Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do just make this stuff up or do you find it on some rightwing revisionist website?
dSeeing how there were no Federal Jim Crow laws, I find your argument specious at best. Segregationist Jim Crow laws began to emerge in the south before the canon's at Appomattox had a chance to cool. Woodrow Wilson was 10 years old.
Recognizing that reconstituted southern legislature were attempting to place African Americans back into a position of servitude, if not out and out slavery, the Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was promptly vetoed by Andrew Johnson.
To protect the rights of freed blacks from Johnson and the Supreme Court, Congress enacted the 14th and 15th Amendment. In 1877 the Republican Party abandon freedmen in exchange for the Presidency by agreeing to remove Federal troops from the former Confederate States, as a result, Jim Crow would be become a fixture in American life for more than a hundred years. Codified in 1896 when the Supreme Court ruled established as a matter of law the concept of separate but equal in one of its most nefarious decisions, Plessy v Ferguson.In 1896 Woodrow Wilson the racist that he was, was still giving lectures at Princeton University.
By the time that Wilson would finally arrive at position of national prominence, much less the international level were he would have any influence on a struggling Viennese artist would be 1912, when he was elected to the Presidency. In 1912 Hitler was still just an struggling artist living in Vienna. It would be another 13 years before Hitler would publish Mein Kampf, 4 years after Wilson's death and 23 years before the Nazi's would propose the Nuremberg laws with their similarities to the laws that had been governing racial rights and privileges in numerous southern states for more than 50 years!
Now you mention Harding and Coolige, which is all fine and good because both presidents spoke strongly against racial discrimination at a time and during a period in the nation's history when the forces of racism were at their strongest, but to describe any actions on their part as "changing the system" is not only ahistorical but more importantly a risible fiction. No laws were changed, no executive orders were signed and lynchings of African Americans seeking their due rights continued unabated.
The first president to do anything tangible about the rights of African Americans in the post Reconstruction period was Franklin Roosevelt when he Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 in 1941, creating the Fair Employment Practices Committee which would ban discriminating against persons based upon race, color, creed or national origin.
Get off the web, go to a library. You will find these things called books there. Read a couple and then you might have something of worth to say.
And again... its not discrimination, its private business doing whatever private business wants to do. Stop being sophmoric.
First learn how to spell it; S-o-p-h-o-m-o-r-i-c.
Of course your version of sophomoric may have a different meaning as in; an argument shared by such Court legions as William O. Douglas, and Hugo Black as well as Justices Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart White and Goldberg who decided in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States by a vote of 8-zero that no, a private business under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely no right to discriminate. Period.
Yes, I agree with Stossel and Paul.
A business owner SHOULD have the RIGHT to choose who he will and will not serve, just as I have the absolute RIGHT to deny entrance to my house to anyone I don't want in there!
Just as a business owner should have the RIGHT to determine whether he will allow smoking in his place of business.
The government, at various levels, has denied those RIGHTS to most businesses. In order to "guarantee" rights to special groups, they REMOVE RIGHTS from other groups.
The truly sad part of this is, that there are those who think this is the way it should be!
I don't.
I got to say he is full of BS when starts painting this picture of private enterprise not being culpable in discriminating and that the blame lies with local government laws.
From the U.S. Senate Report written during the 1868 term of the 40th Congress regarding the, on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as cited in Justice William O. Douglas's concurring decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (No. 515) 1964/
Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [p285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.
But there are stronger and more persuasive reasons for not allowing concepts of private property to defeat public accommodations legislation. The institution of private property exists for the purpose of enhancing the individual freedom and liberty of human beings. This institution assures that the individual need not be at the mercy of others, including government, in order to earn a livelihood and prosper from his individual efforts. Private property provides the individual with something of value that will serve him well in obtaining what he desires or requires in his daily life.
Is this time-honored means to freedom and liberty now to be twisted so as to defeat individual freedom and liberty? Certainly denial of a right to discriminate or segregate by race or religion would not weaken the attributes of private property that make it an effective means of obtaining individual freedom. In fact, in order to assure that the institution of private property serves the end of individual freedom and liberty, it has been restricted in many instances. The most striking example of this is the abolition of slavery. Slaves were treated as items of private property, yet surely no man dedicated to the cause of individual freedom could contend that individual freedom and liberty suffered by emancipation of the slaves.
There is not any question that ordinary zoning laws place far greater restrictions upon the rights of private property owners than would public accommodations [p286] legislation. Zoning laws tell the owner of private property to what type of business his property may be devoted, what structures he may erect upon that property, and even whether he may devote his private property to any business purpose whatsoever. Such laws and regulations restricting private property are necessary so that human beings may develop their communities in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Surely the presence of such restrictions does not detract from the role of private property in securing individual liberty and freedom.
Nor can it be reasonably argued that racial or religious discrimination is a vital factor in the ability of private property to constitute an effective vehicle for assuring personal freedom. The pledge of this Nation is to secure freedom for every individual; that pledge will be furthered by elimination of such practices.
Of course your version of sophomoric may have a different meaning as in; an argument shared by such Court legions as William O. Douglas, and Hugo Black as well as Justices Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart White and Goldberg who decided in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States by a vote of 8-zero that no, a private business under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely no right to discriminate. Period.
OMG, you got me on spelling while I'm running around at work! Grats.
And yes, having people run around yelling how people are being racist when they are clearly saying that they believe in the right of the person who owns the business to do business however they wish without being force to cater to people they do not wish to have in their establishment is sophOmoric.
The above related writing by the SCOTUS judge shows that they were using this as a vehicle for inclusion for blacks post-abolishion. Since we, as a society, have firmly progressed from these issues for the very vast majority of situations we should start to remove these intrusive laws. I firmly believe that the more society creates laws to include people, the more people will resist that inclusion.
By no means am I a proponent of establishments who discriminate, I am a firm proponent of their right to do so.
OMG, you got me on spelling while I'm running around at work! Grats.
And yes, having people run around yelling how people are being racist when they are clearly saying that they believe in the right of the person who owns the business to do business however they wish without being force to cater to people they do not wish to have in their establishment is sophOmoric.
When you can cite a quote from me, not "people run[ing] around" calling either Stosell or the Paul's racist call pm me. In point of fact on these very boards I have stated that I do not believe the Paul's to be racist, simply misguided and jejune libertarians. So if that is the basis or your argument that I am being sophomoric, I feel comfortable in stating that you are just being appallingly ignorant.
Quote:
TSince we, as a society, have firmly progressed from these issues for the very vast majority of situations we should start to remove these intrusive laws.
Why, if we are beyond such racial animus then where is the intrusion? Most people do not steal, yet we still have laws on the books against stealing, should we consider the abolition of laws against theft because the overwhelming and vast majority of citizens do not steal? It would seem to be that anyone in a rush to abolish Title II of the Civil Rights Act does so in the hope of being able to do just what the act proscribes.
Quote:
I firmly believe that the more society creates laws to include people, the more people will resist that inclusion.
Please keep track of your own argument. Which is it, most people have come to believe that discrimination is undesirable or are so chaffing under such regulation that they feel a need to resist it. It can't be both.
By no means am I a proponent of establishments who discriminate, I am a firm proponent of their right to do so.[/quote]
From my mind's eye, that is like being opposed to wife beating but in favor of the right of a man to beat her.
You seem like you may answer my question that everyone is running from. How do you feel about an all gay softball team in SF who won't allow the "not gay enough" people on the team? Why is there a gays only team to begin with? Isn't that also discrimination?
A private softball team is not a public endeavor, and, unfortunately, gays and straights are not currently protected classes under the civil rights laws.
One day we hope to change all that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
