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

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

America was founded on the right to refuse to serve black people at your diner.

This quote automatically makes you a massive HP.  It may not be "we reserve the right to refuse service to robots and space bikers", but it's WAY worse.  I know you're being sarcastic, but you're completely wrong on this one.  Even one of my PoliSci professors said that the "state's rights" argument was irrelevant and was essentially calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation.

I was being completely sarcastic, dude. I was poking fun of the libertarian arguments against the CRA.

[bedstuy]

The standard for employment discrimination under Title VII is not as harsh towards employers as you suggest.  Plaintiffs under Title VII do need to prove a discriminatory motive to win.  It is true that proving motive is difficult and the doctrine is somewhat problematic.  But, the burden is on the employee.  Ultimately, it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a Title VII employment case in Court.  

If that is the case, then what is the point of having it? To force employers to be more subtle about racial motivations in their hiring practices?

EDIT: Additionally, you seem to act as though court cases are inexpensive. Even if it really is rare for a plaintiff to win a Title VII case in court, the employer still has to waste money proving his innocence rather than using it to invest in his business or deliver profits. Thus, the employer is still encouraged to bend over backwards for minority applicants lest they be faced with an expensive lawsuit.

Why are you so sure that Title VII forced all businesses to bend over backwards for the benefit of their minority employees?  It's not like the likelihood of a title VII case is the only consideration for a business.  From a purely economic perspective, there are a ton of incentives towards hiring the most qualified person.  Those incentives still exist. Meanwhile, how many people file these lawsuits?  It is enough to completely override the business judgment in favor of the consideration of one type of lawsuit?

And yes, legal compliance can be costly.  It's costly for the environmental laws and accounting laws too.  Providing a legal remedy for victims of discrimination is a worthy goal and we should we willing to spend money on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The cause of black people's plight was not private racism, it was state-sanctioned racism. State facilities segregated blacks, the state forbade private businesses from integrating, state schools instilled racist ideology into young minds. Title VII takes the means used by Jim Crow and merely changes the ends to forced integration instead of forced segregation.

A chance of being sued by your employee for reinstatement or monetary damages is like Jim Crow?  I'll take the chance of litigation against my business over being murdered and hung from a tree by the Klan any day.  Which reminds me, the KKK wasn't a federal agency last time I checked and it factored into the plight of black people.  Do you have any idea what the Jim Crow South was like?

You really can't disentangle the government from the people or private from public racism; especially in a world where our current state of affairs is the product of hundreds of years of government enforced discrimination.  Racism itself is a moral wrong.  Acquiescence to private racism is accepting a moral wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes (I), and I suspect that many of those voting 'no' in this poll would have, too. I've yet to see an argument against the act's passage that isn't racist or blithely ahistorical.

So Barry Goldwater was a racist?

[Lief 🗽]

Yes (I), and I suspect that many of those voting 'no' in this poll would have, too. I've yet to see an argument against the act's passage that isn't racist or blithely ahistorical.

So Barry Goldwater was a racist?

Certainly his actions were.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes (not a racist).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes (I), and I suspect that many of those voting 'no' in this poll would have, too. I've yet to see an argument against the act's passage that isn't racist or blithely ahistorical.

So Barry Goldwater was a racist?

Certainly his actions were.

Goldwater was a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona and was instrumental in making his family's department stores one of the first businesses in that state to desegregate.  He was not a racist, but Democrats successfully portrayed him as one in the 1964 campaign for his vote, even tying him to the KKK in ads.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

America was founded on the right to refuse to serve black people at your diner.

This quote automatically makes you a massive HP.  It may not be "we reserve the right to refuse service to robots and space bikers", but it's WAY worse.  I know you're being sarcastic, but you're completely wrong on this one.  Even one of my PoliSci professors said that the "state's rights" argument was irrelevant and was essentially calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation.

I was being completely sarcastic, dude. I was poking fun of the libertarian arguments against the CRA.

I know.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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?

Stop bringing racism into this you hack. It's all about constitutional rights of states and rights of business.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes (I), and I suspect that many of those voting 'no' in this poll would have, too. I've yet to see an argument against the act's passage that isn't racist or blithely ahistorical.

So Barry Goldwater was a racist?

No. He was ignoring a solid century of institutionalized segregation.

Also, didn't Goldwater later claim that he regretted his vote? My understanding is that he viewed the bill as unconstitutional on the basis of dubious legal advice from Robert Bork (which cited a number of late nineteenth century supreme court rulings). I'm not student of law, but the era of the court that brought us Plessy v. Ferguson strikes me as a poor source of justification for opposing civil rights legislation.

