Should America get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[jayem]

AFAIK, all the states have laws prohibiting discrimination against members of protected classes in public accommodations. This is pasted from The Missouri Revised Statutes:

213.065. 1. All persons within the jurisdiction of the state of Missouri are free and equal and shall be entitled to the full and equal use and enjoyment within this state of any place of public accommodation, as hereinafter defined, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.
2. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, as defined in section 213.010 and this section, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.

Section: 213.0065 Discrimination in public accommodations prohibited, exceptions. RSMO 213.065

Exceptions are made for private clubs and religious facilities not serving the general public. Some states and municipalities have expanded the protected classes to include sexual orientation. Which has led to those same-sex wedding conflicts.

The question is: if the federal Civil Rights Act is amended or repealed, would the state and local anti-discrimination laws follow suit?

 

[dogs4thewin]

AFAIK, all the states have laws prohibiting discrimination against members of protected classes in public accommodations. This is pasted from The Missouri Revised Statutes:

213.065. 1. All persons within the jurisdiction of the state of Missouri are free and equal and shall be entitled to the full and equal use and enjoyment within this state of any place of public accommodation, as hereinafter defined, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.
2. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, as defined in section 213.010 and this section, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.

Section: 213.0065 Discrimination in public accommodations prohibited, exceptions. RSMO 213.065

Exceptions are made for private clubs and religious facilities not serving the general public. Some states and municipalities have expanded the protected classes to include sexual orientation. Which has led to those same-sex wedding conflicts.

The question is: if the federal Civil Rights Act is amended or repealed, would the state and local anti-discrimination laws follow suit?

that would be a good question and likely one that would need to be decided by ballot.

 

[bhsmte]

I can have a law on the books does that in and of itself change hearts? NO


I PERSONALLY judge people on THEM, BUT if I wanted to I could HATE all blacks due to bad experenices with them ( I am white) having a law on the books would not change that.

Laws are not looking to "change hearts" laws are in place to protect people.

There are people out there that may want to steal from you, if a law was not in place that would send them to prison if they did and deters them from doing so.

Is having that law a good thing, if it gives people pause in harming others?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Laws are not looking to "change hearts" laws are in place to protect people.

There are people out there that may want to steal from you, if a law was not in place that would send them to prison if they did and deters them from doing so.

Is having that law a good thing, if it gives people pause in harming others?

Some My main point was that people may still hate people and refuse to serve/hire them a law will not change that to the point in this case that sometimes people will not hire people DUE to being in a protected class without giving that as a reason and unless the victim can PROVE so there is nothing they can do. They can not even file a civil suit and expect to win.

In the same way that the police can do nothing if someone chooses NOT to report a crime.

 

[bhsmte]

Some My main point was that people may still hate people and refuse to serve/hire them a law will not change that to the point in this case that sometimes people will not hire people DUE to being in a protected class without giving that as a reason and unless the victim can PROVE so there is nothing they can do. They can not even file a civil suit and expect to win.

In the same way that the police can do nothing if someone chooses NOT to report a crime.

Laws are not in place to get people to stop hating others, they are in place to act as a negative consequence, to harm others and to protect society from those who in fact do harm others.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Which parts would you repeal and why?

What would you amend?

I would either remove or amend the stuff that stomps on individuals' freedom of association. The stuff about the government not discriminating is fine.

 

[bhsmte]

I would either remove or amend the stuff that stomps on individuals' freedom of association. The stuff about the government not discriminating is fine.

Americans already have freedom of association and the ability to discriminate in their private lives; churches, private schools, private clubs and in their private lives and homes.

So, I would imagine you are talking about laws prohibiting discrimination that impacts publically accommodating businesses.

Well, republicans have a majority in both houses and mostly a conservative supreme court, so if there is a time anyone can do anything about having these laws tossed out or overturned, it is now.

Good luck.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 needs some serious revamping, but I don't believe it should be completely thrown out. There needs to be some protections in place along religious lines, but tossing the whole thing is like using a canon to take out a fly...

If we were to add in religious exemptions, what's to stop the bigots from claiming their bigotry is religiously motivated, thus effectively doing an end-run around the law?

 

[loveofourlord]

If we were to add in religious exemptions, what's to stop the bigots from claiming their bigotry is religiously motivated, thus effectively doing an end-run around the law?

And whats with this two law system americans want, the laws religious can ignore at will, and then the laws everyone else must obey. Why should there ever be any exemption from a law? Either the law is good or it's bad. Deciding that some forms of descrimination is fine because it's religious motivated is just bothering to me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And whats with this two law system americans want, the laws religious can ignore at will, and then the laws everyone else must obey. Why should there ever be any exemption from a law? Either the law is good or it's bad. Deciding that some forms of descrimination is fine because it's religious motivated is just bothering to me.

One set of laws for Christians; another set for everyone else. Are you surprised?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Americans already have freedom of association and the ability to discriminate in their private lives; churches, private schools, private clubs and in their private lives and homes.

Except the left has tried to do away with those rights as well...

So, I would imagine you are talking about laws prohibiting discrimination that impacts publically accommodating businesses.

The suggestion is to revamp them to take into account the rights of a person regarding their own 1st Amendment rights.

