Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[WorldWatcher]

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.

www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf


Here is an example, although not from Federal Court. This is the New Mexico Supreme Court.

PDF Page 20, the defendent tried to place before th ecourt that if they were required to provide equal services to a homosexual couple (which isn't covered under federal law anyway) that the State law could require that an African-American photographer could not refuse a commission to shoot a Ku Klux Klan rally. That was soundly rejected because a political organization is not a protected class identified in the State of New Mexico's Public Accommodation law.


If an African-American photographer refused the KKK commission because they were White (presumably), then that would be a violation of the law based on race.

However, if an African-American photographer refused the KKK commission based on the political views of the organization, that is legal as political views are not covered. So if it's a black person requests a KKK rally shoot - that is rejected. If it's an Asian person requesting a KKK shoot - it's rejected. If a White person requests a KKK shoot - it's rejected. The basis of the rejection therefore is not the color of the potential clients skin - it's based on a non-protected reason.

So if a photographer chooses not to perform wedding shoots for Whites, Blacks, Interracial couples, or Same-sex Couples - the basis isn't race or sexual orientation. The rejection is based on a valid limitation of services offered. However if a photographer DOES (as part of their business model) offer weddings shoots and does them for whites but not interracial couples - the basis of the rejection is based on race. If they offer their services to different-sex couples but reject same-sex couples the basis is on sexual orientation (sexual orientation being protected under New Mexico law, but not Federal.)


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

 

[dblack]

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.

You keep using that word ....

Anyway, so you're just presuming that 'someday' it will be illegal? Maybe. But I suspect people will wake up by then. Every time they add another class to the list, more people are understanding the folly of giving up our freedom to think for ourselves.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with Public Accommodation laws (i.e. busniess/client) not employment law.

Since the previous basis of the discussion was business discrimination in busniesses denying good or services, I was referring to Title II. Your moving the previous discussion to Title VII and employment law.

And the law has not been "revised" as Congress has taken no action. The link talks about a case where a sex discrimination case has been allowed to move forward, not that a final ruling was made the sexual-orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Simply that the case can be heard.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with Public Accommodation laws (i.e. busniess/client) not employment law.

Since the previous basis of the discussion was business discrimination in busniesses denying good or services, I was referring to Title II. Your moving the previous discussion to Title VII and employment law.

And the law has not been "revised" as Congress has taken no action. The link talks about a case where a sex discrimination case has been allowed to move forward, not that a final ruling was made the sexual-orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Simply that the case can be heard.


>>>>

well.......



you're a poopy head










Did I do that right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

well.......



you're a poopy head










Did I do that right?

)



>>>>

 

[dblack]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with Public Accommodation laws (i.e. busniess/client) not employment law.

Since the previous basis of the discussion was business discrimination in busniesses denying good or services, I was referring to Title II. Your moving the previous discussion to Title VII and employment law.

And the law has not been "revised" as Congress has taken no action. The link talks about a case where a sex discrimination case has been allowed to move forward, not that a final ruling was made the sexual-orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Simply that the case can be heard.


>>>>

well.......



you're a poopy head










Did I do that right?

Not exactly. The proper response, when you've been proven wrong, is some kind of insult (you've got that part down), and then a link or quote from some authoritative source that has nothing to do with the point raised. Then a snide dismissal to show that you're done arguing with fools.

Keep trying, you'll get it!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with Public Accommodation laws (i.e. busniess/client) not employment law.

Since the previous basis of the discussion was business discrimination in busniesses denying good or services, I was referring to Title II. Your moving the previous discussion to Title VII and employment law.

And the law has not been "revised" as Congress has taken no action. The link talks about a case where a sex discrimination case has been allowed to move forward, not that a final ruling was made the sexual-orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Simply that the case can be heard.


>>>>

well.......



you're a poopy head










Did I do that right?

Not exactly. The proper response, when you've been proven wrong, is some kind of insult (you've got that part down), and then a link or quote from some authoritative source that has nothing to do with the point raised. Then a snide dismissal to show that you're done arguing with fools.

Keep trying, you'll get it!

Stupid Army, teaching me to admit my mistakes and move on and shit.

 

[bendog]

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 agree that the thread completely misses the point, but I don't see than Jake or Carbineer misunderstand. The act of discrimination is not illegal. Rather, public accommodation law is premised upon due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment (and similar state provisions). Note the OP doesn't even distinguish if the concern is voting, federal programs or .... whatever. Confusion should be expected.

But basically, the notion is that if a business derives benefit from interstate commerce, as well as state police/fire/road programs, then it is morally and civilly unfair for the business to gain the benefits paid for by ALL citizens but then deny to do trade with some set of the very citizens who paid for some govt benefit for the biz. I'm not really bothered as much as some by the notion of "corporatism." But for those who are, public accomodations actually PREVENT CORPORATISM by requiring all be treated the same (absent some good reason not to do so)

 

[dblack]

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been revised to include sexual orientation.



>>>>

Au contraire

Federal Judge Rules Existing Civil Rights Law Can Protect Gay People From Job Bias

Sexual discrimination was extended to cover homosexuality.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with Public Accommodation laws (i.e. busniess/client) not employment law.

Since the previous basis of the discussion was business discrimination in busniesses denying good or services, I was referring to Title II. Your moving the previous discussion to Title VII and employment law.

And the law has not been "revised" as Congress has taken no action. The link talks about a case where a sex discrimination case has been allowed to move forward, not that a final ruling was made the sexual-orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Simply that the case can be heard.


>>>>

well.......



you're a poopy head










Did I do that right?

Not exactly. The proper response, when you've been proven wrong, is some kind of insult (you've got that part down), and then a link or quote from some authoritative source that has nothing to do with the point raised. Then a snide dismissal to show that you're done arguing with fools.

Keep trying, you'll get it!

Stupid Army, teaching me to admit my mistakes and move on and shit.

You might not be cut out for USMB. It's not for everyone.

 

[dblack]

I agree that the thread completely misses the point, but I don't see than Jake or Carbineer misunderstand. The act of discrimination is not illegal. Rather, public accommodation law is premised upon due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment (and similar state provisions). Note the OP doesn't even distinguish if the concern is voting, federal programs or .... whatever. Confusion should be expected.

But basically, the notion is that if a business derives benefit from interstate commerce, as well as state police/fire/road programs, then it is morally and civilly unfair for the business to gain the benefits paid for by ALL citizens but then deny to do trade with some set of the very citizens who paid for some govt benefit for the biz. I'm not really bothered as much as some by the notion of "corporatism." But for those who are, public accomodations actually PREVENT CORPORATISM by requiring all be treated the same (absent some good reason not to do so)

First of all, I wanna be clear - are you agreeing with them that existing legislation makes all discrimination illegal (or, well, it looked Jake was backing off this claim, but ...)? I don't really know where you're coming up with that. Is there case law establishing that precedent?

Anyway, you raised basically the same argument earlier, and I don't see how it makes any sense. I don't know the detailed history of the Court's decisions on the matter, but if public accommodations laws are premised on equal protection and due process, I can't imagine how they pulled that off. The concepts of equal protection and due process apply to a person's treatment by government, not by other citizens. It sounds like you're extending the idea that employees and direct contractors of the government are bound by, in part, by equal protection - and they should be. But to say that anyone who derives benefit from government action is to be considered an employee of government and therefore not have full access to their Constitutional rights strikes me as a bizarre construction.

I'm still not sure we're on the same page in our understanding of the word corporatism, because protected classes and public accommodations laws are the very essence of corporatism, and provide decidedly unequal protection of government.

Several us of have pointed out the bizarre results of applying your argument generally, but no one supporting it seems interested in addressing them. If people conducting business owe the public equal treatment because they benefit from government spending, why shouldn't everyone who benefits from government (ie all of us) be held to the same standards? Should employees be allowed to choose an employer based on protected classes? Should consumers be allowed to discriminate likewise? Should they be allowed to organize boycotts along similar lines?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree that the thread completely misses the point, but I don't see than Jake or Carbineer misunderstand. The act of discrimination is not illegal. Rather, public accommodation law is premised upon due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment (and similar state provisions). Note the OP doesn't even distinguish if the concern is voting, federal programs or .... whatever. Confusion should be expected.

But basically, the notion is that if a business derives benefit from interstate commerce, as well as state police/fire/road programs, then it is morally and civilly unfair for the business to gain the benefits paid for by ALL citizens but then deny to do trade with some set of the very citizens who paid for some govt benefit for the biz. I'm not really bothered as much as some by the notion of "corporatism." But for those who are, public accomodations actually PREVENT CORPORATISM by requiring all be treated the same (absent some good reason not to do so)

First of all, I wanna be clear - are you agreeing with them that existing legislation makes all discrimination illegal (or, well, it looked Jake was backing off this claim, but ...)? I don't really know where you're coming up with that. Is there case law establishing that precedent?

Anyway, you raised basically the same argument earlier, and I don't see how it makes any sense. I don't know the detailed history of the Court's decisions on the matter, but if public accommodations laws are premised on equal protection and due process, I can't imagine how they pulled that off. The concepts of equal protection and due process apply to a person's treatment by government, not by other citizens. It sounds like you're extending the idea that employees and direct contractors of the government are bound by, in part, by equal protection - and they should be. But to say that anyone who derives benefit from government action is to be considered an employee of government and therefore not have full access to their Constitutional rights strikes me as a bizarre construction.

I'm still not sure we're on the same page in our understanding of the word corporatism, because protected classes and public accommodations laws are the very essence of corporatism, and provide decidedly unequal protection of government.

Several us of have pointed out the bizarre results of applying your argument generally, but no one supporting it seems interested in addressing them. If people conducting business owe the public equal treatment because they benefit from government spending, why shouldn't everyone who benefits from government (ie all of us) be held to the same standards? Should employees be allowed to choose an employer based on protected classes? Should consumers be allowed to discriminate likewise? Should they be allowed to organize boycotts along similar lines?

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was premised on the 14th Amendment and ruled unconstitutional in 1883 as beyond the scope of government powers.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title II - Public Accommodation laws) was based on the narrow application of the Commerce Clause and the ability of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce. That was upheld in Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United states

State Pubic Accommodation laws are based, not on equal protection, but on the inherent power of a State to regulate commerce within it's own borders under the 10th Amendment.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

First of all, it is not my fault that most posters on this thread have no clue WHAT the civil rights act of 64 is comprised of, or that its legal basis derives mainly from the 13, 14 and 15th amendments. Further, when their failures are pointed out, they respond with insults, and I really wouldn’t give them the figurative sweat off my balls.
Secondly, you are civil. Federal public accomodation law is premised upon the commerce clause.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/
Private clubs may deny public accomodations in some instances without the feds getting after them. Basically, it depends upon "how private" they are. Generally speaking, Moose Clubs (a famous case) may discriminate without legal penalty .... EVEN though they use city water, roads, cops, building and food inspectors, etc.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Private+club
Thirdly, in part to erase this "loophole," states and municipalities enact stricter prohibitions on deny public accomodation because of some perception of individual characteristics. However, some of these law are quite old, and predate the civil rights actS of 1964. Colorado, for example, wouldn’t let the cake baker go free.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf
The basis for Colo’s law is all citizens should be free to "equally enjoy the law." This law goes back to the 1920s, though it originally was applied to blacks.
As for your and my disagreement on corporatism, I simply think you are wrong. Treating blacks the same as whites is hardly corporatism. What you argue for is a right to private corporatism. You don’t like a gay, so you won’t bake him a cake. Fine and dandy, I don’t care, but don’t for second pretend that the law is doing ANYTHING but demanding all be treated the same, which appears to be your schtick.
As to you assertion that others see my view (which by the way is how the law IS) as somehow unworkable, I don’t give a shiet. Though, I'd discuss this further with you.

PS, I explicitly stated for federal accomodations law, discrimination itself is NOT illegal. Anyone is free free to starve in upstate NY living only off of the vegatables you can raise in winter.

As to world watcher, it seems to me that Colo’s law is based on equal protection, though I think one could argue it is based on police power, or the state requiring all accord to a code of conduct.

 

[dblack]

As for your and my disagreement on corporatism, I simply think you are wrong. Treating blacks the same as whites is hardly corporatism. What you argue for is a right to private corporatism. You don’t like a gay, so you won’t bake him a cake. Fine and dandy, I don’t care, but don’t for second pretend that the law is doing ANYTHING but demanding all be treated the same, which appears to be your schtick.
As to you assertion that others see my view (which by the way is how the law IS) as somehow unworkable, I don’t give a shiet. Though, I'd discuss this further with you.

Corporatism is a style of government, so I'm not sure what 'private corporatism' would mean. And, once again, equal protection regards equal protection of the law, not equal treatment from fellow citizens. And from that perspective, establishing protected classes extends protection of the law decidedly unequally. You can't be discriminated against because of your race or religion, but you can be discriminated against based on your socio-economic status, or your accent, or any other equally unfair and irrational biases that don't happen to currently be on the protected classes list.

I think even liberals intuitively recognize the injustice of this, which is why they tend to jump right to the notion that all discrimination should be illegal, by which they mean all discrimination that's not "for a good reason". Which basically turns the tables on the notion of how the law applies to freedom. Rather than establishing certain acts that are unacceptable, and thusly illegal, we declare all actions illegal by default, unless they are justified. Again, this just strikes me as an increasingly bizarre direction to go in legally. Though it does fall in line with the increasingly authoritarian vibe of liberalism, adopting the guilty-until-proven-innocent posture of the police state.

I'd be interested in your views on the hypotheticals I raised in the last post. I'm not asking how the law currently applies, but in terms of principle - do you think employees should be allowed to discriminate against employers based on race, religion, etc? Consumers? What if they want to organize a boycott around a protected class (boycotting muslim businesses, for example)?

 

[bendog]

I meant private corporatism as meaning an citizen seeking the right to treat one group differently from another.

I don't put "liberal" and "bizarre" labels on you, and I expect similar respect from you. And again, I explicitly said not all discrimination is illegal.

You posted, "You can't be discriminated against because of your race or religion, but you can be discriminated against based on your socio-economic status, or your accent, or any other equally unfair and irrational biases that don't happen to currently be on the protected classes list."

That is indeed true. School desegregation cases being the point. Segregation caused by not allowing blacks into a section of a school district had a remedy. Everyone with enough money moving to the suburbs, did not have a legal remedy. Also, I think world watcher makes a point that what govt regulates in respect to public accommodation discrimination is economic activity. I think that's just because we do not regulate what people do in their own homes, or in their own churches, or where they choose to live. Whether the basis for the prohibition on discrimination in public accomodation is equal enjoyment of the laws or commerce is not really important. Rather, it is simply a fact that the legal system presumes govt has the power to prohibit public accommodation discrimination. You may disagree with that, but you are swimming against about 100 years of social evolution as well as the vast majority of opinion.

I think it would be helpful to look back to what the views were supporting public accomodations law in the early 1960s. Goldwater, of course, couldn’t support it even though he was opposed to segregation, and discrimination in all forms. I think its an oversimplification to characterize Dirksen and the gop mainstream acceptance of public accomodation as being "there was a wrong that had to be righted." It was more than that.

Rather, principled whites were faced with a situation in which laws did not protect blacks. Blacks paid the taxes to support interstate commerce. But, public accomodations denied them the right to stay in hotels where roads and railroads took them. They could not buy the food in restaurants.

Blacks asked, by what right does the govt collect taxes from us, under threat of jail if we don’t pay, and then use the money to build interstate commerce, and then allow the law to deny us the right to benefit from it?
When the gay folks who want to buy cakes make that argument, I don’t see a rational answer to deny them the cakes. It’s no longer an issue between baker and cake buyer. If my, or your, tax money went to help the baker bake, we participate in the discrimination. At that point, it is not private discrimination. Now, if the baker could bake without using municipal water, or flour brought in by 18 wheelers, then maybe its private.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all, it is not my fault that most posters on this thread have no clue WHAT the civil rights act of 64 is comprised of, or that its legal basis derives mainly from the 13, 14 and 15th amendments. Further, when their failures are pointed out, they respond with insults, and I really wouldn’t give them the figurative sweat off my balls.

<<SNIP>>


As to world watcher, it seems to me that Colo’s law is based on equal protection, though I think one could argue it is based on police power, or the state requiring all accord to a code of conduct.

I went back and checked, and I was incorrect - Equal Protection and Commerce were BOTH cited as part of the basis:

"The sole question posed is, therefore, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to these facts. The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress based the Act on § 5 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as its power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution."

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute​

My apologies.

>>>>

 

[bendog]

Here I have to work on civility.

