<Snip>
- that anyone is free to "associate" with
anyone they please, and are not required to associate with
someone they
wish not to associate with. He felt that this extended to
individuals
who own and/or operate busineses, and the individuals who are in
charge
of making such decisions. I stated that there is a distinction
to be
drawn between how people construct their personal lives and how
they
conduct themselves in the business world. These are two
completely
separate worlds, legally speaking. Etc etc etc.
Constitutional provisions are sometimes in conflict with each
other. Congress passed laws against race discrimination, and
affirmative action laws. Those laws were upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court even though they appear to be in conflict with the
freedom of association clause. These laws are proper and to some
extent required under the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments. I don't
remember the Court's reasoning, so I'll just say that the Court
decided what on the scope of the freedom of association clause.
<Snip>
1) Where is the distinction drawn between the business world and
the
educational world? My friend brought up black universities and
their
hiring practices (presumably they are staffed exclusively by
black
professors?).
There is no distinction. Predominately black universities do
indeed have white students and professors. But even if they
didn't, an all black faculty would be legal if the reason is a
lack of white applicants.
2) How about the Boy Scouts of America? I know it was determined
that
they are not required to allow homosexuals in their organization
because they are a "private organization" - but they also employ
people. What constitutes a "private organization" from a legal
perspective of hiring people? Tax status? (I am for some reason
compelled to assume that the BSA is a non-profit organization
and thus
tax-exempt).
<Snip>
I don't know how to define private, but private is indeed the
distinction. Tax status is not relevant.
3) Where does nepotism come into this? Or does it at all? If a
caucasian boss hired an unqualified relative over a qualified
black
person, would law have been broken?
<Snip>
None. The decision was based on family relationships, not race.
That's legal.
<Snip>
5) Finally, things ended on a lighter note: what if you own a
business
that manufactured those ridiculous costumes worn by Ku Klux Klan
members? How could you expect to do business with the KKK if you
hired
blacks? Would that make being caucasian a legitimate job
characteristic? He argued yes, since hiring blacks would
drastically
impede their ability to engage in commerce with their "target
customer." I disagree, because it's not about a company's
ability to
engage in commerce, but rather the individual's ability to
perform the
job. In other words, a black person is every bit as capable of
operating the machinery or whatever that makes the costumes as a
white
person is, therefore "caucasianness" is not a required
characteristic
of the person who fills the job.
Your argument is correct.
McGyver
