Lets keep it simple.

In all the analogies of jews and gays you can only determine that the judge must "acknowledge" their supposed groups yet and still you insist that the judge must "ACCEPT" race category and race ideology in order to rule.

Sorry spirit- acceptance and acknowledgement are two different things you know that. If you insist tht the judge must accept race ideology in order to acknowledge the inproprieties of either group then the analogy must be applied laterally and that is to say the judge must also be gay to rule on cases about gay people.

All Im saying is there is no excuse for "ACCEPTING" race ideology in social order- if we do not allow this people are still allowed to "acknowledge" it or even believe in it as they see fit or as they would with any faith (faith- and idea that is not substantiated by science or nature- kinda like race isnt it?). As for judges- being that they are supposedly "impartial" then perhaps they SHOULD be prohibitted from allowing such ideologies to influence their judgement- but it doesnt mean that if a white person came in the courtroom the judge's hands would be tied- thats preposterous (you tend to do that alot)

The problem with your extremist argument is that you suppose there is no middle ground between telling the lie and acting as if the lie does not exist- there Is a middle ground its called telling the truth.


Any person that says they are "white" but does not admit and accept the premises of that ideology is NOT telling the truth.

Any government that encourages people to classify themselves under such ideologies and professes that they are a valid means of quantifying human kind- is also not telling the truth.

Anybody who claims that a judge is only beholden to "acknowledge" certain ideologies but endorses and encourages that the same judge should "accept" the implicitly prejudicial and demaning ideology of race is tad confused.


K