(05-09-2019 11:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Hambone... I really don't disagree with what you say here.

That's why my entire quote reads as follows:

"I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another. "

I think my comment goes much deeper than yours. Not that you're disagreeing, nor was I intending to disagree with you... merely providing what I consider to be more context. It's impossible for people to not come into any situation with a perspective that can't possibly represent everyone. There is a difference between say, not agreeing with gay marriage from a religious perspective... and deciding that it's the state's duty to stop it/make it difficult.

(05-09-2019 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

The bolded seems in direct conflict. I agree that we can impose restrictions on actions. By definition, that's not a thought crime. What we're talking about is deciding that the views of a devout Christian baker who is personally against gay marriage, who treats a gay customer buying bread identically to a straight one... should somehow not be allowed to vote to not offer spousal benefits to 'domestic partners'. (I don't support that, I'm just trying to describe a situation).

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

The term 'equally qualified' is always a tough one. People are never identical... so it depends on how you define 'qualified'. I had a female friend of my son's who got a full ride to UT because she was a white, non-Asian female computer programmer. I met a kid who was a 2 handicap and was paying his way to LSU while his sister was an 18 and had a full ride offer from there, plus a dozen other schools.

I think there are a number of things that contribute to racial disparities that go beyond racism.
Certain cultures really promote science and becoming a doctor while others promote business. Certain cultures promote their culture while others seek other forms of validation. The variations are almost endless. I'm not drawing a value judgement on these relative to each other, but it can matter to a company and make a difference at the margin.