Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

A law that protects the equal rights of American citizens is a divisive reminder of the past?

lol, who does it divide? Apparently it divides the people who want equal rights with those that don't.

The law does not protect equal rights, the COTUS in general, and the 14th and 15th specifically do.

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

A law that protects the equal rights of American citizens is a divisive reminder of the past?

lol, who does it divide? Apparently it divides the people who want equal rights with those that don't.

busine
Must be those already granted in 14th an 15th Amendments.

If those amendments were protecting the equal rights of minorities, why were businesses still legally discriminating against minorities almost a century later?

Because until 1964 no one was stupid enough to believe the government could FORCE businesses to serve people. DUH

 

[konradv]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to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.

The parts applying to private businesses certainly SHOULD be repealed as they are unconstitutional, and the government is already forbidden to discriminate by COTUS Amendment, so repealing it would be best in the general scheme of things.

Thank you!

By all means make that a central plank of the 2016 Republican Platform. That should lose a few more million votes.

Nah, well just not mention it at all, and then when a conservative President is in office BAM executive order

BAM impeachment! Count on it. Not that there's a likelihood of a conservative president in the near future.

 

[Nyvin]

Why is a black person's opinion specifically more important to you than anyone elses you racist piece of shit.

Of course it does. Liberals would not like it because that would mean that people could get along without federal oversight. It's repeal and subsequent harmony would be a blow to them.

First of all...what tangible benefits come from repealing it?

Second what evidence suggests any kind of "subsequent harmony" after repeal?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The parts applying to private businesses certainly SHOULD be repealed as they are unconstitutional, and the government is already forbidden to discriminate by COTUS Amendment, so repealing it would be best in the general scheme of things.

Thank you!

By all means make that a central plank of the 2016 Republican Platform. That should lose a few more million votes.

Nah, well just not mention it at all, and then when a conservative President is in office BAM executive order

BAM impeachment! Count on it. Not that there's a likelihood of a conservative president in the near future.

Presidents who use EO should be impeached? Someone call Obama

 

[konradv]

Presidents who use EO should be impeached? Someone call Obama

That's the problem with conservatives, they can't see the forest for the trees. I'll bet they even think nothing improper happened at Ferguson!

 

[JakeStarkey]

People did not get along before the federal oversight.

My dad, grand dad, and great grand dads were hunting down the kluckers who were killing and terrorizing blacks.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why is a black person's opinion specifically more important to you than anyone elses you racist piece of shit.

Of course it does. Liberals would not like it because that would mean that people could get along without federal oversight. It's repeal and subsequent harmony would be a blow to them.

First of all...what tangible benefits come from repealing it?

Second what evidence suggests any kind of "subsequent harmony" after repeal?

People having the freedom to exercise their human rights should be enough reason to repeal. Harmony bought at the cost of suppressing people's human rights is too high a price to pay for harmony. Think how much harmony we could have if women were stripped of the right to vote. Is it worth the cost to women in order for society to reap the benefit of increased harmony?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

Hey Homer, 15 years ago affirmative action college entrance preferences and state hiring based on the color of your skin, went out the window with a referendum sponsored mainly by Caifornia's Chinese-Americans. California's Asians were sick and tired of the race-baiting leftist mentality you trumpet here. Screw race-preference and race-handicapping programs that do nothing but cause internecine resentment, is what people like you champion. You're the most insideous kind of racist, but you're probably too thick to realize it.

 

[Nyvin]

People having the freedom to exercise their human rights should be enough reason to repeal. Harmony bought at the cost of suppressing people's human rights is too high a price to pay for harmony. Think how much harmony we could have if women were stripped of the right to vote. Is it worth the cost to women in order for society to reap the benefit of increased harmony?

What the hell?? What kind of twisted harmony would come from keeping women from voting?? What? Are there a bunch of Redneck men out there that just rage every time a woman goes into a voting booth?? LOL

Hating and discriminating others is not a human right. You can voice your opinions about them, but excluding them and making the law work against them is not a human right in any more way than not being allowed to rape/steal/assault someone is.

 

[Rikurzhen]

People having the freedom to exercise their human rights should be enough reason to repeal. Harmony bought at the cost of suppressing people's human rights is too high a price to pay for harmony. Think how much harmony we could have if women were stripped of the right to vote. Is it worth the cost to women in order for society to reap the benefit of increased harmony?

What the hell?? What kind of twisted harmony would come from keeping women from voting?? What? Are there a bunch of Redneck men out there that just rage every time a women goes into a voting booth?? LOL

Hating and discriminating others is not a human right. You can voice your opinions about them, but excluding them and making the law work against them is not a human right in any more way than not being allowed to rape/steal/assault someone is.

