Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[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??

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.

"Business" is a human activity. Are you suggesting we don't retain our rights when conducting business?

 

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If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...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

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.

That's not exactly correct. The public accomodations laws are premised upon equal protection under the 14th amendment. That is, you, or I, may not use benefits derived from govt programs to discriminate against another. Lester couldn't use the interstates to get his ketchup that he wouldn't sell to blacks. He could, of course, not sell ANYTHING to blacks. But he could not use ItemA he got in part from a road built with the blacks money.

Similarly, I propose you have a right to starve in upper NY.

 

[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.

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?

you would be, and are, a fucking moron.

 

[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?

you would be, and are, a fucking moron.

And yet I still trounce you in argument. So who helps you put on your socks in the morning, I mean, it being so confusing for you to determine which sock goes on which foot?

 

[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.

That's not exactly correct. The public accomodations laws are premised upon equal protection under the 14th amendment. That is, you, or I, may not use benefits derived from govt programs to discriminate against another. Lester couldn't use the interstates to get his ketchup that he wouldn't sell to blacks. He could, of course, not sell ANYTHING to blacks. But he could not use ItemA he got in part from a road built with the blacks money.

Similarly, I propose you have a right to starve in upper NY.

They may be premised on equal protection, but they're premised very poorly. In point of fact, they are an egregious violation of equal protection. That's my primary objection to them.

But the point you raise is interesting. If we sacrifice our right to free association merely by employing benefits provided by government - does anyone ever have that right? What about the dating example raised above? Could "we the fat guys" get a law passed require hot girls to service us? Not saying we'd get the votes, but if we could, that would seem to pass your standards, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not exactly correct. The public accomodations laws are premised upon equal protection under the 14th amendment. That is, you, or I, may not use benefits derived from govt programs to discriminate against another. Lester couldn't use the interstates to get his ketchup that he wouldn't sell to blacks. He could, of course, not sell ANYTHING to blacks. But he could not use ItemA he got in part from a road built with the blacks money.

Similarly, I propose you have a right to starve in upper NY.

I disagree. And actually so did the courts.

The First Civil Rights Act (IIRC 1875) attempted to outlaw discrimination based on the 13th & 14th Amendments it was found unconstitutional .

The Public Accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was found to be constitutional based on the narrow application of the COTUS Commerce Clause for businesses involved in interstate commerce (See Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States). State Public Accommodation laws are then based on the States power to regulate commerce withing the bounds of that State.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

That's not exactly correct. The public accomodations laws are premised upon equal protection under the 14th amendment. That is, you, or I, may not use benefits derived from govt programs to discriminate against another. Lester couldn't use the interstates to get his ketchup that he wouldn't sell to blacks. He could, of course, not sell ANYTHING to blacks. But he could not use ItemA he got in part from a road built with the blacks money.

Similarly, I propose you have a right to starve in upper NY.

I disagree. And actually so did the courts.

The First Civil Rights Act (IIRC 1875) attempted to outlaw discrimination based on the 13th & 14th Amendments it was found unconstitutional .

The Public Accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was found to be constitutional based on the narrow application of the COTUS Commerce Clause for businesses involved in interstate commerce (See Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States). State Public Accommodation laws are then based on the States power to regulate commerce withing the bounds of that State.


>>>>

Damn.... so the We the Fat Guys law would only apply to hot truck drivers?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If businesses are going to be treated under the law as people, then they can now be prosecuted without the share holders being protected by the limited liability law. The new status now allows for property seizure to be more easily seized for criminal and civil violations.

 

[dblack]

If businesses are going to be treated under the law as people, then they can now be prosecuted without the share holders being protected by the limited liability law. The new status now allows for property seizure to be more easily seized for criminal and civil violations.

I tend to agree - limited liability is a sham. But you're talking about the corporate charter, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

 

[dblack]

Did someone cut a starkey?

 

[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.

"Business" is a human activity. Are you suggesting we don't retain our rights when conducting business?

Right to do what? If it's discriminate, NO.

 

[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??

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.

"Business" is a human activity. Are you suggesting we don't retain our rights when conducting business?

Right to do what? If it's discriminate, NO.

And I don't get that. It's as if you believe trading with others is some kind of crime that makes us culpable, that we sacrifice our ordinary freedom to decide for ourselves who we wish to associate with when exchange goods and services. Why?

 

[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??

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.

"Business" is a human activity. Are you suggesting we don't retain our rights when conducting business?

Right to do what? If it's discriminate, NO.

And I don't get that. It's as if you believe trading with others is some kind of crime that makes us culpable, that we sacrifice our ordinary freedom to decide for ourselves who we wish to associate with when exchange goods and services. Why?

Because he values profits above human rights. Occam's Razor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

of course it would and you know that. There is NOTHING preventing me from discriminating against Jakes.

Cite the law if you can.

 

[dblack]

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

It doesn't have to. The Constitution is the rules for government, not individuals. Did you ever take a civics course?

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

of course it would and you know that. There is NOTHING preventing me from discriminating against Jakes.

Cite the law if you can.

I think a lot of them actually do think that the general practice of discrimination, for any reason, is made illegal by civil rights law. Granted, that would be the only fair, even-handed way to apply the law. It would also be completely insane, but there ya go.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

It doesn't have to. The Constitution is the rules for government, not individuals. Did you ever take a civics course?

llllllllo;;;;;;;;;;

No one has a right to free association with impunity when that interaction for business profit springs from public involvement.

No one a right, generally, to discriminate against customers for goods and services held out in a public market.

Any company that repeatedly violates those provisions should be seized and auctioned off.

You are of course wrong

I CURRENTLY have the right to discriminate, except under a few circumstances. Which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

I can hang a sign outside my restaurant that reads "no Jakes" but I can not hang one outside that says "no blacks" which means this law afford blacks protections that it does not afford Jakes and therefor is unconstitutional.


Refute that.

Your looney desire to discriminate against guys named Jake would never survive constitutional muster.

of course it would and you know that. There is NOTHING preventing me from discriminating against Jakes.

Cite the law if you can.

I think a lot of them actually do think that the general practice of discrimination, for any reason, is made illegal by civil rights law. Granted, that would be the only fair, even-handed way to apply the law. It would also be completely insane, but there ya go.

I think you're right. I think they don't understand that if the law doesn't SPECIFICALLY protect you, I can discriminate.

For instance, black smelly man. I can kick his out for smelling. I mean I could literally just make up things as long as I don't say "get out niggah!" so that he can't prove I kicked him out cuz he's black.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the averagebear makes a case, knowing that if said man gets kicked out for allegedgly being smell he will come in the next time with four friends and their vids tools in the cameras.

bear, quit saying silly things, please. You seem to so much want to discriminate based on color or whatever. Son, you can't without being punished.