Humans tend to distrust/dislike those we're not close to. Lots of evidence shows associating with people builds empathy. Taken to its extreme, segregation causes us to 'other' people and lose empathy.
Association certainly breeds empathy, but what if that association is forced by a third party? If I didn't want to interact with a member of group X, and the government decided I had to interact with them or face some arbitrary punishment, initial interactions would be stained by that use of implied force. When you add religion into the mix, tensions are even worse because you might find yourself stuck between blasphemy and judicial punishment.
Its not like everyone feels 'forced', its only a few people (just like I don't feel forced to drive within lanes or not kill people - these don't register for me). But the impact of their attitudes is potentially much greater.
Lets say there are 3 groups of people - (M)inority group, (P)rejudiced people who have businesses, and (E)veryone else.
In this instance, the forced interaction is only forced on P, which is a small number.
P's actions would have broader impact though. The M's would find themselves less welcome in certain areas, and over time (justifiably) choose to go elsewhere. Less M's mean E's would have less interaction with M's.
P's unchecked actions would also begin to normalize P's behavior, and embolden their stance. Normalization would potentially increase the number of E's becoming P's.
Over a long time, this could create an environment where M's choose to leave entirely, E's simply lose out on the opportunity to interact with M's, and increase the likelihood E's turn in to P's through osmosis of P's normalized behavior, and because of lack of personal experience with M's. The P/E community get segregated from the M community, and whenever there are struggles between those communities (which always happen between communities, e.g. resources, culture, etc), empathy is not there to keep things civil. All due to a few Prejudiced individuals not liking being 'forced' to interact with others during the course of their personal choice to engage in (government regulated) economic activity.
Basically, a few rotten apples spoils the lot.
In cases where the number of prejudiced is higher and thus the minority group is unlikely to be able to avoid dealing with a prejudiced business owner, it's unlikely that the two groups would have ever gotten along in the first place.
This happens, a lot. Again, per my previous comment, behavior is normalized, potentially creating a hostile environment.
> After all, we're talking about the prejudiced group simply not wanting to have to associate with the minority group, not necessarily hating them or wishing harm upon them.
We don't necessarily know that. The law certainly doesn't know that.
> We all have people who don't like us, often unjustifiably, but we just avoid interacting with those individuals rather than abstaining from interaction with anyone in their community.
It only takes a small number of people or a few bad interactions for one to choose to avoid an entire area.
> In cases where the number of prejudiced is higher and thus the minority group is unlikely to be able to avoid dealing with a prejudiced business owner, it's unlikely that the two groups would have ever gotten along in the first place.
That's an assumption. Again, plenty of evidence to show that people who don't associate have prejudices that can be extinguished through repeat exposure.
I can see that these all seem small issues in the individual instance, but the thrust of my argument is their cumulative effect has broader implications.
At the risk of seeming too personal (and I mean this sincerely and not in a mean way), it honestly doesn't sound like you've been in an environment where you've felt unwelcome in this way, or spoken to someone who's felt that way about their experiences in certain areas.
[edit] by search, I mean on Google rather than HN
Also, faith means "trust", not "irrational opinion".
Not quite, faith means "trust" in an "irrational opinion". Howerver, everyone should have the right to trust whatever opinion rational or irrational.
That sort of faith can absolutely be rational.
I encourage you to look up the history of segregation in the U.S. That approach works out very badly.
but I see your point and concede that it can be a dangerous slippery slope.
Very different, but still a long way to go. I remember reading that in ~1959 (this is from memory, so all details are a bit hazy) 95% of Americans opposed legalizing interracial marriage; now of course a similar number support its legality - it's a non-issue. Look at the boom in the black middle class (it's amazing what people do when you give them a chance). Look at LGBTQ rights and the incredible advance of women in society.
On the other hand, look at who won the November election, offering the most brazen racially and religiously prejudiced, hateful messages of any major party candidate, possibly ever, and openly partnering with the most powerful agent of white supremacy in the U.S. (Bannon). Look at how minorities are treated by law enforcement in many places. Look at the overwhelming prevalence of white-skinned people (and men) in movies, IT (name the top 10 industry leaders in the last 25 years), national and state government, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc etc.
It is not fair one way or the other. You have also put yourself in the unenviable position of determining what can and can not be controlled by an individual - this will not end well.
| ...equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
IE, a specific group of people in specific set of places. That does not include discrimination against "things people can't control" in any and all establishments.