Bork was a champion of civil rights who just thought 1964 CRA was too extreme.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah, I see this thread is full of rebels in their own lunchtime.

[nolesfan2011]

Absofrickinglutley I don't see how anyone wouldn't have voted for it

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)

[SPC]

The standard for employment discrimination under Title VII is not as harsh towards employers as you suggest.  Plaintiffs under Title VII do need to prove a discriminatory motive to win.  It is true that proving motive is difficult and the doctrine is somewhat problematic.  But, the burden is on the employee.  Ultimately, it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a Title VII employment case in Court.  

If that is the case, then what is the point of having it? To force employers to be more subtle about racial motivations in their hiring practices?

EDIT: Additionally, you seem to act as though court cases are inexpensive. Even if it really is rare for a plaintiff to win a Title VII case in court, the employer still has to waste money proving his innocence rather than using it to invest in his business or deliver profits. Thus, the employer is still encouraged to bend over backwards for minority applicants lest they be faced with an expensive lawsuit.

Why are you so sure that Title VII forced all businesses to bend over backwards for the benefit of their minority employees?  It's not like the likelihood of a title VII case is the only consideration for a business.  From a purely economic perspective, there are a ton of incentives towards hiring the most qualified person.  Those incentives still exist. Meanwhile, how many people file these lawsuits?  It is enough to completely override the business judgment in favor of the consideration of one type of lawsuit?

Notice how you set up a straw man argument. I did not say that Title VII forced all businesses to bend over backwards for minority applicants, I said that they are encouraged to do so, particularly at the margin. If a white applicant is worth $10 more to a business than a black applicant who is less qualified, but there is a 1% chance that the black applicant will file a Title VII lawsuit that will cost the business a minimum of $1000 in legal fees and possibly more if the lawsuit is successful, then the business will opt for the less qualified applicant if it wants to minimize losses.

One could argue that such a loss would be worth it if it means that blacks will avoid employment discrimination. However, a free market penalizes employment discrimination without encouraging marginal employment discrimination in favor of minorities. If government laws regarding discrimination are not taken into account, if a black applicant is worth $10 more to a business than a less qualified white applicant, then the employer must undergo an opportunity cost of $10 for letting racism factor into his hiring decision. Switch the races of the two applicants and the assessment remains true, something that cannot be said about Title VII. At no point would the market encourage racial discrimination to be a factor in hiring decisions, which makes Title VII both unnecessary and counterproductive toward reducing racial discrimination in hiring decisions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To suggest that one is a "victim" of discrimination is to imply that one has a right to a job. If I do not have a right to work at Starbucks, then how can I claim any damages from not being allowed to work at Starbucks?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The cause of black people's plight was not private racism, it was state-sanctioned racism. State facilities segregated blacks, the state forbade private businesses from integrating, state schools instilled racist ideology into young minds. Title VII takes the means used by Jim Crow and merely changes the ends to forced integration instead of forced segregation.
[/quote]
[/quote]
 
A chance of being sued by your employee for reinstatement or monetary damages is like Jim Crow?  I'll take the chance of litigation against my business over being murdered and hung from a tree by the Klan any day.  Which reminds me, the KKK wasn't a federal agency last time I checked and it factored into the plight of black people.  Do you have any idea what the Jim Crow South was like?[/quote]

Again, you set up a straw man argument by accusing me of faulty analogy. I do not deny that Jim Crow was far worse in magnitude than the CRA is. However, that is essentially the difference; both encourage racial discrimination, Jim Crow simply did it far more egregiously. As far as the KKK, you seem to be ignorant of the degree to which the KKK infiltrated local law enforcement during Jim Crow and the the degree to which the state tolerated the KKK's presence. Do you really think lynching would have been so prevalent had the state cracked down on them with the same ferocity that they enforced murder laws for everyone else?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really sure how to respond since I neither advocated private racism not encouraged acquiescence to it. An absence of government coercion is both necessary and sufficient to enable those who let private racism guide them in their decisions be monetarily sanctioned for their actions. Coercion can only aggravate this by placing incentives for discrimination one way or the other.

[bedstuy]

One could argue that such a loss would be worth it if it means that blacks will avoid employment discrimination. However, a free market penalizes employment discrimination without encouraging marginal employment discrimination in favor of minorities. If government laws regarding discrimination are not taken into account, if a black applicant is worth $10 more to a business than a less qualified white applicant, then the employer must undergo an opportunity cost of $10 for letting racism factor into his hiring decision. Switch the races of the two applicants and the assessment remains true, something that cannot be said about Title VII. At no point would the market encourage racial discrimination to be a factor in hiring decisions, which makes Title VII both unnecessary and counterproductive toward reducing racial discrimination in hiring decisions.

