beating your wife.”
Randy,
At 0:58 he says that prostitutes have “less to be ashamed of than any political whore”. Then he goes on to say that people worship “political whores” in the form of the state, and that people are just moralists who look down on thieves, street thugs, and prostitutes while doing the same thing and worse, but less honestly through the power of government.
At 4:32 he mentions the word prostitute again. This time it’s in reference to the story about Jesus saving the woman from being stoned. He talks about how people self-identify as Christians, but are inauthentic followers of Christ because they put prostitutes in jail.
If the word “hate” doesn’t suit you, you can replace it with “having a severely hypocritical, moralistic, and judgmental attitude toward”.
I don’t happen to be a Christian myself. However, I know that some of the most important work in America today to stop the trafficking of girls and women is being done by Christians.
To that, I say, well done Christians, very, well done indeed!!!
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=40277
Vestal Virgin
Vestal Virgin wrote:
“Randy, I listened to about six minutes(?) of it.
I don’t hate prostitutes. I wish for them all the good things that life has to offer.
That’s all I can remember. He kept saying that I hated prostitutes. I just don’t!”
VV, Why would you resort to making claims that just aren’t true? I have listened to this video over 10 times and he doesn’t say that. Put up or shut up. Where on the video does he say that?
If you are hearing voices maybe you need to get checked out.
So Vestal Virgin, are you of the opinion that governments of the people should be founded on the principle of assumption of authority or on the principle of delegation of authority?
There is an assumption that a business is open to the public unless the words ‘PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT’ are also included with the words ‘WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE’. Such a notice must be conspicously placed.
And since it is a private establishment the owners’s reasons for refusal are also private, unless he chooses to make them known. If so, he is at liberty under such circumstances.
There is no prohibition against the exercise of private business between two persons who consent.
Randy,
I listened to about six minutes(?) of it.
I don’t hate prostitutes. I wish for them all the good things that life has to offer.
That’s all I can remember. He kept saying that I hated prostitutes. I just don’t!
Vestal Virgin
Davidm2575 wrote
“Randy Lee – I have enjoyed many of your posts, but this Anarchy video was a long stream of … well… I’m not sure what to call it other than blasphemy. The guy does not understand the proper role of authority. He sounds angry and full of hate and lawlessness. I felt greatly disturbed within myself, as if somebody was cussing me out with the most vile words imaginable. It was a little better toward the end, and he made some valuable points, but the delivery and ultimate implications sounded like a road leading to chaos rather than understanding.”
Blasphemy of what David? What is the proper role of authority if first principles of delegation versus assumption of power are violated. Should we begin by blaspheming these first principles?
You should feel disturbed; it shows you have a measure of concience still living in your soul.
And you can’t see the consequences of what the ultimate and inevitable implications of departing from the first principle of delegation of authority as this nation and every other so called limited government has done? What about the chaos we experience now? We can never enjoy freedom if we depart from first principles of delegation of authority and free agency..
Many of the other people on this thread departed from first principles long ago as is evident by the fact they will not address this very issue that I have raised in the past concerning the delegation of rights and rightful authority. They have chosen to willfully act as if they and others have some authority to impose their political will on the remainder of society by force of law..
I was saddened by the fact that you were the only one disturbed enough to the time to comment on the video.
“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man [1791-1792]
A constitution of a people cannot claim authority, right or power in excess of that delegated by the sum total of its constituent members. If no one member has either authority, right, or power to act then the gang neither has such authority right or power. This is the only rational basis for limited government. Once the door is open to the slightest usurpation/assumption of authority, right, or power that none of the members individually possess the nature of the institution is no longer limited and the underlying purpose of a limiting Constitution is subverted. The very Constitution of this nation constituted a subversion to this first principle by purporting to vest Congress with authorities and powers that none of the people could have delegated, since none of these individuals possessed such authority individually.
Sacrifices of first principles for the sustenance or maintenance of the culture, i.e. the will of the cult, are worthless excuses for the usurpation of authority, the instituting of a government, the imposition of the will of the cult, and the consequent violation of individual liberty. Why do so many on this thread, and throughout this nation, think they must assume authority over the free agency their fellowmen? Even the proponents of limited government either overlook or ignore the first principles of delegation and usurpation/assumption.
“All greatness of character is dependant on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him will never have any other than an existance of mediocracy.” James Fenimore Cooper, American Democracy.
David,
I didn’t say I hadn’t experienced discrimination. I said I hadn’t experienced discrimination in public accommodations in a foreign country (based on sexuality, by the business owner). That’s just not how discrimination plays out here, even among the most zealous monotheists. That doesn’t mean (a) I haven’t experienced other kinds of discrimination both here and in the States; or (b) that public accommodations discrimination is not a problem in the States.
My social experience prior to transition and after beginning transition are almost as if they came from two different universes. Prior to transition I actually also thought that complaints about discrimination by ethnic and sexual minorities in the States were exaggerated, and I looked at their complaints with a kind of skeptical disdain. Now, not only do I think they are not exaggerated, I think that minorities, if anything, understate the volume of prejudice directed at them.
I would also note that anti-discrimination law ALREADY protects the categories to which members of the majority belong, and where it doesn’t, by definition it’s the majority that possesses the most common version of the trait at issue, so it isn’t likely to experience discrimination based on this trait. Given these circumstances, then, it’s kind of naive and simplistic for them to look around, shrug dismissively, and declare that discrimination doesn’t exist because it’s not happening to them. (But I understand why they do this; as I said, I used to be that person, too.)
Numbers might explain better than I can: If one percent of the population holds prejudiced attitudes and is willing to act on them, that means if you encounter 100 people in a day, you’ll encounter at least one prejudiced person. Every single day. Now imagine if the percentage is something higher. Five percent. Still not a social problem, from the majority’s perspective, right? After all, 95% of the population isn’t acting on prejudiced views. But, for members of the minority, that means, in a typical day, they’ll encounter five prejudiced people. Five people. Every single day. Every week. Every month. Every year. That’s completely unreasonable. Please don’t misunderstand me to be saying that I think it’s possible ever completely to eradicate smaller and smaller levels of residual prejudice. I only mean to point out how quickly seemingly tiny percentages can accumulate in terms of negative human interaction. Which isn’t something members of the majority would ever consider because it’s outside of their experience.
I completely agree with you that it is absolutely vital that people likely to be subject to discrimination learn mental resilience skills. One of the contradictions inherent in fighting discrimination is that the authentic stories of harm at the hands of certain members of the majority that need to be told for purposes of advocacy NOT be translated into promoting a victimhood mentality among members of the minority, nor, on the flip side, that resilience by the targets of prejudice in enduring it should be allowed to obscure its badness. Balancing these things is difficult.
With regard to your speech-as-a-resolution question, I don’t think here that good speech is sufficient to curtail bad behavior by bad people.
Vestal Virgin