Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[bendog]

De facto segregation is not illegal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Could you cite some federal or state laws under which your theory operates? I've never heard of a case where it was illegal for a group to organize and conduct a boycott of a businesses. Now I'm not talking slander or liable laws which are a different set of legal statutes - but statutes that make it illegal to boycott a business whose practice you disagree with.

For years the American Family Association organized many boycotts for any company it perceived as treating homosexuals to well, these included:

7-Eleven
Abercrombie & Fitch,
American Airlines,
American Girl,
Blockbuster Video,
Burger King,
Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr.,
Clorox,
Comcast,
Crest,
Ford,
Hallmark Cards,
Hardee's,
Kmart,
Kraft Foods,
S. C. Johnson & Son,
Movie Gallery,
Microsoft,
MTV,
Paramount Pictures,
Time Warner,
Universal Studios,
DreamWorks,
Mary Kay,
NutriSystem,
Old Navy,
IKEA,
Sears,
Pampers,
Procter & Gamble,
Target,
Tide,
Walt Disney Company,
and PepsiCo.​

I don't remember one case where the AFA was sued and had to pay the company for damages and court costs.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

umm, I believe I stated I responded to a hypothetical that to my knowledge has not occurred and is a strawman argument.

I find your post snarky, and I have not responded in kind. But, I also think the post is helpful in distinguishing, what I was attempting to distinguish to dblack, and the difference between a boycott to affect political change by the targeted entity and simply a malicious desire to do harm.

I think the AFA is a despicable group, but because we are civilized we accept that their boycotts are intended to change the behavior of companies on issues of political opinions. IF one could prove the AFA's motives were merely economic, then their "speech" might not be seen as political speech.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

They intentionally ignore this point for a very good reason.

 

[WorldWatcher]

umm, I believe I stated I responded to a hypothetical that to my knowledge has not occurred and is a strawman argument.

I find your post snarky, and I have not responded in kind. But, I also think the post is helpful in distinguishing, what I was attempting to distinguish to dblack, and the difference between a boycott to affect political change by the targeted entity and simply a malicious desire to do harm.

I think the AFA is a despicable group, but because we are civilized we accept that their boycotts are intended to change the behavior of companies on issues of political opinions. IF one could prove the AFA's motives were merely economic, then their "speech" might not be seen as political speech.

What's snarky about you making a claim and me politely asking for the legal basis of such a claim?


You state that it is illegal for a group to organize a boycott, that if they do they could be sued and be liable for damages and court costs - I asked what the basis of that claim is. Then I provided a well known group that routinely engages in boycott tactics that has not once - to the best of my knowledge - ever been sued (and lost) simply for organizing a boycott.


I apologize if you think that not accepting everything an internet posting says is fact as being snarky. That was not the intent.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

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.

They intentionally ignore this point for a very good reason.

Dblack, laws are not created to protect against some possible, but as yet unrealized, harm or situation. As I understand your view, you find fault with public accommodation because it doesn't, for example, compel the baker to bake for a person is of some unprotected class. Who are these people? What "class" do they fit into?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

They intentionally ignore this point for a very good reason.

Dblack, laws are not created to protect against some possible, but as yet unrealized, harm or situation. As I understand your view, you find fault with public accommodation because it doesn't, for example, compel the baker to bake for a person is of some unprotected class. Who are these people? What "class" do they fit into?

I gave you an example earlier in the thread.

I could hang a sign outside my restaurant that read "No Jakes served here"

That would be legal. Completely legal. I could then ask every perspective patron there name when they came in and throw out any Jakes, simply for being Jakes. Again, perfectly legal,

 

[dblack]

I didn't mean to open up a can of worms....

Neither did I. Let's ignore the hypothetical. I'd much rather hear your reaction to my comments on the issue of equal protection. I don't see how you can say that civil rights laws protect an equal right to be served in a public business, because there's no such right. None of us have a 'right' to be served in a public business, and can be refused for any reason.

