Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
I don't think the pants thing will work because it is targeting young black males.
.
|
I really don't see this initiative as "targeting young black males" in the sense that it is derogatory and, therefore, should not be passed for that reason alone. The only analogy I can make here is that just because legislators have a particular group in mind when they enact a law does not mean they are invidiously targeting that group to enact a law that will oppress them. Legislators had white males in mind when they legislated against lynching or cross burning. The anti lynching or anti- cross burning laws were not enacted to OPRESS that group, but was to address a broader social problem. You can relate that same principle to this. They may have had black males in mind when they thought of the ordinance, but not to oppress them, rather to address a broader social problem that has resulted from their actions. Strange comparison, I know, but it was the first one that I thought of when I read the comments on this law targeting black males. Sometimes I think it helps to look at these things from both side to help realize how important flexibility in the law is. If white males had been able to claim that the anti lynching or cross burning laws should have been struck down simply because they unduly targeted them and infringed on their constitutional rights to speech and epxression (which they technically did, except for the lynching) those laws ever would have passed. It was the necessity of control that the laws addressed that caused them to stick. Now, sagging pants are in no way in the same realm as what was being caused by the acts of the lynchers and cross burners, but the legal principles are waht I am trying to highlight here.
As I said, regardless of the group who started the activitiy, if it is causing problems in the society, then society can and should address it.
-And, as with other aspects of "the culture" its no longer just black males who allow their pants to sag so I don't even think it would unduly target young black males at this point.
In any event, the law does not disallow regulations just because it will have a greater impact on a certain race or group of people. It must be shown that there was discriminatory intent when the law was passed that will cause it to be struck down. Here, I don't see discriminatory intent. It may not have passed or lasted in other states, but I think it may eventually stick if the problems the law seeks to address outweigh the threat the law poses to their constitutional rights, which is all that is needed for a law like this to pass. If its struck down, I don't think it will be on discrimination grounds. It will have to be struck down on other grounds because the discrimination just is not there, in my opinion.
does anyone else find this offensive, because this is what that law would try to prevent...THANK GOD!
Hybrid Mode
