Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[dblack]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why do all you racist assholes respond with the same knee jerk horse shit? Do you all read from the same script? Are you all equally fucking stupid?

You really are stupid aren't you.

Notice that was a statement, not a question.

I defend a racist's right to be a racist no different than I defend a gay's right to be gay.

I am neither gay, nor a racist, yet I defend the rights of either.

Further , I defend your right to be an idiot.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You don't seem ca

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

That's all I favor as well. I in noway think the government should return to "separate but equal" or anything like that.

 

[Discombobulated]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

 

[Discombobulated]

Why do all you racist assholes respond with the same knee jerk horse shit? Do you all read from the same script? Are you all equally fucking stupid?

You really are stupid aren't you.

Notice that was a statement, not a question.

I defend a racist's right to be a racist no different than I defend a gay's right to be gay.

I am neither gay, nor a racist, yet I defend the rights of either.

Further , I defend your right to be an idiot.

Fortunately I don't have to depend on people like you to defend my rights.

 

[dblack]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

Nope. Those words are the opposite of what I said.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why do all you racist assholes respond with the same knee jerk horse shit? Do you all read from the same script? Are you all equally fucking stupid?

You really are stupid aren't you.

Notice that was a statement, not a question.

I defend a racist's right to be a racist no different than I defend a gay's right to be gay.

I am neither gay, nor a racist, yet I defend the rights of either.

Further , I defend your right to be an idiot.

Fortunately I don't have to depend on people like you to defend my rights.

Fortunately for you I did it without you requesting.

You're welcome.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

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. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

Shut up, you silly ass. I see right through you. You're the sissy-ass hall monitor, the class snitch . . . teacher's pet. You're the informer, the conformist.

"Big Daddy Government, I got a boo boo."

"Big Daddy Government, make 'em stop discriminating."

LOL!

Of course, the problem with you vicious, moralizing little shrews of Neo-Fascism is your penchant for institutionalizing your jack-booted demagoguery. For all your bed wetting, you limp-wristed busy bodies truly are an existential threat to liberty.

Here's another thing I don't understand

Who exactly walks into a business and is told "I don't want your money"

and runs to a lawyer to FORCE them to take their money?

I walk into a store and they even ACT like they don't want to earn my money, I go somewhere that does. I guess when you don't EARN your money you just aren't careful about where you spend it.

And not just that. What's this knee-jerk reactionism to individualism all about anyway? I say individual liberty, unfettered free-association, and the hall monitors on the left start babbling about racism.

Is that a Freudian slip? Are they projecting? Sure feels like it. Just saying, you know, because racism is the furthest thing from my mind. Aside from the academics, what's the connection? Why should that follow? I don't feel like I need to strip, burn my clothes and take a shower until after the nobility of rugged individualism is dragged through gutter by these . . . ideologues who aren't ideologues.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

Nope. Those words are the opposite of what I said.

May as well forget it, he has not taste for honest discourse.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And not just that. What's this knee-jerk reactionism to individualism all about anyway? I say individual liberty, unfettered free-association, and the hall monitors on the left start babbling about racism.

Is that a Freudian slip? Are they projecting? Sure feels like it. Just saying, you know, because racism is the furthest thing from my mind. Aside from the academics, what's the connection? Why should that follow? I don't feel like I need to strip, burn my clothes and take a shower until after the nobility of rugged individualism is dragged through gutter minds of these . . . ideologues who are not ideologues.

For the love of God, can you please cut the parts of a quote you aren't responding to out, sometimes I'm on my phone and it takes FOREVER to scroll througha multi quote

thanks

 

[Discombobulated]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

Nope. Those words are the opposite of what I said.

Good luck with your crusade for segregation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Another thing Discombobulated fails to understand is people get along better when they don't feel compelled to.

If you got some asshole who doesn't like black people but every time one comes into his business he feels like he MUST serve them he's gonna be gritting his teeth and blaming the black guy, when possibly the black guy wouldn't even give a shit if he wasn't welcomed in the guy's store.

Instead you take that same guy and tell him do what you want, and maybe he meets a few blacks, doesn't have built in resentment for them and CHOOSES to serve them.....


I guess that's beyond the logic of some people.

 

[Discombobulated]

Another thing Discombobulated fails to understand is people get along better when they don't feel compelled to.

