Comments on: The return of “separate but equal” http://www.dustbury.com/archives/6723 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:47:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/6723/comment-page-1#comment-13532 CGHill Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:54:01 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=6723#comment-13532 <a href="http://swirlspice.com/eharmony-decides-to-gay-it-up/" rel="nofollow">Erica said it well:</a> <em>So, dude that was angry at being made to feel like a “second-class citizen”? Now you’re getting a second-class product. Are you happy?</em> Erica said it well:

So, dude that was angry at being made to feel like a “second-class citizen”? Now you’re getting a second-class product. Are you happy?

]]> By: McGehee http://www.dustbury.com/archives/6723/comment-page-1#comment-12736 McGehee Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:06:22 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=6723#comment-12736 Adam is correct, but I fear we are about to venture once again into territory where the choices of ordinary Americans <i>who are not college students</i> merely going about their daily lives, become the province of cultural regulation by one or another branch of government. It seems we'd only recently emerged from that territory. Then again, I grew up in California, so this may actually be new territory for most Americans. Adam is correct, but I fear we are about to venture once again into territory where the choices of ordinary Americans who are not college students merely going about their daily lives, become the province of cultural regulation by one or another branch of government. It seems we’d only recently emerged from that territory.

Then again, I grew up in California, so this may actually be new territory for most Americans.

]]> By: Adam http://www.dustbury.com/archives/6723/comment-page-1#comment-12733 Adam Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:19:32 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=6723#comment-12733 I realize the title of this post may have been tongue in cheek, but I think that "separate but equal" is not a relevant parallel. Jim Crow did not just involve private businesses refusing service for African Americans, it also involved actual <i>laws</i> requiring that such a separation take place. If complete segregation had occurred in untouched markets, there would have been no need for the legislators to come in and institutionalize it. Offering a service that caters to heterosexual dating but not homosexual dating is not a case of "separate but equal"; because it is still legal to set up a competing service which offers both simultaneously. I realize the title of this post may have been tongue in cheek, but I think that “separate but equal” is not a relevant parallel. Jim Crow did not just involve private businesses refusing service for African Americans, it also involved actual laws requiring that such a separation take place. If complete segregation had occurred in untouched markets, there would have been no need for the legislators to come in and institutionalize it.

Offering a service that caters to heterosexual dating but not homosexual dating is not a case of “separate but equal”; because it is still legal to set up a competing service which offers both simultaneously.

]]>