Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[konradv]

What right. Tell me in plain English, I only have a PhD so type slow; What right do you think the CRA of 1964 protects

Not in constitutional law, I'll wager.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Only American Conservatives can find rationalization to repeal laws that guarantee rights. What is it about Conservatives? Why do they fear freedom so much? Is it because they think that by extending freedom to others theirs will be eroded? Do they think that discrimination is a form of freedom? Where do they get their peculiar and warped sense of fair play and freedom?

What guarantee rights? My rights are being violated. I'm being raped by this law. Get it?

NO, tell us how this law is raping you.

Force a woman who prefers to be treated by a female gynecologist to instead be treated by a male gynecologist because YOU DISAPPROVE of her choice. Ask her how she feels about YOU IMPOSING your viewpoint on her and her choice of associations in life.

This isn't about forcing the customer to do anything. This is about making the business behave fairly. Please try and keep up. You've got it bass ackwards.

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

 

[konradv]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation..

I'm sorry, I was out shopping at a STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery. What was the question again?

I've heard that there is NO WAY you'd be allowed into a straight only bakery.

as for the earlier question. I only support removing the parts of the CRA that apply to private businesses. No white and colored drinking fountains or any of that nonsense.

Wouldn't that depend on where the fountain was? Government property v. private property.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

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.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation..

I'm sorry, I was out shopping at a STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery. What was the question again?

I've heard that there is NO WAY you'd be allowed into a straight only bakery.

as for the earlier question. I only support removing the parts of the CRA that apply to private businesses. No white and colored drinking fountains or any of that nonsense.

Wouldn't that depend on where the fountain was? Government property v. private property.



>>>>

OMG, I've been sharing water fountains in private buildings with gays for years. Where's the Listerine?

 

[dblack]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

 

[dblack]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

Are you saying we should forfeit our human rights when conducting business??

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

You can't reason with liberals, they're all emotion, all the time. They start with their chanting and they lull themselves into a self-righteous trance. Reason can't penetrate their faith.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

Are you saying we should forfeit our human rights when conducting business??

That is EXACTLY what he is saying.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

Are you saying we should forfeit our human rights when conducting business??

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

 

[ClosedCaption]

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

Maan, you're just a piece of shit.

 

[Rikurzhen]

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

Maan, you're just a piece of shit.

In the great scheme of the Universe, that still puts me far above liberals.

 

[SixFoot]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[bendog]

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

Maan, you're just a piece of shit.

I must say I've not recently seen anyone with the lack of PC filter actually argue he should have the right to personally mistreat another because of their color, or really sexual orientation. I have posted that azzholes who feel this way should be free to do so, so that the rest of us could pillory them, burn them in effigy, boycott their businesses and generally make their lives unpleasant. However, his post makes me reconsider that perhaps I've been too accommodating to his views.

 

[konradv]

I don't give a damn about your artificial divisions of who is allowed to have human rights and who must have theirs stripped from them. Human rights are universal. You putting profits ahead of human rights is fucking disgusting.

I wasn't talking about humans, it's about business.

????

Are you saying we should forfeit our human rights when conducting business??

That is EXACTLY what he is saying.

Perhaps in your twisted world view. Business is business. Humans are humans. The fact that people work in a business, doesn't make the business human. I think you're confused because of the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century, Citizens United.

 

[bendog]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes and no. Suppose Lester Maddax didn't want to sell his fried chicken to blacks, or gays for that matter. Perhaps the laws should not tell him he must do so. However, Lester gets his chicken, French fries and ketchup from a federally funded interstate hwy system. Why should he be able to use that to practice his private discrimination.

That is, if the NY farmers who rent out for weddings want to go without any farming benefit federal spending provides for them, I'd be happy to let them starve.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes and no. Suppose Lester Maddax didn't want to sell his fried chicken to blacks, or gays for that matter. Perhaps the laws should not tell him he must do so. However, Lester gets his chicken, French fries and ketchup from a federally funded interstate hwy system. Why should he be able to use that to practice his private discrimination.

That is, if the NY farmers who rent out for weddings want to go without any farming benefit federal spending provides for them, I'd be happy to let them starve.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard yet.

This woman

simply would not be able to make any money if it were not for the pubic education she received, the federally funded highways shes driven on, the federally subsidized electricity she uses to bath , etc etc.

I am going to email her and ask her out and when she say no . I will sue her for discrimination

This of course all supposes she says no, which isn't likely

 

[Rikurzhen]

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

Maan, you're just a piece of shit.

I must say I've not recently seen anyone with the lack of PC filter actually argue he should have the right to personally mistreat another because of their color, or really sexual orientation. I have posted that azzholes who feel this way should be free to do so, so that the rest of us could pillory them, burn them in effigy, boycott their businesses and generally make their lives unpleasant. However, his post makes me reconsider that perhaps I've been too accommodating to his views.

Let's see if I can derive your guiding principle here. You being offended by someone else's views justifies your actions to violate the offender's human rights. Is that about it?

If I guessed that you were one of the morons who thought "free" health care is a human right, would I be correct?

 

[dblack]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes and no. Suppose Lester Maddax didn't want to sell his fried chicken to blacks, or gays for that matter. Perhaps the laws should not tell him he must do so. However, Lester gets his chicken, French fries and ketchup from a federally funded interstate hwy system. Why should he be able to use that to practice his private discrimination.

That is, if the NY farmers who rent out for weddings want to go without any farming benefit federal spending provides for them, I'd be happy to let them starve.

The whole point of the Constitution is to establish under what circumstances government can make such demands. Outside of that, 'we the people' retain our rights, regardless of any benefits we derive from government.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

These are the same people who try to argue that "free" health care is a human right. They're not in possession of full mental faculties. For some reason they can't accept that giving "human rights" to one person cannot entail denying another person their human rights.

Using oppression of law, and the punishments here are very severe, to force people to be nice to blacks and homosexuals, is all they see. They don't actually see that stripping people of human rights is a harm being done to people. All they see is the "force people to be nice" aspect and see that as an unqualified good. It's bizarre to watch.

Maan, you're just a piece of shit.

I must say I've not recently seen anyone with the lack of PC filter actually argue he should have the right to personally mistreat another because of their color, or really sexual orientation. I have posted that azzholes who feel this way should be free to do so, so that the rest of us could pillory them, burn them in effigy, boycott their businesses and generally make their lives unpleasant. However, his post makes me reconsider that perhaps I've been too accommodating to his views.

Let's see if I can derive your guiding principle here. You being offended by someone else's views justifies your actions to violate the offender's human rights. Is that about it?

If I guessed that you were one of the morons who thought "free" health care is a human right, would I be correct?

I have a 14 year old in the house right now who believes that.

"hey man if it didn't cost ME anything, its free"

"no man, just because it didn't cost YOU anything doesn't mean SOMEONE didn't have to pay for it"