If you got some asshole who doesn't like black people but every time one comes into his business he feels like he MUST serve them he's gonna be gritting his teeth and blaming the black guy, when possibly the black guy wouldn't even give a shit if he wasn't welcomed in the guy's store.

Instead you take that same guy and tell him do what you want, and maybe he meets a few blacks, doesn't have built in resentment for them and CHOOSES to serve them.....


I guess that's beyond the logic of some people.

Fortunately we live in a country where the law doesn't give a fuck about whether you want to serve a black man or not.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Another thing Discombobulated fails to understand is people get along better when they don't feel compelled to.

If you got some asshole who doesn't like black people but every time one comes into his business he feels like he MUST serve them he's gonna be gritting his teeth and blaming the black guy, when possibly the black guy wouldn't even give a shit if he wasn't welcomed in the guy's store.

Instead you take that same guy and tell him do what you want, and maybe he meets a few blacks, doesn't have built in resentment for them and CHOOSES to serve them.....


I guess that's beyond the logic of some people.

Fortunately we live in a country where the law doesn't give a fuck about whether you want to serve a black man or not.

Fortunately for you , we don't euthanize morons.

 

[konradv]

Another thing Discombobulated fails to understand is people get along better when they don't feel compelled to.

If you got some asshole who doesn't like black people but every time one comes into his business he feels like he MUST serve them he's gonna be gritting his teeth and blaming the black guy, when possibly the black guy wouldn't even give a shit if he wasn't welcomed in the guy's store.

Instead you take that same guy and tell him do what you want, and maybe he meets a few blacks, doesn't have built in resentment for them and CHOOSES to serve them.....


I guess that's beyond the logic of some people.

Fortunately we live in a country where the law doesn't give a fuck about whether you want to serve a black man or not.

Fortunately for you , we don't euthanize morons.

Guess you made out on that one.

 

[dblack]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

Nope. Those words are the opposite of what I said.

Good luck with your crusade for segregation.

I've made it very clear how I feel about racism and I fully support the provisions of civil rights law that outlaw segregation. So go fuck yourself.

 

[bendog]

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.

well, that's the heart of our disagreement. I don't think the baker should have to choose between ceasing to bake or selling to the gay couple because he hurts the gay couple's feelings. However, because the gay couple PAY TAXES that go to providing the roads, water, sanitary inspections, and police functions that the baker would not be able to stay in business without, then he either treats the gay couple as he does everyone else, or he is enjoined to cease baking. If the baker's willing to accept the benefits he gets from gay folks' taxes, he loses his right to say they actions are not sanctioned by God, so he can discriminate.

As for protected classes, you continue to willfully ignore that the law only requires protected classes BE TREATED EQUALLY. There's no affirmative action or preferences involved.

Lastly, I think you asked me if muslims (or some group) should be able to boycott someone's biz because they don't like his religion ( or something.) I believe I answered your question, but just to be clear. First, I think it's a strawman argument in that I don't see this occurring in actuality. But, as I believe I posted, if this did occur, then the biz person would, imo, have a legal claim for money damages and a court order enjoining the boycott, based on the theory of intentional infliction of economic damages. That's just my opinion, and I don't know of any court case, of factual occurrence leading to that legal claim.

 

[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.

well, that's the heart of our disagreement. I don't think the baker should have to choose between ceasing to bake or selling to the gay couple because he hurts the gay couple's feelings. However, because the gay couple PAY TAXES that go to providing the roads, water, sanitary inspections, and police functions that the baker would not be able to stay in business without, then he either treats the gay couple as he does everyone else, or he is enjoined to cease baking. If the baker's willing to accept the benefits he gets from gay folks' taxes, he loses his right to say they actions are not sanctioned by God, so he can discriminate.

This is the same logic applied by those who demand that welfare recipients submit to extra scrutiny in the form of drug tests and the like. The idea being that anyone benefiting from government is indebted to it and must be willing to forfeit their usual rights for the privilege. I reject this logic outright. This gets to the core of equal protection and general (as opposed to 'specific') welfare, and why they're so important to liberal government.

In general we don't, and should resist the urge to, itemize the benefits we receive from tax supported government. Government should strive to provide services that benefit everyone more or less equally, with the citizens being tapped to support them more or less equally. And to the extent that we can't equalize the financing and benefit of government, we must be willing to accept such inequalities as endemic to the nature of government. Equal rights can't be conditional, based on whether we keep a positive balance with government in terms of taxes paid vs benefits received.