If people were purely rational economic actors, there would never have been racism in the first place.  The real question is what is the baseline of racial discrimination forms the backdrop of our analysis. You're comparing the 64 Civil rights act to a free, rational employment market, not the world as it existed in 1964.  In 1964 America was profoundly racist towards blacks.   

To suggest that one is a "victim" of discrimination is to imply that one has a right to a job. If I do not have a right to work at Starbucks, then how can I claim any damages from not being allowed to work at Starbucks?

Discrimination is unfair treatment on account of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You only have a right to a particular job if you would have had that job absent discrimination. 

I'm not really sure how to respond since I neither advocated private racism not encouraged acquiescence to it. An absence of government coercion is both necessary and sufficient to enable those who let private racism guide them in their decisions be monetarily sanctioned for their actions. Coercion can only aggravate this by placing incentives for discrimination one way or the other.

Again, you're imagining a fairy tale world where the entire society hadn't been shaped by racist attitudes for hundreds of years.  If there was no accreted racism in our society in 1964, you're completely correct. But, the people in our country were racist.  In a country full of racists, your counter-factual of a racially neutral fair government is not possible.  We had to change our society and take difficult steps personally, not just end the most egregious Jim Crow laws.

[DC Al Fine]

To pick at Bedstuy's point, obviously not everyone is a perfectly rational economic actor. But let's look at it from the other side. Southern racists were obviously willing to take black money. They may not let them sit at the lunch counter, but if their racism was that dominant, they wouldn't be letting blacks in at all. All it takes is a few places serving blacks and all of a sudden you lose money by sticking to your racist principles.

This has been shown on numerous occasions, most notably with Jackie Robinson in Major League Baseball. I also believe blacks were hired in some industries in apartheid South Africa solely because the executives wanted to save on pay. Once there is a critical mass of people willing to put aside their racism for cash, the problems tend to die off.

Unless the government is enforcing them of course.

[bedstuy]

To pick at Bedstuy's point, obviously not everyone is a perfectly rational economic actor. But let's look at it from the other side. Southern racists were obviously willing to take black money. They may not let them sit at the lunch counter, but if their racism was that dominant, they wouldn't be letting blacks in at all. All it takes is a few places serving blacks and all of a sudden you lose money by sticking to your racist principles.

This has been shown on numerous occasions, most notably with Jackie Robinson in Major League Baseball. I also believe blacks were hired in some industries in apartheid South Africa solely because the executives wanted to save on pay. Once there is a critical mass of people willing to put aside their racism for cash, the problems tend to die off.

Unless the government is enforcing them of course.

That actually strengthens my point.  From the perspective some certain people, the subjugation of one race can be beneficial even it's not optimal from the aggregate perspective.  White workers feared black competition in skilled labor/trades and excluded blacks from unions and job opportunities.  The Southern agricultural sector exploited blacks first under slavery and then under quasi-slavery after reconstruction.

More broadly, being somewhat tolerated in spite of your race because people can make money off of you is completely insufficient.  All races of people deserve to be treated the same.  That situation you describe is just selectively decent treatment at the convenience of the majority.

[SPC]

One could argue that such a loss would be worth it if it means that blacks will avoid employment discrimination. However, a free market penalizes employment discrimination without encouraging marginal employment discrimination in favor of minorities. If government laws regarding discrimination are not taken into account, if a black applicant is worth $10 more to a business than a less qualified white applicant, then the employer must undergo an opportunity cost of $10 for letting racism factor into his hiring decision. Switch the races of the two applicants and the assessment remains true, something that cannot be said about Title VII. At no point would the market encourage racial discrimination to be a factor in hiring decisions, which makes Title VII both unnecessary and counterproductive toward reducing racial discrimination in hiring decisions.

If people were purely rational economic actors, there would never have been racism in the first place.  The real question is what is the baseline of racial discrimination forms the backdrop of our analysis. You're comparing the 64 Civil rights act to a free, rational employment market, not the world as it existed in 1964.  In 1964 America was profoundly racist towards blacks.

A free employment market only did not exist due to laws preventing its existence. Repealing laws mandating racial segregation in the workplace would have been sufficient to eliminate racial discrimination, and those employers who continued to view their prospective employees in racist terms would be penalized.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discrimination is unfair treatment on account of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You only have a right to a particular job if you would have had that job absent discrimination.[/quote]

So, assuming that I am a competent waiter, I have a right to work at Hooters?

