Check out the following links:
Plessy v. Ferguson
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_plessy.html
Gay wedding cake controversy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/07/us-usa-colorado-lgbt-idUSBRE9B602S20131207
Religious liberty law
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0221/Arizona-religious-freedom-bill-Attack-on-gays-or-shield-for-some-Christians
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/oregon_anti_gay_referendum_the_initiative_is_homophobic_segregation.html
Questions
1). Explain the concept of separate but equal as applied in Plessy v. Ferguson.
2). Do you agree or disagree with the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Explain why in detail.
3). Do you agree with the judge's decision to order a Christian baker to bake a cake that would be used in a "gay wedding?"
4). Do you think that there are some similarities between the law recently passed in Arizona, and segregation laws in the post-Civil War South? Why or why not? Explain in detail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1- The laws could establish laws but could not make races like each other. Separate but equal seems to me like a way for the government to look like they're helping but really they're not. According to them, separate restaurants, bathrooms, water fountains, etc, was not being cruel or treating black citizens differently because they were just as nice as white facilities. it was only unlawful if the black facilities were inferior than the whites (which was the case).
ReplyDelete2- I don't. The reason being that black bathrooms, black restaurants, and everything that blacks could only go to were not as nice as the ones whites had. So that seems pretty unfair to me since it is in fact breaking the law which is all us citizens are treated equal.
3- I don't. If it's a free country and gays are allowed to express their sexuality freely, I think a Christian baker should be able to express his believes and I think he has the right to NOT do the cake. however if he's a real christian he would not "discriminate" the couple because that's not what God tells us to do.
4- I didn't understand what that was talking about.
1. The concept of "Seperate but Equal" is used in terms of, "they have what we have, so they'll live", when in all actuality, the blacks were treated poorly compared to white citizens. Bathrooms, water fountains, and resturants were not as "fancy" as it's white counterparts, and the whites looked at it as an "at least they get something at all" point of view.
ReplyDelete2. I don't believe that it was fair. White and black facilities being seperated. If blacks were truly made "equal" the government would've enforced it and treated them justly.
3. I don't think it is fair. I do believe that the baker should be able to exprress his perspective of things, but using religion as a bypass is selfish. If they're paying customers, who cares? The point of a business is to make money, not turn people down because they don't meet your standards.
4. In a way, yes. The Arizona law is trying to limit what gays can do, and it's EXACTLY like the laws that were passed in the South. Southern laws tried to limit and restrict blacks as much as they could from becoming citizens, but after time, blacks were given true freedom. The same concept applies today, and whether people like it or not, gays will eventually be too.
1. The facilities are separate from the blacks and white, but they are the same facilities, nonetheless.
ReplyDelete2. I don't agree with the decision because segragation isn't legal nor humane. Their rulings stating that the 13th Amendment shouldn't just apply to slavery. Segregation IS a form of slavery.
3. I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree with discrimination. I don't agree with the government deciding something for you. The baker should be able to make his own choices deciding HIS business choices even though they might not curve to the general public.
4. One of the major similarities is that the laws are being passed due to not liking a particular social group; blacks in post civil war and gays in the Arizona ban.
1. I think the separate but equal meant that they were legally allowed to have the same rights as white people (like voting, freedom, etc), but they were still not able to do the same things as whites (like sit with whites).
ReplyDelete2. I don't agree with it. If they were trying to make blacks equal and trying to get away from the times like before the Civil War, then they should make them equal in every part.
3. I agree with Sergio on this one. Gays want the freedom to express how they feel, so why can't Christians have that same freedom? He wasn't doing anything to physically harm them. They could have gone to a different baker.
4. I think there are a few similarities. I feel like they make laws but they don't completely stick with it.
!. Seperate but Equal is basically everyone has the same laws but depending on what race/color you are your punishment may be different.
ReplyDelete2. I obviously dis agree because only reason why he lost was because he was black.
3.I feel the christian man was wrong for not baking there cake just becuse they were gay. I understand the baker and his beliefs, but i also dont think its right to force him to bake there cake, the couple could've found a different baker.
3. I do not agree that the judge made the baker bake the cake.
4. I feel that the gay laws shouldnt be compared to Civil- rights laws at all. I really dont think there is a comparison they gay people are not being oppressed like they think they are. The only thing you can compare is discrimination but that is a minor to what the who civil righs laws and movement is about.
1. They have the same things that we have so it's fine, the blacks and whites have separate facilities but they are of the same "quality".
ReplyDelete2. i'm agreeing with Tyler on this one, if black people were truly equal, they wouldn't need segregation so in a way they really are violating the amendment for segregation.
3. The baker needs to separate work from personal. He has a job that he needs to do in order to pay the bills. If he wants to let his personal beliefs reflect onto his job, that is his choice and the money he looses from that is solely on him. Although ii don't believe the judge should have made that decision, it is the bakers choice for what he should do for his business.
4. Yes, the laws are choosing what gays can and cannot do, like the black codes and segregation in the south.
1. I do not think that any race should be segregated from another.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with the decision made becaus it is not right for a group of people be discriminated or segregated from one another because God made us all and we are all equal.
3. In my opinion, i do not agree with the decision made by the judge. I do not think that he should be able to demand a man to bake a cake with the supplies that HE bought, in HIS facility. If you own your own buisness then you should be able to make the decision on who you want to serve and who you don't.
4. I feel that the whole situation is wrong but then again if you are a small buisness owner then you should be able to make up your own mind on whom you would want to serve. However i do not think that the laws are as harsh as they were post civil war. And although the law was passed by Arizona does not mean that it is a federal law. to be honest i think that it would be more of a problem to deny a "gay" person service than it would to just serve them in the first place.
1. The concept 'Separate but Equal' suggests that black and white had equal rights, but that it's legally okay to live and do things while being racially separated. The 14th and 15th amendments were used to back up this concept, suggesting that although they do enforce equality, they do not require people to socialize and associate themselves with the other race.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with the decision made in Plessy v. Ferguson because it's completely cruel and atrocious to segregate people.
3. I do and do not degree with the Judge's decision to force the baker to make a cake for the gay couple. I do agree because this event is extremely similar to something that would've happen during the civil rights era; someone refusing to serve another because of race except in this case, it's because of sexual orientation. I don't think it's right to refuse to serve someone just because you're bothered by his/her sexual orientation.
4. There are most definitely some big similarities between laws being passed in Arizona and the segregation laws passed in the post-civil war south. This is like Jim Crow Pt. 2 or the re-awakening of Jim Crow-esque laws. It's the exact same thing, the only difference being sexual orientation instead of race. As i answered in the previous question, a person refusing to be served because of his/her race in post-civil war south is the same as refusing service to a person because of sexual orientation. If we look back and see it as being wrong then, what's to say it isn't wrong now? I believe that the laws being passed in Arizona are so dumb.