Read what I wrote more closely. The woman example is to illustrate what happens when you place harmony above human rights. Understand now?

Discriminating is not a human right? Like hell it isn't. Try to force a woman who doesn't want to be examined by a male gynecologist and who sexually discriminates against him in order to be examined by a female gynecologist to cease her association with the female and instead be treated by the male gynecologist because she doesn't have the right to discriminate.

Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. Every woman who turns down a date offer from a dweeb is discriminating against dweebs.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Of course it does. Liberals would not like it because that would mean that people could get along without federal oversight. It's repeal and subsequent harmony would be a blow to them.

The nation would be vehemently opposed to repeal. It would stir up a huge race war. The Republican Party would look even more racist than it already does, but hey, if you feel it's worth it then by all means, start beating the drums. Like Jake already said, there is zero chance of repeal so the conversation serves no purpose.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Of course it does. Liberals would not like it because that would mean that people could get along without federal oversight. It's repeal and subsequent harmony would be a blow to them.

The nation would be vehemently opposed to repeal. It would stir up a huge race war. The Republican Party would look even more racist than it already does, but hey, if you feel it's worth it then by all means, start beating the drums. Like Jake already said, there is zero chance of repeal so the conversation serves no purpose.

Same with the crazy notion of homosexual marriage back in 1975. I was favoring the Goldwater argument back when I was in school in the late 90s. I was the only one doing so back then. Now I'm seeing more and more people coming on board. Whose to say how this issue will evolve in the future. I'm betting that more and more people will see the wisdom of striking down the oppression of human rights embedded with the CRA as time passes and oppression grows more severe.

 

[dblack]

Hating and discriminating others is not a human right. You can voice your opinions about them, but excluding them and making the law work against them is not a human right in any more way than not being allowed to rape/steal/assault someone is.

I agree that it's wrong for the law to work against (or for) any specific people or groups. But the rest of this is bunk.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Hating and discriminating others is not a human right. You can voice your opinions about them, but excluding them and making the law work against them is not a human right in any more way than not being allowed to rape/steal/assault someone is.

I agree that it's wrong for the law to work against (or for) any specific people or groups. But the rest of this is bunk.

That's the key part. The law shouldn't be playing favorites. The government shouldn't be playing favorites. We're all equal before the law. That though doesn't mean that I SHOULD BE PREVENTED from playing favorites.

 

[dblack]

A repeal won't happen, so the discussion is irrelevant.

So what?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hating and discriminating others is not a human right. You can voice your opinions about them, but excluding them and making the law work against them is not a human right in any more way than not being allowed to rape/steal/assault someone is.

I agree that it's wrong for the law to work against (or for) any specific people or groups. But the rest of this is bunk.

That's the key part. The law shouldn't be playing favorites. The government shouldn't be playing favorites. We're all equal before the law. That though doesn't mean that I SHOULD BE PREVENTED from playing favorites.

Absolutely correct. These liberals are so stupid.

What if we passed a law that said

"since it the right of every American to own a gun, you MUST allow people to carry guns on YOUR property?"

Morons, the COTUS was designed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing on you, not me. I can tell you kiss off.

 

[dblack]

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?

Titles 3, 6, 8, and 9 all seem worthwhile as clarifications of equal protection obligations.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals need the Civil Rights Act (which is now moot) as a reminder in their minds of how "bad and evil" America is. Liberal history begins in 1964. They hate the generation that won WWII. They can't accept that a segregated society would defeat Nazism. Ruins the victory for them. So Civil Rights Movement, that they want to fight over and over and over and over again...only divides America. Give the young generation a chance to grow without your liberal hatred.

As far as this country's concerned Liberal history begins in 1776.
But you go ahead and have a nice time with your head in the sand.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

Translation: "Let's pretend it never happened".
Why is that? Inconvenient?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Sir we have a Constitutional Amendment which states that already

Would be akin to passing a law that says the government can't take away guns. Why bother?

Because some folks like to take liberties with "interpreting" the Constitution. And it doesn't hurt to reiterate and underline the stuff that is most important.

Of course it hurts when you have it angling around for no reason other than to divide the country. Do we need the government to tell us how to get along or are we all grown up now? I think we're big boys and girls. I think if you want to keep the Civil Rights Act...you are a racist.

Wanting to take no action on an existing legislation that prohibits discrimination --- that's what "racism" is??

Are you on some kind of experimental medication?

 

[whitehall]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed