Different prices for different races?

@Dinner is just mad that malt liquor is dirt cheap, while he's breaking the bank buying top shelf liquor every morning.

Your thesis relies on selectively looking at the evidence.

Of course capitalism drives wealth generation, but of course wealth can also be developed under communism. If it can't you are going to have to claim that the USSR was never communist after all given the vast fortunes developed under it. The point is that all systems can fail if used inappropriately and a capitalist system combined with available resources is no guarantee of economic success under the wrong conditions. On the contrary many of the worlds' nations which should be economic powerhouses do conspicuously poorly. See Congo, or indeed several African nations with market based economies and access to vast natural wealth. Vietnam seems to have done rather well out of not having fallen under the capitalist sphere, whereas there's a hell of a lot of poverty throughout the oil rich Middle East despite many market based economies.

Poverty isn't the natural order, disparity is. We have overwhelming anthropological evidence that the basis for social interactions at the fundamental level is hierarchical and all systems which endeavour to create equitable societies run up against that problem in one form or another. Show me any country where there is anything remotely resembling an even distribution of wealth.

People don't actually act rationally in their self interest, on the contrary economic models which rely on them doing so always fail to predict human behaviour in practise, precisely because although humans are indeed self interested that's not the same as enlightened self interest. If it were there wouldn't be such a market for cigarettes, designer clothes or junk food, nor would they create conditions which lead to poverty for others and thus drive up crime rates.

What they do is act selfishly and that is not the same thing. Socialist policies can act as a safety net against the excesses of capitalist ones and all successful societies are a hybrid of many systems.

If you doubt this please show me one, just one, example of a successful nation which absolutely and categorically operates under a pure economic system of any ilk with no concessions to hybridisation and isn't merely a haven for tax exiles from other nations.

Dinner what exactly do you disagree with about this, given that I was agreeing with you?

Because you think women are less than you and having a Hispanic woman obey you is the next best thing to slavery? Do remember marriage is less about love and more about possesion, especially when you look at religious meaning behind it.

Jesus, I really hope you're lying about having a wife. No one deserves to be stuck living with an angry alcoholic racist.

Because y’all have a lot in common?

True, and I understand their religious beliefs but ...
Every wedding cake that I've ever seen is pure white with some spelling and a couple figurine on top.If the owner didn't have a guy/guy figurine, all he would have had to do was taken a few seconds to spell whatever the couple wanted on top. That's it. The rest is all the same. So why deny service and lose a paying customer all because you don't approve of their lifestyle?

And if they were following their teachings they wouldn't be judging this couple in the first place. They would make that cake and when the couple left, pray for them.

The crux of the matter is: where does not providing a service specific to group X become discrimination against group X?

The bakers were willing to sell an undecorated cake. But they felt--and I think this is a reasonable stance given their views--that putting the message on it would be them endorsing a view that they don't hold.

As has been pointed out, the bakers also did not provide Halloween cakes, so their religious limitations on their expression were not limited to gay marriage.

Different people have different interpretations of what it means to be observant in their faith. Whether their interpretation is "correct" is irrelevant: they still have a right to their interpretation.

You are a real mongoloid piece of shit.

If only you'd spent the same on learning English. "Meed"?

FFS.

Heh.

This scenario is a thread on a toxic MB. If it went the other way (Whitey charging black people more for anything, just because racism) it'd be all over the networks, the ACLU and Congress would be involved, Trump would be tweeting, and it would end up in front of the SCOTUS as a civil rights violation case.

Oh, you mean like how blacks get charged more for car insurance?

Yeah, shouted from the fucking rooftops, that.

https://www.thebalance.com/why-do-minorities-pay-more-for-car-insurance-4163553

Dinner only "looks out for his own".

If you read your own article, you'll see that it appears to have more to do with minority 'neighborhoods' than skin color itself. If Anna moves to Whiteyville, she's not going to pay more for insurance just because she's black. In fact, they wouldn't even know unless she spoke to an agent face to face and so on. But you go on making all the disingenuous arguments you want. The sad fact is that racism exists in all sectors. It's just that in your world, only racism against minorities counts as racism. Which was kind of the point of my post.

So, you're saying the insurance company is making an assumption based on the overall color of a neighborhood rather than a face-to-face assessment?

I'm not sure you're arguing what you THINK you're arguing, here. But please, proceed.

I am pretty sure @Marso is all for finding alternative ways to charge black people more as long as you don't ask them if they are black. As long as you do not specifically label things as racist then there is no racism according to his logic.

Well, the Republican gerrymanderers have already figured out you can do any blatantly racist thing you want, so long as you say "democrat", instead of "nigger".

I am pretty sure when they say democrat or liberal they are thinking of a black person in their heads.

More like this:

If you darken the shade of that person to be black, then you will have it.

Nope, but as long as it makes you feel special.

This "you can't be tolerant yet be intolerant of some views" shit is getting fucking old though.

More like "you can't be tolerant when you're intolerant of anything that doesn't match your preconceptions."

Nope.

Fucking deal with it.

Completely setting aside any agenda of the original poster:

No, they should not. This is racial discrimination. It's also enforcing some pretty fucking horrible precedents.

Any society where this works as positive PR is sick and deserves to die.

Clearly it didn't work positively for them as even their artists were upset about it, and they pretty quickly changed their minds. I am not seeing anywhere that encouraged or supported this idea, even on the left.

For the record, I'm against this attempt at race based ticket pricing as well. "Black people deserve a discount because they're poor" is just as offensive as "whites can pay more because they've got money," probably moreso.

The OP points out several cases where whitey pays less. None of them are treated as you say, and indeed none of them seem to register with any of the posters in this thread. It's just accepted as normal.

No, sorry, you can't even be teensy racist.
Teensy racist is like teensy arsenic.
We need NONE.
None arsenic, none racism.

I’m just saying...

You can’t on the one hand defend your racism by saying ‘You know who the REAL racists are, Latin Americans. Especially Panamanians, they are the worst.’

And then a little while later defend your racism by going ‘Hey, how can I be racist, I married a Panamanian?!?’