While a publicly traded company can't make the religious freedom argument, a privately owned business (particularly when the owner is the one operating the business), those rights should be respected.

I'm not saying that one can deny service on the sole basis of skin color, but they should be allowed to refuse to provide service for an event that they would consider to be morally objectionable.

Well, republicans have a majority in both houses and mostly a conservative supreme court, so if there is a time anyone can do anything about having these laws tossed out or overturned, it is now.

Good luck.

In order for Republicans to make changes of that nature they would require a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers of congress to override Obama's veto.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not saying that one can deny service on the sole basis of skin color,

Why not? The Civil Rights Act is the only thing stopping them, and you're looking to gut it.

but they should be allowed to refuse to provide service for an event that they would consider to be morally objectionable.

Or an event attended by people they find morally questionable, correct?

 

[bhsmte]

Except the left has tried to do away with those rights as well...

How so?

I'm not saying that one can deny service on the sole basis of skin color, but they should be allowed to refuse to provide service for an event that they would consider to be morally objectionable.

I know, you want a publically accommodating business to be able to discriminate.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Private property, if it means anything at all, means control over who has access to the property. If you do not have the ultimate say as to who can and cannot enter the house in which you live, it's not in any real sense your house. Simply being allowed to decide what color to paint the walls, or what kind of furniture to put in, does not entail ownership; decisions like that might easily be tasked to managers.

The right to own property has, throughout recorded history, been one of the distinguishing marks of a free man. It distinguished the free man from the slave in antiquity, and from the serf in the Middle Ages. The notion that the state can punish you simply for refusing to do business with somebody is an infringemet on liberty the likes of which the Western world hasn't seen in centuries. At least under feudalism property rights were secure for those who legally entitled to hold property, namely freedmen. Even if freedom wasn't universal, at least it had meaning. The 1964 Civil Rights Act turned the very notion of private property into a legal fiction, and hence was a blow at the roots of civilization itself.

Americans already have freedom of association and the ability to discriminate in their private lives; churches, private schools, private clubs and in their private lives and homes.

So, I would imagine you are talking about laws prohibiting discrimination that impacts publically accommodating businesses.

The question is, how is that any different?

 

[NotreDame]

Private property, if it means anything at all, means control over who has access to the property. If you do not have the ultimate say as to who can and cannot enter the house in which you live, it's not in any real sense your house. Simply being allowed to decide what color to paint the walls, or what kind of furniture to put in, does not entail ownership; decisions like that might easily be tasked to managers.

The right to own property has, throughout recorded history, been one of the distinguishing marks of a free man. It distinguished the free man from the slave in antiquity, and from the serf in the Middle Ages. The notion that the state can punish you simply for refusing to do business with somebody is an infringemet on liberty the likes of which the Western world hasn't seen in centuries. At least under feudalism property rights were secure for those who legally entitled to hold property, namely freedmen. Even if freedom wasn't universal, at least it had meaning. The 1964 Civil Rights Act turned the very notion of private property into a legal fiction, and hence was a blow at the roots of civilization itself.

Private property, if it means anything at all, means control over who has access to the property. If you do not have the ultimate say as to who can and cannot enter the house in which you live, it's not in any real sense your house. Simply being allowed to decide what color to paint the walls, or what kind of furniture to put in, does not entail ownership; decisions like that might easily be tasked to managers.

The subject matter under discussion does not involve a mere residence or some entity akin to a residence but rather the dialogue focuses upon the use of private property to operate a business offering services and products to the broader public.

So your comments about residences and homes, while edifying, have nothing to do with the dialogue. The issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Acts precluding public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics and whether this law should exist and interrupting the dialogue with the irrelevant focus upon homes and residences does not repudiate the use of the 1964 Civil Rights public accommodation provision. Quite simply, the 1964 Civil Rights public accommodation law does not pertain to mere homes and residences. You are comparing apples to oranges. We are discussing apples at the present moment, the idea is espouse a comment about the apples rather than introducing an entirely different kind of fruit.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Private property is private property.

 

[bhsmte]

Private property is private property.

Indeed, and some make a voluntary decision, to open up their private property, to the general public in a public accommodating business.

 

[NotreDame]

Private property is private property.

This isn't true historically or as a matter of U.S. history or the common law adopted from Britain. The fact is property has been treated differently, for purposes of regulation, depending on the property in question by governments before Biblical times and afterward. While historical practice isn't sufficient alone to justify some conduct, the existence of a long and established historical practice is some evidence of the prudence of the activity, at least in terms of governmental regulation.

But the rationale for this long precedent is the same, not all private property and the use of private property presents identical risks, potential harm, potential injury, or impacts to society and people. Hence, a car is regulated differently than a bicycle, skateboard, rollerblades, and skates, and each is treated differently than a home or business.

A business is treated differently than a private residence, and a private property used as a private club is treated differently than a business, and religious property used for religious purposes by a religious entity is treated differently.

So no private property isn't private property for purposes of regulation and freedom.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The point I made is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act isn't merely regulation; it's expropriation.

 

[smaneck]

There needs to be some protections in place along religious lines, but tossing the whole thing is like using a canon to take out a fly...

Not to worry. 11:00 Sunday morning still remains the most segregated hour in America.