As for protected classes, you continue to willfully ignore that the law only requires protected classes BE TREATED EQUALLY. There's no affirmative action or preferences involved.

I'm not ignoring it, but my issue is that I'm capitalizing a different part of the sentence. My issue is with the fact that "the law ONLY REQUIRES PROTECTED CLASSES to be treated equally." Do you see the difference? You're framing it as though everyone has a right to have a cake baked for them, but some are being denied that right because of their sexual orientation. That's nonsense. None of us have a right to have someone bake us a cake, and we can be refused such a service for pretty much any reason a baker might dream up, other than those on the current list of protected classes.

This approach has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with social engineering. It's about targeting specific biases and prejudices for modification.

Lastly, I think you asked me if muslims (or some group) should be able to boycott someone's biz because they don't like his religion ( or something.) I believe I answered your question, but just to be clear. First, I think it's a strawman argument in that I don't see this occurring in actuality. But, as I believe I posted, if this did occur, then the biz person would, imo, have a legal claim for money damages and a court order enjoining the boycott, based on the theory of intentional infliction of economic damages. That's just my opinion, and I don't know of any court case, of factual occurrence leading to that legal claim.

I asked you about the possibility of organized boycotts against Muslim businesses - something that seems like a realistic possibility, given all the nonsense we're hearing lately from conservatives about a 'holy war'. But you open up a whole new can of worms by claiming a boycott represents inflicting intentional economic damages.

 

[Discombobulated]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

You're such a bigoted prick, and so intolerant and insulting of those who disagree with you, that I doubt you'd be open to any such discussion. Likewise, I doubt you read enough of the posts on this thread to recognize it, but, I'm actually opposed to repealing the law outright. Much of it is good law that reinforces equal rights under the law, and truly protects the rights of minorities.

But the concepts of "protected classes" and the "public accommodations" provisions do the opposite and need to be revisited. The benefit of abolishing these policies would be a restored commitment to equal protection, tolerance and freedom of conscience.

So in other words: Repealing the Civil Rights Act offers no tangible benefits of any kind to anyone anywhere.....except for all you racists pretending to be crusaders for freedom.

Nope. Those words are the opposite of what I said.

Good luck with your crusade for segregation.

I've made it very clear how I feel about racism and I fully support the provisions of civil rights law that outlaw segregation. So go fuck yourself.

Not a racist? Maybe not.....perhaps you're just an unwitting tacit supporter of de facto segregation.

 

[bendog]

[QUOTE="dblack,
.[/QUOTE]

I asked you about the possibility of organized boycotts against Muslim businesses - something that seems like a realistic possibility, given all the nonsense we're hearing lately from conservatives about a 'holy war'. But you open up a whole new can of worms by claiming a boycott represents inflicting intentional economic damages.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean to open up a can of worms. I think I previously posted that a regular old fashioned boycott, like Tipper Gore versus the old record companies and the song "cop killer," have political speech aspects, which would be a shield. Furthermore, individuals have always had the freedom of association to make political statements, like in response to the head of chick fil a saying gay marriage was bad (or whatever he specifically said).

It's "always" been illegal to use boycotts as a simple economic tool. For example, if Target customers/shareholders organized a boycott of Walmart simply to damage Walmart, that would clearly be illegal. However, I took your "muslim" example to be something that has not been done before. If a bunch of muslims want to punish some biz whose owner, or executive, said something negative about Islam, I don't see the problem, and I don't see any factual analogy to anything about public accommodation.

HOWEVER, suppose some folks did a boycott for simple economic pain? Muslims could be an example, I guess. There have been multiple examples of blacks, for example, choosing to not patronize stores "in the hood" that are owned by people of other ethnicities ....e.g. Asian. So long as the blacks are more or less not organized, and are just choosing to shop elsewhere because they feel like supporting the other biz that's owned by a black, I don't think it's ever been seen as illegal activity.

But, I thought you raised the possibility that one group (say gays) might organize via social media or something to target specific bakeries owned by Christians who go to churches known to not approve of gay marriage, or even sex, simply to economically hurt people whose religious beliefs they don't like. To my knowledge this has not occurred. But if it did, then I think arguably you've got an intentional infliction of economic damages, and people can get civilly sued on that theory for both money and a court order telling them to stop.