Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't give two shits about ideology. Any and all ideology is a crutch for weak minded fools.

By his very nature, MAN is an ideologue, you idiot.

But in the meantime, you clueless . . . ideologue, tells us why discrimination, in and of itself, is bad.

I mean, gee wiz, Einstein, it seems to folks like me, you know, sensible people, which, quite obviously, doesn't include relativist . . . ideologues like you, that ideological discrimination, you know, ideological dissent or ideological disagreement, like the one we're having or not having or whatever, is an inescapable fact of reality, which in a peacefully free society, necessarily entails ideological tolerance. . . .

But, of course, according to your . . . um . . . whatever . . . it's self-evident or axiomatic, apparently, that discrimination, in and of itself, is bad.

Really?

You must have a reason, eh? Surely you can cite come kind of . . . well, you know, ontological, epistemological, ethical, political, aesthetical justification, eh?

You know, maybe—and I'm just spit balling here—your notion has something to do with a particular ideology . . . er . . . my bad . . . worldview . . . oops! . . . perspective . . . darn it! . . . system of thought . . . doh! . . . and now running out of euphemisms . . . a belief about the nature of reality and the ramifications thereof.

Got a reason ultimately backed by some kind of discernibly absolute justification or not?

If not, then take your utterly arbitrary ideology of normative relativism, you clueless ideologue, and your notion that the might of mobocratic rule makes right . . . and blow.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[Care4all]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

I sat in a restaurant in Boston Massachusetts, with my husband and my parents who were visiting from Florida. The table next to us was a black and Hispanic mixed family....they were there before us. We ordered and got our meal, before they were even given their water...they were being shunned, completely shunned and ignored on all of their questions and requests for service....in short, my father asked for the bill and paid it and with the food on the table, we left...never to return again to this restaurant.... for years now, almost a decade, this has haunted me.

My parents were visiting on their vacation and leaving with our meals untouched, was all that we did....and I wish now we had done more, or wonder if we could have done more? We were ignorant on laws and city regs for businesses at the time....but still....I wish we had gone to the manager...though he was a part of this racial discrimination, because they asked to speak to him and he refused to come out and talk with them.... again, but still.....I wish we had taken the restaurant's name and the server's name and the manager's name and the names of the racial discriminated victims and knew where and how to report such a thing to authorities....

this is what still happens WITH the law....I can't IMAGINE the discrimination that would occur without the law....

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

If these racist activists decide to cause a ruckus and disturbs you and other customers, you have every right, even now with the law, to remove or order these customers to leave, if they don't, then you can call the cops and have them removed.

The law doesn't need changing, it needs to be followed, and still isn't in this day and age, imo.

He's talking about racists. I don't do business with racists, myself, and I don't appreciate your utterly arbitrary justification for any law that says I must. I don't appreciate tyranny in any form, and I don't care to do business with those who do. Moreover, you're dead wrong anyway. Under federal law I most certainly can tell racists, bigots, statists, degenerates and so on to get the hell out of my restaurant. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and national origin. It doesn't say anything about me discriminating against moronic ideologues: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or David Duke; Black Panthers, Klansman, skin heads, communists, Nazis, Islamofascists, Scientologists, Satanists, homofascists, multiculturalists. . . .

Get the picture?

Nope...certainly don't agree with your scenario or justification or the calling of civil and equal right treatment of customers, tyranny.

Looks like your stuck and will just have to suffer greatly for having to be civil and by giving equal treatment towards your paying patrons in your Public licensed business....the law nor the constitution isn't going to change any time soon....

You can't discriminate against the religious or elderly either...FYI....you left those out.....


You can still hate all the people you hate....no one is stopping that....you just have to serve them in your Public business equally to others....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You would return us to a society where all forms of discrimination were permissible. You're an outlier, to say the least, to hold that belief.

 

[Care4all]

No, they're not doing anything presently - but I saw them earlier handing out racist literature at the park. I'm not going to serve them, and you think I should go to jail for that?

That's just too easy. "I saw them do something yesterday." If they're really what you say they are, they won't be able to control themselves in your establishment either.

So, should I be able to refuse them service or not?

Here, let's try another example. Let's say there's a new religion gaining traction that advocates child sacrifice. They're not actively practicing it yet, but they think it's an awesome idea and they're aggressively lobbying to change the laws so they can, freedom of religion and all that. Naturally, I find this reprehensible, and I put up a sign that says we won't serve anyone who is a member of this new religion. Would that be wrong in your book? Should it be illegal? I think, technically, it probably already is. Does that make sense to you?

Yes it makes sense that your Public business serves them....as long as they are not causing a ruckus in your Public business....

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

God you people and your stupid analogies. The person is not being discriminated against. The person is not prohibited from the establishment because they are gun owners or concealed carry permit holders. The weapon is prohibited from the establishment, not the person.

 

[Care4all]

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.

We are discussing CIVIL rights.....

 

[Care4all]

What is civility to you?

 

[hazlnut]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

Are you kidding, look at all the bigots who have come out of the closet since Nov. 2008.

Go to a friggin' Tea Party rally.

Look in the mirror.

