Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

First of all I don't believe that in anyway the low crime rate have anything to do with inequality but rather the low amount of people in poverty in said country". Equality also exists when discussing money. If we have more equality, the population should then have around the same size of money in their household. We see really low poverty in Denmark, and the crime rates are really low. A lot of factors go into increasing crime, but I do think that Denmark is doing something right, with decreasing poverty and increasing equality and making sure people feel welcome into the society. You talk about private businesses and choosing who they hire and fire. Cool. That is totally fine. But. From what I understand, you think it is totally fine to let someone go, for being who they are. That is like total inequality. That would also shame people into being something they are not. That is inequality. From what I understood, we both want societies that are equal. Firing someone based on the gender identity, or the religion they have chosen to follow, is not at all equality. That is not giving everyone the same chances in life. That completely defeats the purpose of the constitution in USA. If I may quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" But we are not equal if someone is fired for the colour of their skin. Yes, the business should be able to hire whomever they feel like could do the best job, but letting someone go just because of them being a minority is a damn bad excuse, and completely defeats the meaning the constitution. I think we have gone slightly off-topic, if we were to talk about freedom of speech, but since you're the host, I will follow your lead. I do believe in freedom of speech, and that we should all be able to voice our opinions as loud as we wish. But. I also live by another rule, which I "invented" myself. "Live your life as you desire, as long as you do not harm/hurt anyone in the process". The problem with freedom of speech is that it does not teach people when to use it, and when not to. Do not get me wrong, I fully support it, but I do think we need to make sure that it does not defeat people living their life to their fullest. The civil rights movement, lead by Martin Luther King Jr. He used the freedom of speech for the better. He got to voice his opinions, and actually got to create more equality for the black people in America, and possibly in all over the world. That is one of many examples where freedom of speech has helped a lot. But we need to be able to see things from both sides. Freedom of speech can be harmful. Minorities can suffer greatly because of it. I've heard quite often the phrase "All Muslims are terrorists" and "All refugees should be sent back home, because they cannot be integrated in a modern society." If I was a Muslim I would be really hurt, by all of these comments. We need to be better to teach people about when to use freedom of speech, and when not to. Because if we were to have a non-restricted freedom of speech, who knows how the world would look today? I do not think it would be as "peaceful" as it is today.