Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 11:57:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Torie, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print
Poll
Question: Well, would you have?
Yes (D)   -45 (42.9%)
No (D)   -3 (2.9%)
Yes (R)   -18 (17.1%)
No (R)   -7 (6.7%)
Yes (I/O)   -27 (25.7%)
No (I/O)   -5 (4.8%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 105

Author Topic: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  (Read 3773 times)
Senator TNF
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10558
United States


View Profile
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:11:25 am »
Ignore

Let's see where the chips fall on this one. I'm interested in seeing how many libertarians step up to defend human liberty by voting in favor. Tongue

Yes (D)
Logged




Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22249
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2012, 08:14:24 am »
Ignore

Umm...yes?
Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23083
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2012, 10:01:05 am »
Ignore

Yes (R) as the flaws in the bill aren't nearly just enough cause to vote against it.
Logged


i like girls but there is NOTHING better then a sexi hott dude
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28525
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2012, 01:21:56 pm »
Ignore

I'm the first No vote so far.  Title II (public accommodations) is somewhat problematic for me, yet the need to ensure that people have the freedom to travel wherever they wish means I could support it, tho I do wish the law had defined public accommodation a bit more narrowly to exclude entertainment venues as those are not necessary for there to be a freedom to travel.  Title VII (employment) is far more problematic. and thus I could not vote for this bill.

While it is generally stupid to discriminate on the basis of any of the reasons banned in Title VII, I firmly believe that it is not the role of government to outlaw private stupidity, as it has often been only a short distance from that to some egregious violations of human rights.  ("It's stupid to allow the <insert name of ethnic group> to <immigrate, hold certain professions, marry outside their group, etc.>)

Why the difference in my views on Titles II and VII?  Basically, it's because of the length and degree of the economic relationship involved.  Title VII is forcing private individuals to engage in long-term economic relationships with people they would rather not have to deal with.  Whereas, with public accommodations, there isn't a long-term relationship that needs to be entered into (altho there may well be long-term customers).

The rest of the Act I would be cheerfully able to support.
Logged

My ballot:
Haley(R) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9010
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2012, 03:05:24 pm »
Ignore

No, mostly for the reasons Ernest outlined. I do not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate purely private behavior and determine who a private individual can and cannot do business with, even if that decision is based on someone's race or religion (as offensive as it is). The Supreme Court's use of the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung is tortuous to say the least (as has been most Commerce Clause cases since Wickard v. Filburn), but it is the law of the land and this entire discussion is rather pointless because of that. That said, there was much in the Act that was necessary and should have been passed, and that I would happily support, but not those sections.

And now let's see the liberals call people racists.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 03:52:07 pm by IDS Co-Speaker SJoyceFla »Logged

DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7269
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2012, 03:19:36 pm »
Ignore

No, for the reasons True Federalist outlined.
Logged

Economic: 3.1
Social: 2.78

Quote from: Don Colacho
The Gospels and the Communist Manifesto are on the wane; the world’s future lies in the power of Coca-Cola and pornography.
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12697


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2012, 03:22:53 pm »
Ignore

Yes. Those who think that any real or perceived flaws in the Act as passed justify voting No have pretty skewed priorities.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
RogueBeaver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14732
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2012, 03:24:20 pm »
Ignore

Yes
Logged

7.35, 3.65

« Les plus nobles principes du monde ne valent que par l’action.  » - Charles de Gaulle



Is it excessive to hold a politician's feet to the fire for giving his base the run around at every turn?
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33810


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2012, 03:27:48 pm »
Ignore

Yes (not a racist).
Logged


At the very least, this turn of events seems to validate my prediction that Americans are ready and willing to fully embrace fascism.
I dreamed about Lief spanking Rand Paul.
CountryRoads
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2012, 03:31:24 pm »
Ignore

Yes. (R/I/O)
Logged

Economic score: +9.48
Social score: +6.00

Moore Capito for U.S. Senate!
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5429
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2012, 04:02:07 pm »
Ignore

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.
Logged
IDS Emperor Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13411
Germany


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -6.98

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2012, 04:05:43 pm »
Ignore

Yes (L), with some reservations that get easily overridden.
Logged

Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30648
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2012, 04:25:54 pm »
Ignore

Yes (Southern D)
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
CountryRoads
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2012, 04:27:54 pm »
Ignore

Just to add on, I agree with True Federalist's post, but I'd still vote yes as the bill as awhole is a great thing.
Logged

Economic score: +9.48
Social score: +6.00

Moore Capito for U.S. Senate!
blagohair.com
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2288
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2012, 05:59:43 pm »
Ignore