 

[bendog]

umm, I believe I stated I responded to a hypothetical that to my knowledge has not occurred and is a strawman argument.

I find your post snarky, and I have not responded in kind. But, I also think the post is helpful in distinguishing, what I was attempting to distinguish to dblack, and the difference between a boycott to affect political change by the targeted entity and simply a malicious desire to do harm.

I think the AFA is a despicable group, but because we are civilized we accept that their boycotts are intended to change the behavior of companies on issues of political opinions. IF one could prove the AFA's motives were merely economic, then their "speech" might not be seen as political speech.

What's snarky about you making a claim and me politely asking for the legal basis of such a claim?


You state that it is illegal for a group to organize a boycott, that if they do they could be sued and be liable for damages and court costs - I asked what the basis of that claim is. Then I provided a well known group that routinely engages in boycott tactics that has not once - to the best of my knowledge - ever been sued (and lost) simply for organizing a boycott.


I apologize if you think that not accepting everything an internet posting says is fact as being snarky. That was not the intent.



>>>>

Ok I apologize for the thin skin. I knew responding to dblack's hypothetical would cause me trouble because, again, it's a strawman argument.

I'm not aware of any boycott that is not, at least arguably, about affecting some political change in the behavior of the company boycotted. I thought dblack asked if I thought it could be illegal for muslims, or somebody, to just boycott because they didn't like somebody. Of course, its not illegal for people to choose to do biz with people they perceive as sharing some religious or cultural trait with them, rather than doing biz with a stranger.
But, It is illegal under anti-trust for shareholders of one company to target another company just to drive the competitor out of biz. I admit I'd forgotten that from anti-trust, because if it occurred, it probably happened before 1920 or sometime. As purely a hypothetical question, I think it might be possible to argue a boycott that is aimed purely at inflicting economic harm, regardless of any aspect of political lspeech or freedom of association, could be a personal tort.

 

[bendog]

[


I gave you an example earlier in the thread.

I could hang a sign outside my restaurant that read "No Jakes served here"

That would be legal. Completely legal. I could then ask every perspective patron there name when they came in and throw out any Jakes, simply for being Jakes. Again, perfectly legal,[/QUOTE]

Right, but it goes back to intent and economic benefit. The Baker takes benefit of the gays' tax dollars for the roads, water, inspectors and police he must have to have his business. Absent that, the laws do not prevent or hinder him in any way from discriminating. Similarly, the Gays would go to jail if they withheld the portion of their taxes going to the bakers roads, water, inspectors and police. If the baker, or the gays, just chose to go live on a commune somewhere and had no social or economic interaction with anyone outside the commune, then I don't see public accommodation being an issue.

I'm not really comfortable in slamming Jake. But, again, I'll try to take your hypothetical, which again, I'm not sure has any "real world" corollary. But, could a group boycott all biz owners wearing red ties because they don't like red ties? Sure, it's freedom of association, and the boycotting folks are paying their taxes for the red tie businesses to get road, cops, etc.

I suppose you might ask, then, what would happen if bakeries owned by red tied owners chose only to sell cakes to red tied buyers? Red tied buyers aren't a protected class of any public accommodation law, to the best of my knowledge. So, the red tied buyers couldn't get the govt to compel the red tied bakers to sell them cakes.

HOWEVER, if this discrimination against the red tie buyers became a problem that really showed some great inequality in society, the law would probably change to protect the red tied buyers.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[


I gave you an example earlier in the thread.

I could hang a sign outside my restaurant that read "No Jakes served here"

That would be legal. Completely legal. I could then ask every perspective patron there name when they came in and throw out any Jakes, simply for being Jakes. Again, perfectly legal,

Right, but it goes back to intent and economic benefit. The Baker takes benefit of the gays' tax dollars for the roads, water, inspectors and police he must have to have his business. Absent that, the laws do not prevent or hinder him in any way from discriminating. Conversely, the Gays would go to jail if they withheld the portion of their taxes going to the bakers roads, water, inspectors and police. If the baker, or the gays, just chose to go live on a commune somewhere and had no social or economic interaction with anyone outside the commune, then I don't see public accommodation being an issue.

I'm not really comfortable in slamming Jake. But, again, I'll try to take your hypothetical, which again, I'm not sure has any "real world" corollary. But, could a group boycott all biz owners wearing red ties because they don't like red ties? Sure, it's freedom of association, and the boycotting folks are paying their taxes for the red tie businesses to get road, cops, etc.

I suppose you might ask, then, what would happen if bakeries owned by red tied owners chose only to sell cakes to red tied buyers. Red tied buyers aren't a protected class of any public accommodation law, to the best of my knowledge. So, the red tied buyers couldn't get the govt to compel the red tied bakers to sell them cakes.

HOWEVER, if this discrimination against the red tie buyers became a problem that really showed some great inequality in society, the law would probably change to protect the red tied buyers.[/QUOTE]


Yes, the law probably would change, just as many such laws are changing to include homosexuality, but is that what our country is based on ? Laws that offer certain groups certain protections and we'll just add groups as people complain?

Come on.

 

[bendog]

Well Avg Bear you finally "got it." Complaining about unfairness to red tied cake bakers/sellers is pretty speculative.

 

[WorldWatcher]

umm, I believe I stated I responded to a hypothetical that to my knowledge has not occurred and is a strawman argument.

I find your post snarky, and I have not responded in kind. But, I also think the post is helpful in distinguishing, what I was attempting to distinguish to dblack, and the difference between a boycott to affect political change by the targeted entity and simply a malicious desire to do harm.

I think the AFA is a despicable group, but because we are civilized we accept that their boycotts are intended to change the behavior of companies on issues of political opinions. IF one could prove the AFA's motives were merely economic, then their "speech" might not be seen as political speech.

What's snarky about you making a claim and me politely asking for the legal basis of such a claim?


You state that it is illegal for a group to organize a boycott, that if they do they could be sued and be liable for damages and court costs - I asked what the basis of that claim is. Then I provided a well known group that routinely engages in boycott tactics that has not once - to the best of my knowledge - ever been sued (and lost) simply for organizing a boycott.


I apologize if you think that not accepting everything an internet posting says is fact as being snarky. That was not the intent.



>>>>

Ok I apologize for the thin skin. I knew responding to dblack's hypothetical would cause me trouble because, again, it's a strawman argument.

I'm not aware of any boycott that is not, at least arguably, about affecting some political change in the behavior of the company boycotted. I thought dblack asked if I thought it could be illegal for muslims, or somebody, to just boycott because they didn't like somebody. Of course, its not illegal for people to choose to do biz with people they perceive as sharing some religious or cultural trait with them, rather than doing biz with a stranger.
But, It is illegal under anti-trust for shareholders of one company to target another company just to drive the competitor out of biz. I admit I'd forgotten that from anti-trust, because if it occurred, it probably happened before 1920 or sometime. As purely a hypothetical question, I think it might be possible to argue a boycott that is aimed purely at inflicting economic harm, regardless of any aspect of political lspeech or freedom of association, could be a personal tort.

1. We're not discussing the board of directors of one company targeting another in a form of anti-competition practice that would fall under anti-trust laws.

2. We're talking about the actions of private individuals or affiliated groups of individuals (such the AFA, NAACP, etc. - more akin to a PAC then a competitor) organizing boycotts. What statutes prevent an individual from telling friends not to purchases goods at such-n-such a place for whatever reasons? What statutes prevents a Church from organizing a boycott of a restaurant chain that has chosen to provide domestic partnership benefits to same sex couples? What Statutes prevent the local chapter of the NRA from organizing a boycott of a retailer that posts a sign that Firearms are not allowed in the store?



>>>>

 

[dblack]

Dblack, laws are not created to protect against some possible, but as yet unrealized, harm or situation. As I understand your view, you find fault with public accommodation because it doesn't, for example, compel the baker to bake for a person is of some unprotected class. Who are these people? What "class" do they fit into?

That's not my objection, I was merely pointing that out as an inconsistency in the argument. My objection is with idea the civil rights laws built on protected classes represent 'equal protection'. They're not equally protecting the right to have someone make you a cake, or serve you dinner, or hire you for a job, or whatever, because none of have those rights. There's no such thing as the right to cake, the right to dinner, or the right to a job. Protected classes manufacture such rights out of thin air, but only for certain people in certain circumstances. They create special protections for certain people because bigots don't like them.

 

[dblack]

Ok I apologize for the thin skin. I knew responding to dblack's hypothetical would cause me trouble because, again, it's a strawman argument.

It's actually not. A strawman argument is a deliberate mis-representation of another argument. I raise hypotheticals to examine the validity of the premise or proposition - by applying it to other circumstances and seeing if it holds up. It doesn't matter how likely the hypothetical is. I'm not making a slippery slope argument, I'm trying to understand the underlying values of your position.

 

[Discombobulated]

De facto segregation is not illegal.

No doubt you believe you have some point to make on the actual tangible effects of repealing the Civil Rights Act. I can hardly wait to hear what it is.

 

[dblack]

De facto segregation is not illegal.

No doubt you believe you have some point to make on the actual tangible effects of repealing the Civil Rights Act. I can hardly wait to hear what it is.

You really don't pay much attention, do you?

 

[Discombobulated]

De facto segregation is not illegal.

No doubt you believe you have some point to make on the actual tangible effects of repealing the Civil Rights Act. I can hardly wait to hear what it is.

You really don't pay much attention, do you?

Theoretical, anecdotal, metaphorical.......anything but real or tangible for you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not only are you a dull witted mindless ideologue, you're also just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be. It must be very frustrating for you to be nearly smart enough to almost realize how ignorant you are.

Still rattling on, dimwit?

Why is ideological discrimination evil, Neo-Fascist of the politically correct kind?

 

[bendog]

As world watcher posted, public accommodation is premised primarily on the state's power regulate commerce, not equal protection as we typically see it, i.e. as the govt treating one group differently. Public accommodation law simply acknowledges that the person who owns a biz - and discriminates against a class of people, whom society has seen suffers from some ongoing discrimination by some private biz owners - only operates that biz because society takes tax dollars from people whom the biz owner wants to discriminate against. The law merely forces him to make a choice, does he choose to discriminate or does he choose to take the benefits of the tax dollars paid by those against whom he discriminates. I do not agree there is any unfairness of burden placed on the biz owner that he doesn't place upon himself.

As far as does a black person have a "right" to rent a hotel room, you might want to back up there if you're asserting there is no such right. You may not like the application of the commerce clause and 14th amendment, but they do convey that right, and that's been the law for over 50 years.

I apologize for using the term "strawman." I didn't do it to offend you, but rather to emphasize that in answering your hypothetical questions I was going to have to address facts that really are not occurring. I never meant that you were making a slippery slope kind of argument. I'll try to be as clear as possible. I don't think you can logically make any analogy to burdens placed on those who discriminate and those who are discriminated against. Their motives, the legal burdens and what they seek from the state are simply different from each other. By "strawman" I simply meant that any of your hypotheticals about some group that might suffer some discrimination, but not be in a protected class, are answered simply by the observation that if there is systemic discrimination, that group will probably become a protected class. And, if you hypothetical was there might be a boycott for no political or economic reason, but just fools being foolish, I don't think it would ever happen. And, if there while Jesse Jackson uses the power of boycott and political speech to extort money, he's at least couching his hucksterism in terms of affecting political change.