Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Putting the 'red' in 'redneck' since 1991]

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.

Yes (D)

[I left.]

Umm...yes?

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

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

[True Federalist]

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

No, for the reasons True Federalist outlined.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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

[RogueBeaver]

Yes

[Lіef]

Yes (not a racist).

[CountryRoads]

Yes. (R/I/O)

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

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

[Governor Maxwell]

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

[Senator Ben]

Yes (Southern D)

[CountryRoads]

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.

[blagohair.com]

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.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

No (R).

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.

[shua]

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).

[Frodo]

What do you think? 

[blagohair.com]

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.

[Senator Sbane]

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).

[Senator Sbane]

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.

[SPC]

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.

[Senator Sbane]

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?