Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[Rikurzhen]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

I'm sure that you had something in mind when you wrote the above but I didn't get what it was. When you strip out all of the aspects you mentioned, what was the core redeeming value that you see embedded in the CRA? What's left over?

Simply put there are no laws enacted that change peoples hearts. Racism will only go away by a change of heart. People want to really move forward,we need to teach our children not to hate..Racism resides in all colors world wide.

I agree with sentences 1 & 2. There are very few parents who teach their children to hate. What happens is children grow up and see racial reality is different from the racial fiction that they've been taught. They SEE different behaviors, different outcomes and they don't approve of what they see. The come to these positions on their own. Racism, as people are using the term in this thread, is a rational viewpoint, not an irrational one.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why would you repeal a law that is working? ...unless of course you didn't like the fact that it was working...

The law is not working in 2014 and unnecessary in 2014, unless are someone who wants to perpetuate the myth of racism.

To call racism a myth is to be willfully blind. Anyone who isn't and has spent any time in the U.S. would have to laugh in your face.

I sort of assumed that POV was lurking in this thread from the start. Racism and bigotry are painfully real, and we should fight tooth and nail to ensure our government rises above such ugliness. But the right to refuse to associate with people you don't like, no matter how inane your reasoning, is an essential freedom and it's foolish to sacrifice it for temporary convenience.

The left needs victims. It is essential to your psychosis. You live in a world of haves vs. have nots. From what I see we have overcome race in this country as a major obstacle to economic success. Now it's all on the individual. To say that racism is a nation problem in this country is a myth.

Racial wage discrimination was no longer detected in the wage data back in the mid-70s. Whatever problem had existed with regards to wage discrimination on the basis of race was solved within 10 years of the CRA passing.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why would you repeal a law that is working? ...unless of course you didn't like the fact that it was working...

The law is not working in 2014 and unnecessary in 2014, unless are someone who wants to perpetuate the myth of racism.

To call racism a myth is to be willfully blind. Anyone who isn't and has spent any time in the U.S. would have to laugh in your face.

I sort of assumed that POV was lurking in this thread from the start. Racism and bigotry are painfully real, and we should fight tooth and nail to ensure our government rises above such ugliness. But the right to refuse to associate with people you don't like, no matter how inane your reasoning, is an essential freedom and it's foolish to sacrifice it for temporary convenience.

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

If the 2nd Amendment were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to complete gun control...or has society reached a point where it is an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more?

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the situation with this comparison in that the 2nd Amendment doesn't take away the human rights of people who don't own a firearm.

Your comparison only works if repealing the CRA takes away people's rights, rather than restores them.

 

[Bush92]

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.

If the 2nd Amendment were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to complete gun control...or has society reached a point where it is an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more?

This is an Act of Congress not an Amendment...no comparison.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[story.

Why would that matter to you since you believe that the owner shouldn't have to serve black people, period?

No I feel the owner has the right to bar idiots from his restaurant. Especially if they are scaring other patrons. And what's this shit about a single White patron. Total liberal media bullshit.

I guess you've already forgotten you said this a couple posts ago:

"Your investment your business. You can allow or not allow anyone you want."

That is not about being an idiot. That is about the color of one's skin, period. That is your position.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. There is your racial psychosis fueled by things like the Civil Rights Act. You just quoted me, then made an assumption.if I owned a business and a bunch of drunken White bikers came in, I tell them to leave because they are being loud and obnoxious , nobody would say a thing. I say it to 25 Blacks acting rude and obnoxious, now somehow I am a racist. Civil Rights Act, that's why.[/QUOTE]

What part of the word 'anyone' don't you understand? You used the word 'anyone'. 'Anyone' would include sober, civil, well mannered blacks, that you say a business should be able to throw out just because the owner doesn't like black people.

Own up to your own words, or retract them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We need CRA because of Rik and Bush92 and folks like them.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I think those businesses have a RIGHT to discriminate via the right to free assembly. is economic libertarian silliness, as a business operates according to the Rule of Law, which is determined by We the People, not business.

Your investment your business. You can allow or not allow anyone you want. You will pay the consequences for losing that portion of the consumer market. If a Black man wants to ken a cafe and put up a sign "NoWhites Allowed", he should be able to.

See what conservatives mean when the talk about liberty?

Liberty

" You do with your property what you what and leave me to do with my property what I want" Provided of course that neither of us violates the rights of anyone else

 

[konradv]

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

Boy you've turned things on their head!!! If you want separation, you must separate completely. You can't take advantage of the society provided by ALL Americans and then discriminate against a portion of them. That's free-loading and, as conservatives tell us all the time, the worst sort of disrespect for human rights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

Boy you've turned things on their head!!! If you want separation, you must separate completely. You can't take advantage of the society provided by ALL Americans and then discriminate against a portion of them. That's free-loading and, as conservatives tell us all the time, the worst sort of disrespect for human rights.

