Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[Nosmo King]

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.

Are you prouder that Nazis were defeated or that it was done by a segregationist society?

Keep twisting in the wind. How could Liberals (who established the Civil Rights Act) be full of hate while Conservatives (who opposed the Civil Rights Act) want to repeal it?

Why are Conservatives hell bent to erode Civil Rights? Is it because they want to bank the fires of discrimination because discrimination appeals so much for them? Who are the haters here?

you have it exactly backwards


I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

Civilians..................

If your business is open to the public, it has to be...get ready for it...OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!!!

Only a Conservatives sees discrimination as a form of freedom.

 

[konradv]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

 

[Discombobulated]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves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

Perhaps you can explain the pressing need to repeal the Civil Rights Act with something besides superficial rhetorical nonsense.

Because it's the right thing to do

Oh I see, it's really all about fundamental fairness and equality. Your primary concern is the moral equation, you don't want to see anyone suffer from the racism inherent in the Civil Rights Act. No doubt you've suffered untold horrors of prejudice and discrimination since 1964.

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

In the light of constitutional law, case law and societal progress, the Civil Rights Act is redundant and divisive. It served a noble purpose in the beginning, maybe, perhaps, in a politically expedient kind of way, but now it's just a club wielded by political thugs who are not motivated by justice at all, but by avarice.

 

[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.

In the light of case law and societal progress, the Civil Rights Act is redundant and divisive. It served a noble purpose in the beginning, but now it's just a club wielded by political thugs who are not motivated by justice at all, but by avarice.

Worse, it set really bad precedent. The idea of protected classes fundamentally undermines equal protection, in a way that I think even liberals can appreciate. There are better ways to deal with our social problems.

 

[konradv]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally. IMO, this is the number one reason Rand Paul won't be president. Most Americans don't want the country going back to a situation where signs are placed outside a business, barring entry to a portion of its citizens. Remember, it happened to the Irish, too.

 

[Discombobulated]

When some folks talk about free association I'm pretty sure this is what they mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Perhaps you can explain the pressing need to repeal the Civil Rights Act with something besides superficial rhetorical nonsense.

Because it's the right thing to do

Oh I see, it's really all about fundamental fairness and equality. Your primary concern is the moral equation, you don't want to see anyone suffer from the racism inherent in the Civil Rights Act. No doubt you've suffered untold horrors of prejudice and discrimination since 1964.

The law deters people from discriminating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Imagine a country where conservatives consistently held power in the government. It appears they would have no laws against racial discrimination,

all in the interests of preserving the right to discriminate over the right not to be discriminated against.

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

That the People have chosen to have laws against discrimination is the RESULT of the ability for people to express their values.

 

[konradv]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

In the light of case law and societal progress, the Civil Rights Act is redundant and divisive. It served a noble purpose in the beginning, but now it's just a club wielded by political thugs who are not motivated by justice at all, but by avarice.

Worse, it set really bad precedent. The idea of protected classes fundamentally undermines equal protection, in a way that I think even liberals can appreciate. There are better ways to deal with our social problems.

I agree with you. That was in the back of my mind. Always is. See my edit in the above.

The aspects of the Act that served to end Jim Crow and the institutionalized violation of fundamental political rights was arguably, albeit, regrettably necessary. The classical liberals of the Hayekian movement and the Goldwater-Reagan revolution resisted it for the very reason you cite, but then they were accused of racism at a time when it was necessary to overthrow the Republican Party's liberal, northeastern establishment and convert southern Democrats into Republicans. The initial Southern Strategy was to reform southerners by other means, not by governmental force. But time was of the essence, and America made its decision. Political expediency always comes with a price tag.

In any event, the Act is a relic today, as I said, redundant and divisive. Some "liberals" may appreciate the fundamental reality, maybe, but most leftists are racists, the only racists among us of any significance today as we have seen on this and many other OPs. They cannot be reasoned with. They are mindless reactionaries and always have been.

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally. IMO, this is the number one reason Rand Paul won't be president. Most Americans don't want the country going back to a situation where signs are placed outside a business, barring entry to a portion of its citizens. Remember, it happened to the Irish, too.

I'm gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

Right. This is where the minds of leftists always go: to the gutter of petty and hysterically imbecilic prejudices. Leftists do not grasp the higher aspirations of liberty relative to the inalienable rights of free-association and private property. They do not grasp liberty's power to reward wisdom and sanction stupidity. They are the self-appointed hall monitors always running to big daddy government.

 

[konradv]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

You make language and conduct rules that apply to everyone, akin to "No shirt, no shoes , no service" signs. You don't keep all of a certain class out. That's the very definition of prejudice and what the law's supposed to stop. While I don't doubt you'd treat everyone fairly, this law is in place because of those who won't.

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

You make language and conduct rules that apply to everyone, akin to "No shirt, no shoes , no service" signs. You don't keep all of a certain class out. That's the very definition of prejudice and what the law's supposed to stop. While I don't doubt you'd treat everyone fairly, this law is in place because of those who won't.

I'm not clear what you're saying here. Should I be allowed to refuse service to the racists?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When some folks talk about free association I'm pretty sure this is what they mean.

You imagine that because you're a mindless dingbat.

 

[Care4all]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

I sat in a restaurant in Boston Massachusetts, with my husband and my parents who were visiting from Florida. The table next to us was a black and Hispanic mixed family....they were there before us. We ordered and got our meal, before they were even given their water...they were being shunned, completely shunned and ignored on all of their questions and requests for service....in short, my father asked for the bill and paid it and with the food on the table, we left...never to return again to this restaurant.... for years now, almost a decade, this has haunted me.

My parents were visiting on their vacation and leaving with our meals untouched, was all that we did....and I wish now we had done more, or wonder if we could have done more? We were ignorant on laws and city regs for businesses at the time....but still....I wish we had gone to the manager...though he was a part of this racial discrimination, because they asked to speak to him and he refused to come out and talk with them.... again, but still.....I wish we had taken the restaurant's name and the server's name and the manager's name and the names of the racial discriminated victims and knew where and how to report such a thing to authorities....

this is what still happens WITH the law....I can't IMAGINE the discrimination that would occur without the law....

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

If these racist activists decide to cause a ruckus and disturbs you and other customers, you have every right, even now with the law, to remove or order these customers to leave, if they don't, then you can call the cops and have them removed.

The law doesn't need changing, it needs to be followed, and still isn't in this day and age, imo.