Bigotry and racism was not dead -- too many poor white in the red states continue to take out their self-loathing on people of color -- it's been going on since the Rebs got home from the ass-kicking.

 

[Seawytch]

I would love for the United States not to need Public Accommodation laws. The people arguing to have them all repealed say that we don't need them anymore, but I don't think that's true. People in TN still try and burn down Mosques. Without our public accommodation laws, that rural dwelling Muslim family won't get food or fuel and that's not okay. It's real easy for people in metropolitan areas to say "just go somewhere else", but for rural dwellers there is no where else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Bear most likely is not a LTC in the military.

The structure does not readily suffer emotional stupidity like that in battalion commanders or operational responsibilities.

Such a position requires the support of subordinates. A knew a group of officers and senior NCOs made sure a signal brigade commander did not get the flag rank he wanted so badly.

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

No, you are not in the Army if that is your real cognitive skill you are displaying.

I am saying the law makes that determination, not someone like you.

You are wrong. I know, sux to be you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

True, and they would rightfullly point out that the government CAN force a business to comply with the CRA of 1964 , and subsequent additions one would presume. But then they would point out that if it isn't SPECIFICALLY in said Act, it isn't covered.

If EVERYTHING were covered, why would certain characteristics need to be listed?

You absolutely can, as a business owner discriminate. As long as it is not for a reason listed in the CRA

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will accept the waffle, bear, as agreement with me.

You don't make the determination, the law does.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

True, and they would rightfullly point out that the government CAN force a business to comply with the CRA of 1964 , and subsequent additions one would presume. But then they would point out that if it isn't SPECIFICALLY in said Act, it isn't covered.

If EVERYTHING were covered, why would certain characteristics need to be listed?

You absolutely can, as a business owner discriminate. As long as it is not for a reason listed in the CRA

Very true.

That's why you can't discriminate against Jake because he's Black (or White or Asian or a Jew or a Christian) but you CAN discriminate against him because his name is Jake.


>>>>

 

[Care4all]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

True, and they would rightfullly point out that the government CAN force a business to comply with the CRA of 1964 , and subsequent additions one would presume. But then they would point out that if it isn't SPECIFICALLY in said Act, it isn't covered.

If EVERYTHING were covered, why would certain characteristics need to be listed?

You absolutely can, as a business owner discriminate. As long as it is not for a reason listed in the CRA

But STTABear, If you have, or someone else has given an example of this earlier in the thread, I apologize....but can you give me an example of something that would not be covered, but would still be discrimination in a store owner's actions towards someone?

And btw, it is usually a Civil Lawsuit, that settles the issue, not Law enforcement.

 

[dblack]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

True, and they would rightfullly point out that the government CAN force a business to comply with the CRA of 1964 , and subsequent additions one would presume. But then they would point out that if it isn't SPECIFICALLY in said Act, it isn't covered.

If EVERYTHING were covered, why would certain characteristics need to be listed?

You absolutely can, as a business owner discriminate. As long as it is not for a reason listed in the CRA

But STTABear, If you have, or someone else has given an example of this earlier in the thread, I apologize....but can you give me an example of something that would not be covered, but would still be discrimination in a store owner's actions towards someone?

And btw, it is usually a Civil Lawsuit, that settles the issue, not Law enforcement.

That's what he was getting at with the example of refusing to serve anyone named "Jake".

Are you all seriously of the opinion that any kind of discrimination is illegal under civil rights laws??? Do you understand the concept of protected classes?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

Because people wrongly say they are not covered.

Jake, ready slowly. YOU are NOT "covered" if the reason you are discriminated against is not SPECIFICALLY in the law.

IF that was NOT the case, then why else would specific reasons be listed in the law?

Go ask any first year law student

That first year law student would probably refer you to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Federal Public Accommodation laws when applied to commercial businesses engaged in interstate commerce under the Constitutions Commerce Clause.





>>>>

True, and they would rightfullly point out that the government CAN force a business to comply with the CRA of 1964 , and subsequent additions one would presume. But then they would point out that if it isn't SPECIFICALLY in said Act, it isn't covered.

If EVERYTHING were covered, why would certain characteristics need to be listed?

You absolutely can, as a business owner discriminate. As long as it is not for a reason listed in the CRA

But STTABear, If you have, or someone else has given an example of this earlier in the thread, I apologize....but can you give me an example of something that would not be covered, but would still be discrimination in a store owner's actions towards someone?

And btw, it is usually a Civil Lawsuit, that settles the issue, not Law enforcement.

Yes, I gave the example earlier. People named Jake. I could ban them. They aren't a protected class. The law says NOTHING about them.

Now honestly, I suspect that a person would sue and that names would quickly be added to the list of "protected classes", but that is neither here nor there when we're discussing what is illegal RIGHT NOW.

In fact, that is exactly what we saw happen with gays. They were NOT protected by the 1964 law and so revisions to the law had to be made to "protect" them. A law which covered EVERY class would never need any revisions to "protect" new classes of people being discriminated against.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now honestly, I suspect that a person would sue and that names would quickly be added to the list of "protected classes", and that is everything when we're discussing what can be legal or illegal under the law.