we tried it already. big failure.
much like you, a big racist failure.
Except that is a nonsensical answer and example. Your "solution" erroneously attempts to undo a forced relationship by replacing it with
another kind of forced relationship.
Many times in the past people who WANTED to integrate were not legally permitted to.
To solve that problem you don't go from legally keeping people who wished to associate, from associating, to then insisting that people who don't want to associate, MUST associate.
You haven't really changed anything, the people involved in BOTH instances aren't making the choices,
your nanny state is making the choices for them, in many cases without the consent of both of the involved parties. If two parties don't mutually want to associate, the person forcing the interaction, is usually the one in the wrong.
Your insistence that my view is a racists view, is a weak argument, like most of your arguments. You imply that the only reason a person could value protecting a racists right to control his own property is because they are a racist too. Which is an error. A person could respect the right of a racist to control his own property, but not the property of others.
All people, have a right to chose their human interactions, especially on their own property wouldn't you agree?
Should government have prevented people of different races who wished to associate from associating? No.
Should government insist people who wish NOT to associate, be forced to associate? No.
