Gospel said:
But to try to answer as I respect your time and consideration;
Thank you Gospel.
I'll keep reading and trying to understand your posts better.
I will post a reply to your latest points, but I get it if you prefer not to go on
; I get tired too in these threads.
Gospel said:
None of what SB 148 as it is written unjustly bans anything.
I understand the purpose of SB 148 and agree with it (as it is written) however I'm not in a vacuum and I'm fully aware that SB 148 is also a response to CRT and in fact written under the influence of CRT. The issue is, that some aspects of SB 148 will mostly benefit white people as situations listed as unlawful that offer protections to non-whites are (for historical reasons) less likely to be used by non-whites.
For example:
An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
Name a single non-white group (I'm not talking about "honorary whites") that would find themselves on the ugly end of efforts to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion? As you know the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is constitutional because it's an effort to remedy discrimination. Private corporations attempting to do something similar can now be sued under SB 148. So what non-whites do you think would use this section of SB 148 to protect themselves?
If you take a look at the bill
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/00148/ (I'm keeping only the relevant parts; the rest is on the link), what it bans is
SB148 said:
Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances,
inculcates, or compels such individual to believe...<some other stuff>
An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
So, it does not seem to ban the employer from engaging in affirmative action - though that might be banned by another law; that I do not know, and I make no claims one way or another -, but from subjecting an individual employee to mandatory training, etc., that requires, espouses that an individual by virtue of his or her race should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment in order to achieve diversity, etc.
The part that you cite of SB148 is not concerned with whether the employer engages in affirmative action or something like it - though, again, I do not know whether other bills might -, but with whether the mandatory teaching of the above behavior. Assuming that affirmative action qualifies as a policy in which an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is discriminated against or receives adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion - else, the SB148 disposition is not applicable to that -, then SB148 bans the employer from
subjecting employees from the mandatory teaching that affirmative action so defined should be implemented, not from actually implementing it.
And yes, I do not think any non-white person will likely be subject to that. But what I do not understand is what your objection is, given that I do not understand your position on the effectiveness of SB148, and given that you say it does not ban things unjustly. More precisely:
Do you think that the cases in which some white people (but no non-white people) would be in a position to sue in accordance with the above disposition of SB148, are cases in which they would also be able to sue in accordance to the CRA? If your answer is 'yes', then already the CRA contains cases in which only some white people will benefit. If your answer is 'no', how is it that SB148 only targets either behaviors already banned by the CRA or a boogieman that does not exist? I mean, if some white people will be able to sue in situations in which they could not before, then it seems that some of the behaviors it targets but which were not banned by the CRA are real (of course, I'm talking about situations in which the white people in question are able to sue
and win, as being able to sue only to lose the court battle is not a benefit).
In short: either it's a boogieman and then no white people will benefit from it, or it is real and then the question becomes whether the behaviors it bans are behaviors that lawmakers are justified in banning.
Gospel said:
It's not about the harm it may cause non-white people it's about it being a law with sections that solely (if not mostly) benefits white people.
Hmm...if a law solely benefits a group of people but harms no one, it looks okay to me.
For example, if some instances of racial discrimination only hurts non-white people, then a law banning them will only benefit some non-white people - directly; more below -, but I do not see that as weighing against having such a law.
That said, generally if a law benefits a group of people and harms no one, it seems to me it creates a general benefit. In particular, if only people in group A are being unjustly targeted for discrimination, people not in group A are on average harmed too, even though of course to a lesser extent - see B20's points on the matter.
Gospel said:
Absolutely not. But SB 148 (according to Desantis and friends) is a law to prevent such teachings.
But a law that bans teachings that do not exist will not benefit white people, either.
