Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[konradv]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

Actually I CAN abridge your political speech if you're on MY property. Certainly I can. MY property would include any businesses I owned.

You've moved the goal posts. You just said it was an absolute right and emphasized that by capitalizing "ONLY" and "PERIOD". But even your restatement is incorrect. Revealing trade secrets is forbidden even if I'm not on your property.

I think you're a little over your head here and letting your emotions run away with your common sense. Once again I must say, you don't know the Constitution as well as you think.

What goal posts have I moved sir? You are trying to equate me infringing on your rights with the government doing so. They are two entirely different matters.

Let's go with your "divulging inside info" bogeyman. If you work for me and I don't want you disclosing such, I have you sign a NDA, hell even the government does that. That is contract law, you have agreed to do X. I haven't limited your rights at all, you VOLUNTEERED to limit them.

Hell, join the military, you've given up a LOT of rights, the government infringes like hell. But you GAVE THOSE RIGHT UP VOLUNTARILY.

On the other hand , I could post a sign up in my business saying " no talking" and if you talk, you're asked to leave. Simple as that..... Perfectly legal.

Can the government post a sign up that says "no talking" and arrest you for talking? No they can't.

You are the one who is over their head hear son.

You claimed speech rights were absolute. Now you're admitting they're not. I think you've made up your mind I said something that I never did. You're talking in circles to avoid confronting the fact that the government is there to make sure we're all treated equally. By opening a business to the public you're duty bound to observe that standard. If you have certain rules in your business like "no talking", fine. What's not fine is when some may talk(be served) while others may not(are barred from entering). I hope that clears it up for you, because I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

Actually I CAN abridge your political speech if you're on MY property. Certainly I can. MY property would include any businesses I owned.

You've moved the goal posts. You just said it was an absolute right and emphasized that by capitalizing "ONLY" and "PERIOD". But even your restatement is incorrect. Revealing trade secrets is forbidden even if I'm not on your property.

I think you're a little over your head here and letting your emotions run away with your common sense. Once again I must say, you don't know the Constitution as well as you think.

What goal posts have I moved sir? You are trying to equate me infringing on your rights with the government doing so. They are two entirely different matters.

Let's go with your "divulging inside info" bogeyman. If you work for me and I don't want you disclosing such, I have you sign a NDA, hell even the government does that. That is contract law, you have agreed to do X. I haven't limited your rights at all, you VOLUNTEERED to limit them.

Hell, join the military, you've given up a LOT of rights, the government infringes like hell. But you GAVE THOSE RIGHT UP VOLUNTARILY.

On the other hand , I could post a sign up in my business saying " no talking" and if you talk, you're asked to leave. Simple as that..... Perfectly legal.

Can the government post a sign up that says "no talking" and arrest you for talking? No they can't.

You are the one who is over their head hear son.

You claimed speech rights were absolute. Now you're admitting they're not. I think you've made up your mind I said something that I never did. You're talking in circles to avoid confronting the fact that the government is there to make sure we're all treated equally. By opening a business to the public you're duty bound to observe that standard. If you have certain rules in your business like "no talking", fine. What's not fine is when some may talk(be served) while others may not(are barred from entering). I hope that clears it up for you, because I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Um what? I have NEVER claimed that speech rights are absolute.

And ALL of that goes out the door if you sign away your rights, duh

oh and you do NOT have a right to be served by my business. I have the right to serve whom I please. Why do you imagine it is the reverse?

 

[dblack]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

 

[konradv]

Um what? I have NEVER claimed that speech rights are absolute.

And ALL of that goes out the door if you sign away your rights, duh

oh and you do NOT have a right to be served by my business. I have the right to serve whom I please. Why do you imagine it is the reverse?

Go back and read your posts and my responses. I pointed out the fact earlier and you never addressed it. Now hours later you're going back on what you said, perhaps hoping I won't recall. You CAPITALIZED words to make sure I wouldn't miss it. If that's not what you meant, I suggest not shooting from the hip and doing some proof reading before posting. IMO, you're playing games again and, as I said before, I have only so much tolerance for that kind of foolishness.

 

[konradv]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you open a business to the public, you're bound to treat all citizens equally. That's the gist of the Civil Rights Act. Considering the responses I'm getting in this thread, we've been provided with ample proof the the law needs to be kept in effect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you open a business to the public, you're bound to treat all citizens equally. That's the gist of the Civil Rights Act. Considering the responses I'm getting in this thread, we've been provided with ample proof the the law needs to be kept in effect.

True.


Americans enjoy greater freedom now than at any time in our Nation's history, and the best America is yet to come as all Americans will eventually realize their comprehensive civil rights.


But there is still much ignorance, fear, and hatred – fear of diversity, fear of change, and fear of expressions of individual liberty; and those afraid will continue to be hostile toward certain classes of persons by seeking to deny them their civil liberties.


As for opening a business to the public, you're also participating in the local market, and to seek to discriminate against potential patrons is in fact disruptive to the local market, as well as all interrelated markets; consequently government is authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate markets to ensure their integrity, including necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Um what? I have NEVER claimed that speech rights are absolute.

And ALL of that goes out the door if you sign away your rights, duh

oh and you do NOT have a right to be served by my business. I have the right to serve whom I please. Why do you imagine it is the reverse?

Go back and read your posts and my responses. I pointed out the fact earlier and you never addressed it. Now hours later you're going back on what you said, perhaps hoping I won't recall. You CAPITALIZED words to make sure I wouldn't miss it. If that's not what you meant, I suggest not shooting from the hip and doing some proof reading before posting. IMO, you're playing games again and, as I said before, I have only so much tolerance for that kind of foolishness.

At NO point did I say rights were absolute. You are making that up. So with that, adieu.