The problem with this worldview is that employment is not a tangible entity, it is a contractual agreement between employer and employee. You state that I only have a right to a contractual agreement between myself and my employer if I would have had that contractual agreement absent discrimination. However, since this contractual agreement is voluntary, this means I only have such a right if my employer would have agreed to the contract absent discrimination, something that only my employer can attest to. Thus, if I have a right to a job, such a right is unenforceable since such a right only exists if my employer acknowledges it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you're imagining a fairy tale world where the entire society hadn't been shaped by racist attitudes for hundreds of years.  If there was no accreted racism in our society in 1964, you're completely correct. But, the people in our country were racist.  In a country full of racists, your counter-factual of a racially neutral fair government is not possible.  We had to change our society and take difficult steps personally, not just end the most egregious Jim Crow laws.
[/quote]

If a racially neutral fair government was not possible in American society in 1964, then how on earth did the CRA pass?

[The Mikado]

I never really got how people elevate "constitutional" to the level of a moral imperative.  In what system of ethics does a very murky question of law affect whether or not something was right or wrong?  I get so weary of seeing people flog the Constitution in political debates as some kind of moral stance, when they're using it to conceal their support for truly vile institutions like segregation.

Alternately, "Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords."  -Pompey the Great

[bedstuy]

Discrimination is unfair treatment on account of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You only have a right to a particular job if you would have had that job absent discrimination.

So, assuming that I am a competent waiter, I have a right to work at Hooters?

The problem with this worldview is that employment is not a tangible entity, it is a contractual agreement between employer and employee. You state that I only have a right to a contractual agreement between myself and my employer if I would have had that contractual agreement absent discrimination. However, since this contractual agreement is voluntary, this means I only have such a right if my employer would have agreed to the contract absent discrimination, something that only my employer can attest to. Thus, if I have a right to a job, such a right is unenforceable since such a right only exists if my employer acknowledges it exists.

Employment law wasn't brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses.  We're allowed to change the law if we think it makes sense.  The standard for what constitutes illegal employment discrimination was decided by Congress and the Courts.  Essentially, we add into every contract that employers with a certain number of employees need to follow Title VII and the relevant law.  That's the cost of doing business and it probably gets incorporated into prices.  What's so bad about that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you're imagining a fairy tale world where the entire society hadn't been shaped by racist attitudes for hundreds of years.  If there was no accreted racism in our society in 1964, you're completely correct. But, the people in our country were racist.  In a country full of racists, your counter-factual of a racially neutral fair government is not possible.  We had to change our society and take difficult steps personally, not just end the most egregious Jim Crow laws.
[/quote]

If a racially neutral fair government was not possible in American society in 1964, then how on earth did the CRA pass?
[/quote]

The Civil Right Act was extremely difficult to pass and met with massive resistance from the South. It was a step in the right direction by part of the country, sure.  But, the same year Mississippi basically allowed a terrorist campaign against black people who wanted to exercise their civil rights.  We had a long way to go to become a non-racist society back then and we're still not there today.  What makes you think racism was a minor social issue in America?

[SPC]

Discrimination is unfair treatment on account of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You only have a right to a particular job if you would have had that job absent discrimination.

So, assuming that I am a competent waiter, I have a right to work at Hooters?

The problem with this worldview is that employment is not a tangible entity, it is a contractual agreement between employer and employee. You state that I only have a right to a contractual agreement between myself and my employer if I would have had that contractual agreement absent discrimination. However, since this contractual agreement is voluntary, this means I only have such a right if my employer would have agreed to the contract absent discrimination, something that only my employer can attest to. Thus, if I have a right to a job, such a right is unenforceable since such a right only exists if my employer acknowledges it exists.

Employment law wasn't brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses.  We're allowed to change the law if we think it makes sense.  The standard for what constitutes illegal employment discrimination was decided by Congress and the Courts.  Essentially, we add into every contract that employers with a certain number of employees need to follow Title VII and the relevant law.  That's the cost of doing business and it probably gets incorporated into prices.  What's so bad about that?

I posited how is it feasibly possible to determine whether an employer has racially discriminated in his hiring practices and how is it feasibly possible for one to have a "right" to a job. You replied with a legal justification for barring racially discriminatory hiring pratices.  It's the equivalent of replying to a question of how can a man get an abortion by pointing to Roe vs. Wade.

I'm not really sure how to respond since I neither advocated private racism not encouraged acquiescence to it. An absence of government coercion is both necessary and sufficient to enable those who let private racism guide them in their decisions be monetarily sanctioned for their actions. Coercion can only aggravate this by placing incentives for discrimination one way or the other.

