Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So the averagebear makes a case, knowing that if said man gets kicked out for allegedgly being smell he will come in the next time with four friends and their vids tools in the cameras.

bear, quit saying silly things, please. You seem to so much want to discriminate based on color or whatever. Son, you can't without being punished.

Nah son, see you just are dumb. I don't advocate discriminating, I advocate having the RIGHT to discriminate. Those are two entirely different things, and actually I think you know that, you are just dishonest.

This is why I think two years military service should be mandatory, so many of today's youth have no honor, no code, no respect...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Considering I served twelve years in the military, having been associated with thousands of men and women of color, I know your argument about the right to discriminate is nonsense.

You have no right to discriminate in public accommodations.

No one cares what you do privately.

 

[Political Junky]

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

Those Democrats were conservatives.

Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
​

I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?

It's a matter of record that Southern Democrats were Conservative prior to 1964, when they began switching because of the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater only carried Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and his own state of Arizona in 1964.
United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Considering I served twelve years in the military, having been associated with thousands of men and women of color, I know your argument about the right to discriminate is nonsense.

You have no right to discriminate in public accommodations.

No one cares what you do privately.

What the **** does having served in the military have to do with knowing whether you can discriminate or not?

I served 25 years, retired, well actually haven't officially retired yet, but I am retiring as a Lt Colonel from the US Army, has exactly ZERO to do with knowing whether we can discriminate or not.

However, on the topic of discrimination, I most certainly CAN legally discriminate as a a business owner. You are completely, totally, and unequivocally wrong there.

What I can't do is discriminate based on religion/sex/gender/sexual orientation/disability

anything else is fair game and that is EXACTLY why the law is unconstitutional.

Go ask a lawyer if you can discriminate against "jakes" he will tell you yes, you could bar "jakes" from doing business with you.

Because you have NO right to do business with someone, the CRA simply prohibits me from discriminating for a few reasons, that's it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

 

[dblack]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong again. I just read the list of protected classes. First name wasn't on there.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

 

[konradv]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

 

[Rikurzhen]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

Exactly right. This is the big deal about being a "protected class." If the situation was as Dr. Zhivago argued, then homosexuals wouldn't have needed to wage their society destroying campaign to be included as a protected class under Civil Rights legislation. They would have already been covered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong again. I just read the list of protected classes. First name wasn't on there.

Got it wrong again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

You are completely stupid if you thing anyone here who is informed and understands this issue agrees with you, rookie.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.

no the law doesn't tell me what I can do you fool. The law tells me what I can't do.

This law says who i can NOT discriminate against , if you're not listed I can discriminate away.

Seriously, ask a lawyer.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

You are completely stupid if you thing anyone here who is informed and understands this issue agrees with you, rookie.

Your neither informed nor understand, hell you're so stupid you think laws tell us what we can do.

 

[konradv]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

I think you're being obtuse, if you don't see the difference. Once again you're becoming totally boring. I think you just argue for argument's sake without rhyme or reason.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.

Then why the need for specific homosexual anti-discrimination legislation? IF they're already covered because everyone is covered, then why?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.

You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.

You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.

It's the EXACT same ******* thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a ******* thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.

Are you really this stupid?

I think you're being obtuse, if you don't see the difference. Once again you're becoming totally boring. I think you just argue for argument's sake without rhyme or reason.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being factual. IF the law were not meant SPECIFICALLY to cover a-e , but to cover ANY AND ALL discrimination, why then SPECIFICALLY point out a-e? I mean that is just logical.

and once again, you can NOT just write off "concealed carry is behavioral" because there is NOTHING in the law that says "oh yeah guys you can discriminate against people who do things you don't like, but no one else"

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"

That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.

Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.

Then why the need for specific homosexual anti-discrimination legislation? IF they're already covered because everyone is covered, then why?

Because everyone isn't covered, and they know that... They will NEVER answer you.

 

[Politico]

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?

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

But why bother to repeal something that is simply redundant. I agree, portions of it need to go, but the symbolism of repealing it en toto would be a honking middle finger to minorities. Just don't see any point in it.

Because we are already too bloated with crap. A lot of things could stand to come off the books.