Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[bendog]

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.

Assuming this has anything to do with me, I just meant that there is no legal remedy available when de facto segregation has occurred. For example, an inner city school might be 99% black, and a neighboring suburban district be 80% white, with the 20% black folks being upwardly mobile. A court cannot order desegregation of the suburban district.

 

[Uncensored2008]

14th and 15th already cover this ground. Civil Rights Act is redundant.

Unfortunately title VII covers areas that are not touched by the Constitution (and in fact violate the same.)

 

[Discombobulated]

This thread has been a huge success if the idea was to talk about repealing the Civil Rights Act without mentioning race. Maybe this idea could become even more obscured by continuing to talk about race only as an abstraction not really central to the issue.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This thread has been a huge success if the idea was to talk about repealing the Civil Rights Act without mentioning race. Maybe this idea could become even more obscured by continuing to talk about race only as an abstraction not really central to the issue.

So are you suggesting that RACE is the primary reason for having the act?

 

[dblack]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. This approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

 

[konradv]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

 

[dblack]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Sloganeering, ad hominem, empty, obnoxious prattle . . . everything but a coherent statement about the realities of ideological discrimination from a neo-fascist ideologue of the politically correct kind.

 

[konradv]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one? If not for the government, that would be totally determined by your ability to defend it. Good luck with that.

 

[dblack]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one?

We don't have the "right" to have someone provide us with a business, no.

 

[konradv]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one?

We don't have the "right" to have someone provide us with a business, no.

Up until now I've had respect for you, but the way you edited my post was beyond the pale and had to be reported. You know that's not what I meant and says more about you than me.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Sloganeering, ad hominem, empty, obnoxious prattle . . . everything but a coherent statement about the realities of ideological discrimination from a neo-fascist ideologue of the politically correct kind.

is that a euphanism for stupid? If so, I agree.

 

[dblack]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one?

We don't have the "right" to have someone provide us with a business, no.

Up until now I've had respect for you, but the way you edited my post was beyond the pale and had to be reported. You know that's not what I meant and says more about you than me.

I edited to focus on the statement I wanted to address. I didn't modify it or change its meaning in any way. You're harumphing on that to divert attention from the actual argument. Rather than let you get away with that, let's revisit it:

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one? If not for the government, that would be totally determined by your ability to defend it. Good luck with that.

I was simply trying to make some kind of sense out of this, without being insulting. The only thing I could come up with is that you were trying to make some comparison between the right to free trade and the power to force someone else to serve you. But the only comparison that would be valid would be likewise having the power to force someone else to provide you with a business. Is that what you meant?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one?

We don't have the "right" to have someone provide us with a business, no.

Up until now I've had respect for you, but the way you edited my post was beyond the pale and had to be reported. You know that's not what I meant and says more about you than me.

There's nothing to report. He didn't alter your words, he chose to focus only on that argument. Perfectly fine.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The point is, no one has the "right" to rent a hotel room. The approach to law grants specific people in specific circumstances the power to demand service, but it's not protecting anyone's rights.

It doesn't give people "in certain circumstances" that right. It gives everyone the right. Isn't that what America's all about?

So, anyone has a "right" to rent a hotel room? FWIW, that's not a "right" in any case. A right is a protected freedom, not the power to demand that others serve you.

One doesn't really have a right to have a business at all, does one?

We don't have the "right" to have someone provide us with a business, no.

Up until now I've had respect for you, but the way you edited my post was beyond the pale and had to be reported. You know that's not what I meant and says more about you than me.

There's nothing to report. He didn't alter your words, he chose to focus only on that argument. Perfectly fine.

If being outsmarted were against the rules Discombobulated would be banned for life.

 

[Discombobulated]

It's funny to watch these people drone on with their superficial academic exercise as though they actually give a shit about everyone's individual freedoms. Hilarious.