Yes, for the same reason I would have voted for the Affordable Care Act.  The Civil Rights Act was more of a statement on the issue of race and segregation.  It didn't solve the problem of systemic racism, but it did change perceptions on a lot of things.
I'm sorry but anyone who disagrees with this is either ignorant of what the issue of race meant in the 1960s or simply didn't care about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings suffering in Alabama or Mississippi.
Logged

Healthcare is a right, not a moneymaking business - Bernie Sanders

American Exceptionalism: The only industrialized nation in which health care is not a universal right, but gun ownership is.
Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8723
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2012, 06:06:10 pm »
Ignore

No (R).
Logged

R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23083
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2012, 06:11:29 pm »
Ignore

Just to add on, I agree with True Federalist's post, but I'd still vote yes as the bill as awhole is a great thing.
Logged


i like girls but there is NOTHING better then a sexi hott dude
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9010
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2012, 06:36:03 pm »
Ignore

I'm sorry but anyone who disagrees with this is either ignorant of what the issue of race meant in the 1960s or simply didn't care about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings suffering in Alabama or Mississippi.

Disagrees that it was a perception-changing statement? It certainly was. Or disagree with the Act (and its Constitutionality)? Because they are two very different things altogether.
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11736
Russian Federation


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2012, 06:50:10 pm »
Ignore

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.

I don't see anyone making utopian arguments here.  People not being pragmatic perhaps.  Those are too very different things, as utopians often have no trouble being extremely pragmatic in seeking their goals.

Most of the utopian rhetoric at the time was in favor of the CRA (not at all to say that one had to be utopian to support it).
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13650
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2012, 06:56:46 pm »
Ignore

What do you think? 
Logged

blagohair.com
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2288
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2012, 06:59:38 pm »
Ignore

I'm sorry but anyone who disagrees with this is either ignorant of what the issue of race meant in the 1960s or simply didn't care about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings suffering in Alabama or Mississippi.

Disagrees that it was a perception-changing statement? It certainly was. Or disagree with the Act (and its Constitutionality)? Because they are two very different things altogether.

That's my point.  The fact that it was a perception-changing statement makes all other disagreements void.
Logged

Healthcare is a right, not a moneymaking business - Bernie Sanders

American Exceptionalism: The only industrialized nation in which health care is not a universal right, but gun ownership is.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13521


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2012, 07:10:58 pm »
Ignore

No, mostly for the reasons Ernest outlined. I do not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate purely private behavior and determine who a private individual can and cannot do business with, even if that decision is based on someone's race or religion (as offensive as it is). The Supreme Court's use of the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung is tortuous to say the least (as has been most Commerce Clause cases since Wickard v. Filburn), but it is the law of the land and this entire discussion is rather pointless because of that. That said, there was much in the Act that was necessary and should have been passed, and that I would happily support, but not those sections.

And now let's see the liberals call people racists.

I won't call you a racist, but I most certainly will call you naive (yes, TrueFederalist, you are in the club too).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13521


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2012, 07:16:23 pm »
Ignore

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.

I don't see anyone making utopian arguments here.  People not being pragmatic perhaps.  Those are too very different things, as utopians often have no trouble being extremely pragmatic in seeking their goals.

Most of the utopian rhetoric at the time was in favor of the CRA (not at all to say that one had to be utopian to support it).

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9588
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2012, 10:06:24 pm »
Ignore

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.

Discrimination was only kept alive in the South because Jim Crow laws made it mandatory. No business that wanted to make a profit would purposefully prohibit a third of the population from being customers. Prohibiting discrimination by private businesses prevented racists from being punished at the marketplace since they were forced to accommodate blacks anyway. It also opened up the slippery slope of intrusion into property rights since it is impossible to tell if one is being discriminatory by making an employment decision absent a mind-reader. Hence, Title VII only encouraged racism by effectively forcing employers to take race into account when making hiring decisions, lest they be accused of discrimination.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13521


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2012, 10:36:59 pm »
Ignore

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.

Discrimination was only kept alive in the South because Jim Crow laws made it mandatory. No business that wanted to make a profit would purposefully prohibit a third of the population from being customers. Prohibiting discrimination by private businesses prevented racists from being punished at the marketplace since they were forced to accommodate blacks anyway. It also opened up the slippery slope of intrusion into property rights since it is impossible to tell if one is being discriminatory by making an employment decision absent a mind-reader. Hence, Title VII only encouraged racism by effectively forcing employers to take race into account when making hiring decisions, lest they be accused of discrimination.

But would Jim Crow laws have changed without the CRA?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines