Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[dblack]

My apologies for breaking up your post, but you make a number of allegations here that need to be addressed individually:

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.

No, the "bizarre" comment was regarding the idea that all discrimination should be considered, by default, illegal.

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?

Absolutely. It happens all the time.

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.

Really? I've actually never heard of that. That also seems bizarre to me.

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.

I'm interested in the principles you're espousing, not historical examples. What about an organized boycott of Muslim owned business. Should government have the authority to force people to shop at a Muslim owned business against their will?

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

My apologies for breaking up your post, but you make a number of allegations here that need to be addressed individually:

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.

No, the "bizarre" comment was regarding the idea that all discrimination should be considered, by default, illegal.

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?

Absolutely. It happens all the time.

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.

Really? I've actually never heard of that. That also seems bizarre to me.

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.

I'm interested in the principles you're espousing, not historical examples. What about an organized boycott of Muslim owned business. Should government have the authority to force people to shop at a Muslim owned business against their will?

It seems that a government that could force me to do business with people could force people to do business with me... That's good news, business has been slow, I'm going to start writing down license plate numbers and suing anyone who drives my restaurant without stopping.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

 

[Discombobulated]

My apologies for breaking up your post, but you make a number of allegations here that need to be addressed individually:

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.

No, the "bizarre" comment was regarding the idea that all discrimination should be considered, by default, illegal.

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?

Absolutely. It happens all the time.

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.

Really? I've actually never heard of that. That also seems bizarre to me.

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.

I'm interested in the principles you're espousing, not historical examples. What about an organized boycott of Muslim owned business. Should government have the authority to force people to shop at a Muslim owned business against their will?

It seems that a government that could force me to do business with people could force people to do business with me... That's good news, business has been slow, I'm going to start writing down license plate numbers and suing anyone who drives my restaurant without stopping.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

You have yet to say anything that makes any kind of sense about anything.

 

[Discombobulated]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You have yet to say anything that makes any kind of sense about anything.

I am sorry that you are a child who can't acknowledge when someone they disagree with makes good points. I have obviously made several such points in this thread.

 

[Discombobulated]

You have yet to say anything that makes any kind of sense about anything.

I am sorry that you are a child who can't acknowledge when someone they disagree with makes good points. I have obviously made several such points in this thread.

You have yet to make any point at all....good or bad.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

Falsely interjects racism into the thread.

Obviously you have no principles son. so let me teach you what they are.

I myself own a restaurant, you would NEVER see me discriminating, if a customer is behaved, clean, and has money he's (or she) is welcome to eat there. But , I defend the right to discriminate.

See, I'm also not gay, but I defend the right of gays to marry.

I'm also not a Muslim, but I defend their right to practice their religion within the law.

I'm also not.... Well, even a dullard such as yourself SHOULD be getting the point by now.

 

[Discombobulated]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

Falsely interjects racism into the thread.

Obviously you have no principles son. so let me teach you what they are.

I myself own a restaurant, you would NEVER see me discriminating, if a customer is behaved, clean, and has money he's (or she) is welcome to eat there. But , I defend the right to discriminate.

See, I'm also not gay, but I defend the right of gays to marry.

I'm also not a Muslim, but I defend their right to practice their religion within the law.

I'm also not.... Well, even a dullard such as yourself SHOULD be getting the point by now.

Of course, the civil rights act has nothing what ever to do with race. Unless of course we're talking about the horrors of discrimination you've suffered as a white man since 1964.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

Falsely interjects racism into the thread.

Obviously you have no principles son. so let me teach you what they are.

I myself own a restaurant, you would NEVER see me discriminating, if a customer is behaved, clean, and has money he's (or she) is welcome to eat there. But , I defend the right to discriminate.

See, I'm also not gay, but I defend the right of gays to marry.

I'm also not a Muslim, but I defend their right to practice their religion within the law.

I'm also not.... Well, even a dullard such as yourself SHOULD be getting the point by now.

Of course, the civil rights act has nothing what ever to do with race. Unless of course we're talking about the horrors of discrimination you've suffered as a white man since 1964.

race =/= racism

 

[dblack]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

Falsely interjects racism into the thread.

Obviously you have no principles son. so let me teach you what they are.

I myself own a restaurant, you would NEVER see me discriminating, if a customer is behaved, clean, and has money he's (or she) is welcome to eat there. But , I defend the right to discriminate.

See, I'm also not gay, but I defend the right of gays to marry.

I'm also not a Muslim, but I defend their right to practice their religion within the law.

I'm also not.... Well, even a dullard such as yourself SHOULD be getting the point by now.

Of course, the civil rights act has nothing what ever to do with race. Unless of course we're talking about the horrors of discrimination you've suffered as a white man since 1964.

race =/= racism

That's racist!!!

 

[Discombobulated]

Begs the questions: Why are these racist assholes all so fucking stupid all the time? Why aren't there any smart one's?

Falsely interjects racism into the thread.

Obviously you have no principles son. so let me teach you what they are.

I myself own a restaurant, you would NEVER see me discriminating, if a customer is behaved, clean, and has money he's (or she) is welcome to eat there. But , I defend the right to discriminate.

See, I'm also not gay, but I defend the right of gays to marry.

I'm also not a Muslim, but I defend their right to practice their religion within the law.

I'm also not.... Well, even a dullard such as yourself SHOULD be getting the point by now.

Of course, the civil rights act has nothing what ever to do with race. Unless of course we're talking about the horrors of discrimination you've suffered as a white man since 1964.

race =/= racism

All those incredibly stupid verbal contortions you went through on this thread.....and you still couldn't make it work.
Maybe that's because your so called arguments just don't stand on their own merits. Some very amusing anecdotes and metaphors though......good fun.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

 

[dblack]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

 

[dblack]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

 

[dblack]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

 

[dblack]

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.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.