If they’re chosing to cross the street because solely of what person is wearing (and that excludes when the clothing is a social marker of a specific etnicity - for example a niqab - since chosing on that alone would still be a judgment by race, just indirectly), that’s not discrimination.
If they’re chosing to cross the street because the person wearing those clothes is black but would not if that person was not black, then that’s discrimination: it’s the skin color that drives the choice, not the clothing.
Interestingly, if they’re chosing not to cross street because the person wearing those clothes is black but would choose to cross the street if that person was not black, then that too is discrimination: it’s still the skin color that drives the choice, not the clothing, so it’s still acting different towards somebody based on something they were born with, aka racial descrimination.
–
In that example of yours “black” is an irrelevant detail to anybody but a racist, because the color of a person’s skin is irrelevant either way to judging a person and acting on that judgment, for those who are not racist.
When guided by the basic principle of “I shall not judge or treat differently people on things they had no choice in”, there is almost always a clear non-discriminatory fairness maximizing path in any “black person example” because the principle is very clear about the category of things one can judge others on, and that’s most definitelly not skin color (or gender, or sexual orientation or even inherited wealth) because that’s not a choice of an individual to have.
It’s only those applying learned, case-by-case supposedly anti-racist recipes that end up sooner or later colliding with the contradictions in them due to the inherent racist architecture of any recipes that explicitly take in account a person’s race - if you’re thinking about somebody’s race when interacting with them then you’re still operating in the very same mental framework as all racists, giving weight in your decisions to something a non-racist would treat as irrelevant, and hence discriminating on race.
From that same principle of mine it’s also pretty easy to derive that it’s fair to judge people on their actions of activelly trying to gain more and more wealth beyond need and on the methods they use, whilst it’s not fair to judge people on merelly having being born into wealth (though what the choose to do later with it is fair to judge) because the former judges their choices but the latter would judge something they did not choose and hence would be unfair.
–
In that example of yours “black” is an irrelevant detail to anybody but a racist, because the color of a person’s skin is irrelevant either way to judging a person and acting on that judgment, for those who are not racist.
When guided by the basic principle of “I shall not judge or treat differently people on things they had no choice in”, there is almost always a clear non-discriminatory fairness maximizing path in any “black person example” because the principle is very clear about the category of things one can judge others on, and that’s most definitelly not skin color (or gender, or sexual orientation or even inherited wealth) because that’s not a choice of an individual to have.
It’s only those applying learned, case-by-case supposedly anti-racist recipes that end up sooner or later colliding with the contradictions in them due to the inherent racist architecture of any recipes that explicitly take in account a person’s race - if you’re thinking about somebody’s race when interacting with them then you’re still operating in the very same mental framework as all racists, giving weight in your decisions to something a non-racist would treat as irrelevant, and hence discriminating on race.
From that same principle of mine it’s also pretty easy to derive that it’s fair to judge people on their actions of activelly trying to gain more and more wealth beyond need and on the methods they use, whilst it’s not fair to judge people on merelly having being born into wealth (though what the choose to do later with it is fair to judge) because the former judges their choices but the latter would judge something they did not choose and hence would be unfair.