CDZ Is Title 2 and 7 of the CRA really Constitutional?

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

 

[there4eyeM]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

 

[jillian]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

what are you talking about?

 

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

what are you talking about?

Do you think title 2 and 7 of the civil rights act are constitutional?

 

[TNHarley]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

 

[G.T.]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

 

[TNHarley]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

 

[G.T.]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

 

[TNHarley]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

 

[G.T.]

Did the founding parents really want slavery? Did slavery need to be 'cured'? Has anything changed in two hundred and fifty years? Are new solutions ever necessary? Is the status quo sanctified? Is imperfection ever alleviated by another, less severe imperfection?

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

 

[Valerie]

I think everyone should have the liberty to refuse service from their PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is however racist you think my opinion on that has anything to do with race.

citizens, who would like to preserve the right to discriminate in public accommodations and employment, are oppressed by the civil rights laws, aka the government...?

but what of those citizens who stand to become marginalized as 'less than', without the existence of such laws?

laws which protect some from oppression, others find oppressive based on what?

what 'liberty' has anyone really lost in liberating others..?

do citizens not have equal rights to petition their government for constitutional laws to protect them from being systematically publicly marginalized?

"No state shall make or enforce any law..." 14th Amendment



these scenarios are not imaginary, the USA has been there & done that, which is what prompted the civil rights movement.

who in 2016 characterizes civil rights law as government oppression?

who in 2016 believes civil rights law has anything to do with PC?

bigots who wish to have the liberty to be bigots in the public sphere, that's who.

when cowardly bigots are frowned upon by their peers they tend to hide behind the PC boogeyman.

pity the bigots who feel marginalized and oppressed by common decency standards.

keep in mind, bigots, in the world of 'liberty' as you envision it, you could also end up on the wrong end of your own law.

and contrary to hysterical belief, there is really no such thing as the PC police.


Political Correctness, and the Crusade AGAINST political correctness

 

[Valerie]

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity - FindLaw

 

[TNHarley]

Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

 

[TNHarley]

I think everyone should have the liberty to refuse service from their PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is however racist you think my opinion on that has anything to do with race.

citizens, who would like to preserve the right to discriminate in public accommodations and employment, are oppressed by the civil rights laws, aka the government...?

but what of those citizens who stand to become marginalized as 'less than', without the existence of such laws?

laws which protect some from oppression, others find oppressive based on what?

what 'liberty' has anyone really lost in liberating others..?

do citizens not have equal rights to petition their government for constitutional laws to protect them from being systematically publicly marginalized?

"No state shall make or enforce any law..." 14th Amendment



these scenarios are not imaginary, the USA has been there & done that, which is what prompted the civil rights movement.

who in 2016 characterizes civil rights law as government oppression?

who in 2016 believes civil rights law has anything to do with PC?

bigots who wish to have the liberty to be bigots in the public sphere, that's who.

when cowardly bigots are frowned upon by their peers they tend to hide behind the PC boogeyman.

pity the bigots who feel marginalized and oppressed by common decency standards.

keep in mind, bigots, in the world of 'liberty' as you envision it, you could also end up on the wrong end of your own law.

contrary to hysterical belief, there is really no such thing as the PC police.


Political Correctness, and the Crusade AGAINST political correctness

This is the CDZ. Please stay on topic.

 

[Valerie]

i began that post while responding to you in the other thread but then i noticed this thread.

of course mister anti pc wants to run to the CDZ to finish the conversation.

my post is on topic, so feel free to stop the faux hysteria.

 

[G.T.]

is there a commerce clause as an enumerated power......answers.

and founders arent gods nor owners.

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

i think you said "private property" INSTEAD of saying "businesses" in order to exaggerate/sansationalize the whine against the CLEARLY enumerated power to regulate commerce

 

[TNHarley]

i began that post while responding to you in the other thread but then i noticed this thread.

of course mister anti pc wants to run to the CDZ to finish the conversation.

my post is on topic, so feel free to stop the faux hysteria.

Is title 2 and 7 of the CRA Constitutional? Do you think the Founders intent was to be micro-managed by the Federal govt?

 

[TNHarley]

Yes.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]."
Besides that, it should be quit obvious that employer/employee relations are a local issue, not "among the several states".

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

i think you said "private property" INSTEAD of saying "businesses" in order to exaggerate/sansationalize the whine against the CLEARLY enumerated power to regulate commerce

A business IS private property. Sorry if that word is too scary for you.
What do local dealings have to do with interstate commerce GT?

 

[G.T.]

Umm..you asked if they wanted businesses regulated. That was your question.

They did.

see: commerce clause.

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

i think you said "private property" INSTEAD of saying "businesses" in order to exaggerate/sansationalize the whine against the CLEARLY enumerated power to regulate commerce

A business IS private property. Sorry if that word is too scary for you.
What do local dealings have to do with interstate commerce GT?

What does interstate or within the same state have to do with the underlying principle of regulating commerce being RIGHT OR WRONG. Overall. Why when discussing right veralsus wrong, anyways, do you want to rely on Slave owners from Centuries ago as opposed to your own today's brain?

And im not saying business isnt private property...im saying YOU said private property instead of specifying BUSINESS ...........as a subjugation tactic. Commerce is a relatable word to BUSINESS, but instead of being specific you went with the hyperbolic approach and said "private property" and my brain thought of why you might do that. Im confident, like usually.

 

[TNHarley]

My question was relating to title 2 and 7 of the CRA. It wasn't a "general" question. Sorry if I implied it was.

you asked if they wanted "private property regulated by the federal govt"


hopefully #1 ya meant "businesses"

cuz....errm.


and #2, the existence of the CC proves the answer is yes to the way you asked the question. yea, yes they did want that.

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

i think you said "private property" INSTEAD of saying "businesses" in order to exaggerate/sansationalize the whine against the CLEARLY enumerated power to regulate commerce

A business IS private property. Sorry if that word is too scary for you.
What do local dealings have to do with interstate commerce GT?

What does interstate or within the same state have to do with the underlying principle of regulating commerce being RIGHT OR WRONG. Overall. Why when discussing right veralsus wrong, anyways, do you want to rely on Slave owners from Centuries ago as opposed to your own today's brain?

And im not saying business isnt private property...im saying YOU said private property instead of specifying BUSINESS ...........as a subjugation tactic. Commerce is a relatable word to BUSINESS, but instead of being specific you went with the hyperbolic approach and said "private property" and my brain thought of why you might do that. Im confident, like usually.

Because the commerce clause is typically broken down into 3 sections :
1. Foreign CC
2. Interstate CC
3. Indian CC
Here is a good explanation Interstate commerce clause
You mean going by the intent of the people that wrote the document? Did you know that irrelevant crazy person also supported a strong federal govt?
So, you are saying I used the term correctly, just not to your liking? I can deal with that.
Now that you know what the commerce clause is, can we continue the debate about constitutionality?