You and your ilk are dishonest idiots. I by your ilk, I mean people who can't debate honestly. See them on both sides of the aisle.

People discriminate EVERY day moron. Protecting certain classes from that is in DIRECT violation of the COTUS

 

[konradv]

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

Boy you've turned things on their head!!! If you want separation, you must separate completely. You can't take advantage of the society provided by ALL Americans and then discriminate against a portion of them. That's free-loading and, as conservatives tell us all the time, the worst sort of disrespect for human rights.

You and your ilk are dishonest idiots. I by your ilk, I mean people who can't debate honestly. See them on both sides of the aisle.

People discriminate EVERY day moron. Protecting certain classes from that is in DIRECT violation of the COTUS

Name calling, eh? I say that's a win for me and I'm the one who keeps score, son. Up until now you showed some promise, but now you're just another boring poster.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

Boy you've turned things on their head!!! If you want separation, you must separate completely. You can't take advantage of the society provided by ALL Americans and then discriminate against a portion of them. That's free-loading and, as conservatives tell us all the time, the worst sort of disrespect for human rights.

You and your ilk are dishonest idiots. I by your ilk, I mean people who can't debate honestly. See them on both sides of the aisle.

People discriminate EVERY day moron. Protecting certain classes from that is in DIRECT violation of the COTUS

Name calling, eh? I say that's a win for me and I'm the one who keeps score, son. Up until now you showed some promise, but now you're just another boring poster.

Oh, I can call names and kick your ass in any debate son.

ANY law which grants special protections to some classes but not another is unconstitutional.

Race is a class. Smelly could be class. Loud and obnoxious could be a class of people. Kids are people. Rude people could make a class.

I , as a business owner, can discriminate against all but one of those classes.

That is unconstitutional. NO class should receive preferential treatment over another.

 

[konradv]

Oh, I can call names and kick your ass in any debate son.

ANY law which grants special protections to some classes but not another is unconstitutional.

Race is a class. Smelly could be class. Loud and obnoxious could be a class of people. Kids are people. Rude people could make a class.

I , as a business owner, can discriminate against all but one of those classes.

That is unconstitutional. NO class should receive preferential treatment over another.

If you were really as smart as you think, you wouldn't need to call names. The fact that you do just proves your intellectual weakness. If no class should get preferential treatment, why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? I'm afraid in debates you've written a check your brain can't cash.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh, I can call names and kick your ass in any debate son.

ANY law which grants special protections to some classes but not another is unconstitutional.

Race is a class. Smelly could be class. Loud and obnoxious could be a class of people. Kids are people. Rude people could make a class.

I , as a business owner, can discriminate against all but one of those classes.

That is unconstitutional. NO class should receive preferential treatment over another.

If you were really as smart as you think, you wouldn't need to call names. The fact that you do just proves your intellectual weakness. If no class should get preferential treatment, why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? I'm afraid in debates you've written a check your brain can't cash.

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

 

[konradv]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

 

[konradv]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

When I tried to be substantive, you became abusive. If you're going to act childishly, that's the way I'm going to treat you. Your choice all the way. Clean up your act and we may have a real debate someday, but for now this is just really boring and a waste of my time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

There's a big difference between who you invite into your own home and denying a certain portion of the population access to your business. If the law were to be repealed, I have no doubt we'd see the return of signs barring the entry of certain groups into some businesses. If "We the People" are to provide services and protection to these businesses, they owe all the people access in return.

Shame on you leftists for putting business interests ahead of respect for human rights.

Boy you've turned things on their head!!! If you want separation, you must separate completely. You can't take advantage of the society provided by ALL Americans and then discriminate against a portion of them. That's free-loading and, as conservatives tell us all the time, the worst sort of disrespect for human rights.

I can discriminate against anyone I please, just like a woman who wants to be examined by a female gynecologist can discriminate against male gynecologists.

 

[konradv]

I can discriminate against anyone I please, just like a woman who wants to be examined by a female gynecologist can discriminate against male gynecologists.

You got this a little backwards. The woman is the customer, the gynecologist is the business.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can discriminate against anyone I please, just like a woman who wants to be examined by a female gynecologist can discriminate against male gynecologists.

You got this a little backwards. The woman is the customer, the gynecologist is the business.

Irrelevant. She's discriminating. Your position is that discrimination is an evil act. Why condone being "a little bit pregnant?"