I was at a meeting yesterday when the subject of the Arizona Immigration law came up. I don't think I've hidden my views on this subject from anyone, and as someone who talks about diversity, it would make sense that I would take a position against it.

Of course, I knew better as soon as I began, but that's how it goes. The other 3 men I was talking with this about supported the bill. They believed Arizona had a right to do it to keep illegal aliens out of the country. I said that the bill amounted to a support of racial profiling. One of the guys, someone I figured I knew pretty well, then said "what's wrong with racial profiling?"

In general, how does one answer a question like that when they believe there's no way a learned man would ever even make a statement like that? Is there any argument that would make any sense to someone who would utter that kind of statement?

Well, I tried. I asked if he or anyone in the room besides me has ever been pulled over by the police and asked why they were in a certain neighborhood because the police didn't believe you belonged there? They pretty much tried to negate that argument, but I wasn't having it. To me, if one has never shared that experience they're not really qualified to respond to it or make judgment on it.

Last year on another blog I took a position that said Congress can't pass a law that's aimed at only a few people because they're mad at them. In this case, it was against people at banks the government was helping that had earned bonuses based on their contracts. I felt that using government to put penalties on a specific group of people was an abuse of power.

I feel the same way about this Arizona law. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will overturn it once someone files the lawsuit after it goes into effect. There's just too many precedents in this country and around the world that have to be taken into account. I always worry about things like this that might be allowed because they always have unintended consequences, or spark thoughts that are backwards and hurtful.

It didn't help when Rand Paul, running for the Senate seat in Kentucky, said that though he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, he doesn't believe the federal government has a right to tell business owners that don't get money from the government that they can't legally discriminate against those they don't want in their stores, whether it's based on race, religion, or anything else. There's a lack of understanding that you don't get to have it both ways, especially since he also said he would find the practice abhorrent.

There's a long way to go on this topic of race. I think I was correct last year when I said we're not close to being as far along as people pretended we were when President Obama was elected. Every day it seems something else occurs that proves I'm right. We have to be better at this America; we have to get to a point where no one ever asks the question "what's wrong with racial profiling".