If you were a Congressman in the 60s, would have you voted for the Civil Rights Act? (poll, high school)
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.
I wouldn't have as it was, the Act created massive bureaucracy and caused the largest expansion of government - possibly since the War for Southern Independence.
As much as I think that shopowners should never exclude a person based on race, I don't think that the government has any right to tell a business owner who they must serve. I think that refusing to serve colored people was a business mistake most of the time, but the government should be telling individuals who they must allow on the premises.
I would have voted to allow equal to government services and to end segregation in government offices, except schools, but would have set a timeline to integrate schools.
And before the attacks come my way, know this, I am well educated, young (23), and not from the South, I am from Buffalo, NY.
I won't shy from my opinion, and am not racist in any way, I just value the right to choose as a property owner would you will allow on your property over integration at the barrel of a gun.
Your post exemplifies why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. Black Americans would still be picking cotton on plantations, and serving Massa in the big house, if all white people shared your point of view.
I am a well educated, old guy from the south as we used to say, there is down south and up south, I think you can guess where Buffalo lies on that map...
First of all the passage of the Civil Rights Act wasn't a page from Mao's Little Red book, integration wasn't forced at gun point (Central High School and the University of Mississippi being the exceptions) but by white folks accepting it as the law of the land (sometimes with a little non-violent (at least on the protesters side) nugging.
Second you have the right to do whatever you want to do on your personal property, but your business is more than that, it is a state established and regulated enterprise and as such voluntarily removes itself from being just personal property. Particularly when that enterprise is engaged in interstate commerce.
i would have voted for the civil rights act. ovcatto, i agree with you to a point. the law does allow the management of a business to refuse service to anyone at anytime without reason. it would be bad policy to refuse people based on race, but it is within the rights on the management.
i would have voted for the civil rights act. ovcatto, i agree with you to a point. the law does allow the management of a business to refuse service to anyone at anytime without reason. it would be bad policy to refuse people based on race, but it is within the rights on the management.
There are certain rights that we as nation consider sacrosanct and they can be found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, among them you will be hard pressed to find one implied or explicit, that enumerates the right of a business, open to the public, that allows the discrimination of person due to race, creed, or national origin.
I wouldn't have as it was, the Act created massive bureaucracy and caused the largest expansion of government - possibly since the War for Southern Independence.
As much as I think that shopowners should never exclude a person based on race, I don't think that the government has any right to tell a business owner who they must serve. I think that refusing to serve colored people was a business mistake most of the time, but the government should be telling individuals who they must allow on the premises.
I would have voted to allow equal to government services and to end segregation in government offices, except schools, but would have set a timeline to integrate schools.
And before the attacks come my way, know this, I am well educated, young (23), and not from the South, I am from Buffalo, NY.
I won't shy from my opinion, and am not racist in any way, I just value the right to choose as a property owner would you will allow on your property over integration at the barrel of a gun.
Can I attack you because I'm from NY too?
I replied I would support it, but as for your above reasons...
nothing you've said is anything the CRA actually does. That's the RW thinktank/media consortium feeding tea party their talking points. Ask Rupert Murdoch what you should be talking about, and that's where your attention goes.
People do refuse the right to service for a myriad of reasons-- you didn't have a tie and jacket for the country club, no shoes on walking into a supermarket... a long list of exclusions for reasons unique to the biz. Behaviors are also another exclusion category. They simply may not discriminate based on race.
Vast expansion of government- you'll need to show me the evidence of that directly (not just hearsay from Rand Paul campaign).
The CRA was basically a case of if you were a conservative then you were against it but if you were a liberal you were for it. As always conservatives were on the wrong side of history.
The CRA was basically a case of if you were a conservative then you were against it but if you were a liberal you were for it. As always conservatives were on the wrong side of history.
Does music sound odd without a bass line? Do you realize that many conservative principles are embraced by progressives? Liberals tend to be on the flashy side of things for center stage but don't discount that background that made it possible.
I wouldn't have as it was, the Act created massive bureaucracy and caused the largest expansion of government - possibly since the War for Southern Independence.
As much as I think that shopowners should never exclude a person based on race, I don't think that the government has any right to tell a business owner who they must serve. I think that refusing to serve colored people was a business mistake most of the time, but the government should be telling individuals who they must allow on the premises.
I would have voted to allow equal to government services and to end segregation in government offices, except schools, but would have set a timeline to integrate schools.
And before the attacks come my way, know this, I am well educated, young (23), and not from the South, I am from Buffalo, NY.
I won't shy from my opinion, and am not racist in any way, I just value the right to choose as a property owner would you will allow on your property over integration at the barrel of a gun.
I disagree with you, and would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Separate but equal was the mantra prior to 1964, and it clearly was just an excuse to discriminate. For example, it was very common for minor league baseball players to have to stay in two separate hotels when traveling, one for the white players and the other for minorities. Same with restaurants.
It was wrong, and I would have voted to end it.
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.
Think about it!