You characterize as "bizarre" (OMG) some failure by me to NOT distinguish between employees choosing not to work for a biz because they don't like the religion or something of the employer, and employers choosing not to hire some employee because of their religion or something. If I choose to forego some economic benefit because I'm a bigot, whom do you think I've injured? Do you think any potential employee damages a business by working elsewhere? I hope not, for your sake. I chose not to dignify any comparison for a reason. The law does not address any situation where no one is injured.

As for consumer boycotts, with all respect, I think I see your view, but I think your comparisons are factually not analogous. First of all, a boycott traditionally is a means of INDIVIDUAL political expression, and thus it will enjoy heightened protection from any govt interference

Secondly, not all boycotts are legal. They are legal only when individual consumers choose not to engage in an economic activity. If the consumers of one company all get together to boycott another company, that is illegal. More importantly imo you’ve built a strawman argument: e.g. if a bunch of ... say ... gays .... decided to boycott a chicken seller simply because he was a devout Christian who closed on Sundays, arguably I think the Christian would have a claim for legal damages ... BUT I DON'T THINK ITS EVER HAPPENED. Rather, what commonly occurs is a biz owner making some public comment on a political issue, which makes some folks mad, so they stop buying chicken or shopping at Target.

Perhaps you have some concrete examples.

 

[dblack]

I meant private corporatism as meaning an citizen seeking the right to treat one group differently from another.

I don't put "liberal" and "bizarre" labels on you, and I expect similar respect from you. And again, I explicitly said not all discrimination is illegal.

You posted, "You can't be discriminated against because of your race or religion, but you can be discriminated against based on your socio-economic status, or your accent, or any other equally unfair and irrational biases that don't happen to currently be on the protected classes list."

That is indeed true. School desegregation cases being the point. Segregation caused by not allowing blacks into a section of a school district had a remedy. Everyone with enough money moving to the suburbs, did not have a legal remedy. Also, I think world watcher makes a point that what govt regulates in respect to public accommodation discrimination is economic activity. I think that's just because we do not regulate what people do in their own homes, or in their own churches, or where they choose to live. Whether the basis for the prohibition on discrimination in public accomodation is equal enjoyment of the laws or commerce is not really important. Rather, it is simply a fact that the legal system presumes govt has the power to prohibit public accommodation discrimination. You may disagree with that, but you are swimming against about 100 years of social evolution as well as the vast majority of opinion.

I think it would be helpful to look back to what the views were supporting public accomodations law in the early 1960s. Goldwater, of course, couldn’t support it even though he was opposed to segregation, and discrimination in all forms. I think its an oversimplification to characterize Dirksen and the gop mainstream acceptance of public accomodation as being "there was a wrong that had to be righted." It was more than that.

Rather, principled whites were faced with a situation in which laws did not protect blacks. Blacks paid the taxes to support interstate commerce. But, public accomodations denied them the right to stay in hotels where roads and railroads took them. They could not buy the food in restaurants.

Blacks asked, by what right does the govt collect taxes from us, under threat of jail if we don’t pay, and then use the money to build interstate commerce, and then allow the law to deny us the right to benefit from it?
When the gay folks who want to buy cakes make that argument, I don’t see a rational answer to deny them the cakes. It’s no longer an issue between baker and cake buyer. If my, or your, tax money went to help the baker bake, we participate in the discrimination. At that point, it is not private discrimination. Now, if the baker could bake without using municipal water, or flour brought in by 18 wheelers, then maybe its private.

There's no need to be defensive. I consider the idea, of some liberals, that all discrimination should be illegal to be a bizarre. But as you pointed out, you haven't made that claim, so I'm not sure why you'd take it personally.

As far as government using tax dollars to 'build interstate commerce', I'm adamantly opposed to that, if and when it is implemented. Government should stay out of business, and vice versa.

Anyway, I'm still interested in your opinion on whether employees and consumers should be allowed to discriminate.

 

[bendog]

I'm not defensive, I'm offensive.

The equal protection aspect is frankly obtuse. Typically EP is one group treated differently BY THE GOVT for no good reason. That was not the case, in Atlanta Hotel. Rather it was an almost moral argument of the civil rights movement. You require us to pay the taxes for the cops to beat us and the roads used to bring the produce we cannot buy. MalcomX had one answer, MLK jr another.

Dblack, I don't agree with your characterize of employee consumer discrimination, but I addressed in a post above this one.