LogFAQs > #903075910

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Do you think gay bakers should be allowed to refuse to serve Christians?
darkjedilink 06/12/18 1:27:46 PM #220:	Balrog0 posted... darkjedilink posted... Except it literally wasn't for financial gain. Had it been allowed to play out as it was, do you really think those theaters would be segregated to this very day? I don't know, but even if things would eventually change, how can you deny the fact that their revenues fell after they were forced to let black people in? It clearly was a decision based on financial gain, projecting that their white customers would pay a premium to not be around blacks. Which they did, and then they lost that premium. darkjedilink posted... I mean, ONE integrated theater would make a killing, and the segregated ones would either integrate or go under. Why would you assume one integrated theater would make a killing? Why wouldn't it just be black theaters and white theaters? Most individuals do not attach a particular value to being around folks of other races One, their supposition was flawed - there is no reason to believe that the theaters honestly made a good-faith effort to integrate, and that would have an adverse effect on revenues. Also, it's not common knowledge that around that time, the theater industry in general was in upheaval, and the way movies were rented by theaters changed. That 'premium' was going to go away regardless of integration. Two, it would make a killing because we all know that 'separate but equal' was anything but equal. An integrated tyeater would have to be an improvement upon black theaters, getting them more black people than the segregated ones. Then, once tye demographics of DC changed to be what they are now, the segregated theaters wouldn't survive. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:903075910] in Do you thi... [t:76680911]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Except it literally wasn't for financial gain. Had it been allowed to play out as it was, do you really think those theaters would be segregated to this very day? </quote> I don't know, but even if things would eventually change, how can you deny the fact that their revenues fell after they were forced to let black people in? It clearly was a decision based on financial gain, projecting that their white customers would pay a premium to not be around blacks. Which they did, and then they lost that premium. <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, ONE integrated theater would make a killing, and the segregated ones would either integrate or go under. </quote> Why would you assume one integrated theater would make a killing? Why wouldn't it just be black theaters and white theaters? Most individuals do not attach a particular value to being around folks of other races</quote> One, their supposition was flawed - there is no reason to believe that the theaters honestly made a good-faith effort to integrate, and that would have an adverse effect on revenues. Also, it's not common knowledge that around that time, the theater industry in general was in upheaval, and the way movies were rented by theaters changed. That 'premium' was going to go away regardless of integration. Two, it would make a killing because we all know that 'separate but equal' was anything but equal. An integrated tyeater would have to be an improvement upon black theaters, getting them more black people than the segregated ones. Then, once tye demographics of DC changed to be what they are now, the segregated theaters wouldn't survive. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1