 

[dblack]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you open a business to the public, you're bound to treat all citizens equally. That's the gist of the Civil Rights Act. ...

That's what's wrong with the Civil Rights Act. It fails to recognize economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you open a business to the public, you're bound to treat all citizens equally. That's the gist of the Civil Rights Act. Considering the responses I'm getting in this thread, we've been provided with ample proof the the law needs to be kept in effect.

True.


Americans enjoy greater freedom now than at any time in our Nation's history, and the best America is yet to come as all Americans will eventually realize their comprehensive civil rights.


But there is still much ignorance, fear, and hatred – fear of diversity, fear of change, and fear of expressions of individual liberty; and those afraid will continue to be hostile toward certain classes of persons by seeking to deny them their civil liberties.


As for opening a business to the public, you're also participating in the local market, and to seek to discriminate against potential patrons is in fact disruptive to the local market, as well as all interrelated markets; consequently government is authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate markets to ensure their integrity, including necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.

So you're actually arguing that the federal government has the right to regulate local commerce?

My God man..........

 

[dblack]

As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects.

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you open a business to the public, you're bound to treat all citizens equally. That's the gist of the Civil Rights Act. Considering the responses I'm getting in this thread, we've been provided with ample proof the the law needs to be kept in effect.

True.


Americans enjoy greater freedom now than at any time in our Nation's history, and the best America is yet to come as all Americans will eventually realize their comprehensive civil rights.


But there is still much ignorance, fear, and hatred – fear of diversity, fear of change, and fear of expressions of individual liberty; and those afraid will continue to be hostile toward certain classes of persons by seeking to deny them their civil liberties.


As for opening a business to the public, you're also participating in the local market, and to seek to discriminate against potential patrons is in fact disruptive to the local market, as well as all interrelated markets; consequently government is authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate markets to ensure their integrity, including necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.

So you're actually arguing that the federal government has the right to regulate local commerce?

My God man..........

I think we'll understand how dangerous this is, eventually. And the next advance for liberalism will be seperating government and economy, in the same way we've separated church and state.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hopefully soon!

Better yet, the cluster fuck that was signed a year later would be even better for this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

What a bunch of gibberish that meant absolutely nothing LOL

Do you agree with the above poster that the FEDERAL government has the authority to regulate local commerce?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Does anyone actually believe the US is "integrated"?

 

[jasonnfree]

Does anyone actually believe the US is "integrated"?

It's still largely segregated and now the homeless, poor and needy also incur the wrath of some of these far out conservatives. From what I'm reading on this thread, some conservatives would have been against the integration of lunch counters in the south in the 60's. Private businesses have rights and all that. They'd probably be sticking up for Lester Maddox and wearing george wallace stand up for America buttons. And of course they still manage to call democrats racists at the same time.

 

[konradv]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

What a bunch of gibberish that meant absolutely nothing LOL

Do you agree with the above poster that the FEDERAL government has the authority to regulate local commerce?

Pay attention. The federal government has the DUTY to make sure all its citizens are treated equally. Sheesh, you can be such a dumb ass! Nighty night, son, congratulate yourself for getting me into your name-calling jive. At least you have a win of sorts. Quit while you're ahead.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

What a bunch of gibberish that meant absolutely nothing LOL

Do you agree with the above poster that the FEDERAL government has the authority to regulate local commerce?

Pay attention. The federal government has the DUTY to make sure all its citizens are treated equally. Sheesh, you can be such a dumb ass! Nighty night, son, congratulate yourself for getting me into your name-calling jive. At least you have a win of sorts. Quit while you're ahead.

The Feds have that duty? I saw this woman turn me down for a date and then saw her accept a date with another man. She didn't treat me equally. Time to get the Feds on her ass, right?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

What a bunch of gibberish that meant absolutely nothing LOL

Do you agree with the above poster that the FEDERAL government has the authority to regulate local commerce?

Pay attention. The federal government has the DUTY to make sure all its citizens are treated equally. Sheesh, you can be such a dumb ass! Nighty night, son, congratulate yourself for getting me into your name-calling jive. At least you have a win of sorts. Quit while you're ahead.

The Feds have that duty? I saw this woman turn me down for a date and then saw her accept a date with another man. She didn't treat me equally. Time to get the Feds on her ass, right?

While I personally have never been turned down, I can sympathize.

I imagine you planned on taking her out to eat ? Yes? well clearly and I do mean CLEARLY that took $20 or so out of the local economy, meaning the federal government has a god damned duty to regulate dating.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Does anyone actually believe the US is "integrated"?

It's still largely segregated and now the homeless, poor and needy also incur the wrath of some of these far out conservatives. From what I'm reading on this thread, some conservatives would have been against the integration of lunch counters in the south in the 60's. Private businesses have rights and all that. They'd probably be sticking up for Lester Maddox and wearing george wallace stand up for America buttons. And of course they still manage to call democrats racists at the same time.

The peacock has made his appearance.

OK, so now that you've broadcast to us all how caring and enlightened you are, why don't you share with us your efforts to attract all these homeless people to live in our neighborhood, or better yet, your house. after all, if you're condemning conservatives for not wanting to associate with homeless people that indicates that you don't share the same perspective.

 

[dblack]

Economic freedom as every bit as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, as long it enhances those freedoms and not restricts them.

The economy in the public sector will always be subordinate to the citizens through their legislatures.

What a bunch of gibberish that meant absolutely nothing LOL

Do you agree with the above poster that the FEDERAL government has the authority to regulate local commerce?

Pay attention. The federal government has the DUTY to make sure all its citizens are treated equally. Sheesh, you can be such a dumb ass! Nighty night, son, congratulate yourself for getting me into your name-calling jive. At least you have a win of sorts. Quit while you're ahead.

Where did you come up with that shit??