Thread:User talk:Mikalos209/telling us off for wanting two unequal status's to be equal/reply (12)

I think so, personally. When you make one institution for one group, and some other institution for some other group, you are saying they are, at their core, not the same. So what is the motivation for doing this? In the US, it was decided that even if the facilities were EXACTLY THE SAME, saying blacks and whites cannot share a bathroom means they are not on equal footing.

I can think of no governmental entity that should separate any of us, for the same basic service. not men and women - (I would balk at "men's social security" and "women's social security" even if they gave the same amount), or blacks and white (I HATE the idea of Bureau of Indian Affairs -- we don't have Bureau of Black affairs, or Bureau of Japanese affairs). I do not think Christians should get one kind of Marriage Certificate and Muslims get another and Atheists a third.

One place i *do* see separation as useful is for age. I find it fine that we have special services for children and the elderly, cause they are NOT equal to us, in the sense that they often need more care, can be abused easier, etc. But otherwise, a service or institution should not be setting us up into little categories. It's not only bigoted, it's illegal. at least in the US.