Again, you're imagining a fairy tale world where the entire society hadn't been shaped by racist attitudes for hundreds of years.  If there was no accreted racism in our society in 1964, you're completely correct. But, the people in our country were racist.  In a country full of racists, your counter-factual of a racially neutral fair government is not possible.  We had to change our society and take difficult steps personally, not just end the most egregious Jim Crow laws.

If a racially neutral fair government was not possible in American society in 1964, then how on earth did the CRA pass?

The Civil Right Act was extremely difficult to pass and met with massive resistance from the South. It was a step in the right direction by part of the country, sure.  But, the same year Mississippi basically allowed a terrorist campaign against black people who wanted to exercise their civil rights.  We had a long way to go to become a non-racist society back then and we're still not there today.  What makes you think racism was a minor social issue in America?

Could you point out where I said racism was a minor social issue in America? You said that without changing our society, it is pointless to ponder about a racially-neutral government. However, you made this argument in the context of advocating the use of government as a engine for societal change. This seems to contradict your previous assertion that societal attitudes determine the nature of government rather than the reverse.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Bork was a champion of civil rights who just thought 1964 CRA was too extreme.

Bork on the CRA:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bork on the First Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bork opposed it, then it was for legal reasons.  Otherwise, he was a pretty strong civil rights supporter.  So he was kind of like Goldwater.

[bedstuy]

I posited how is it feasibly possible to determine whether an employer has racially discriminated in his hiring practices and how is it feasibly possible for one to have a "right" to a job. You replied with a legal justification for barring racially discriminatory hiring pratices.  It's the equivalent of replying to a question of how can a man get an abortion by pointing to Roe vs. Wade.

I don't understand your reasoning on either point.  Courts make factual findings on motive all the time.  It happens in thousands of court cases every year.  This is just one type of motive. As to Title VII, it does not imply any general right to a job and doesn't require one.

Could you point out where I said racism was a minor social issue in America? You said that without changing our society, it is pointless to ponder about a racially-neutral government. However, you made this argument in the context of advocating the use of government as a engine for societal change. This seems to contradict your previous assertion that societal attitudes determine the nature of government rather than the reverse.

Government can enforce and abide by the 14th Amendment.  That's really helpful in ending discrimination.  We would agree on that. But, the 14th Amendment only applies to state action and requires an extremely high level of proof of intention to discriminate.

So, the existing laws of 1964 would leave all private action untouched and would bar only overt, obvious discrimination by the government.  That might be enough in world that had some degree of racial equality and a racial comity.  But, in a world where the norms of our society were racist towards blacks and consistently favored whites, I don't see how government neutrality is enough.  You asserted that economic incentives would naturally lead to the disappearance of racism. 

Maybe that's true in the extremely long run.  But, in the short run, you have to justify that fact that you value the economic rights of businesses and the cost of litigation over providing a remedy to the black people suffering from private racial discrimination.  Perhaps you think it's pure conjecture that white men have enjoyed enormous advantages over everyone else.  But, given the history of the country I think that's an ahistorical and naive view. 

[SPC]

I posited how is it feasibly possible to determine whether an employer has racially discriminated in his hiring practices and how is it feasibly possible for one to have a "right" to a job. You replied with a legal justification for barring racially discriminatory hiring pratices.  It's the equivalent of replying to a question of how can a man get an abortion by pointing to Roe vs. Wade.

I don't understand your reasoning on either point.  Courts make factual findings on motive all the time.  It happens in thousands of court cases every year.  This is just one type of motive.

So you think that a court knows more about the details about running a business than the employer does? Whether one applicant is more qualified for a particular position than another is not an objective fact; it is a subjective decision made by the employer. Given this, only the employer can truly know whether he has racially discriminated in his hiring practices. The only conceivable way the Court can circumvent this problem is by using quotas as a determinant of racial discrimination, but then we are left with state-imposed equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then how can you claim the right to be free of employment discrimination as a civil right if such a right doesn't exist?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Government can enforce and abide by the 14th Amendment.  That's really helpful in ending discrimination.  We would agree on that. But, the 14th Amendment only applies to state action and requires an extremely high level of proof of intention to discriminate.[/quote]

Oh no, an extremely high level of proof? Next you'll be telling me that people are innocent until proven guilty under this system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have and they did. If economic incentives were not there to encourage racial equality, the CRA's provisions would have been fruitless. Do you really think that businesses would not have found a way around integrating if it would have been profitable? They might have hired fewer employees to avoid exceeding the number to which Title VII provisions applied, to name one example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that remedy involves forced association between two nonconsenting individuals, then yes. In the absence of discriminatory laws, blacks would have already had a remedy for private racial discrimination: it's called the marketplace. I don't see why blacks would not have reacted as strongly to a discriminatory private business as they did to Montgomery public transit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never denied that the justice system was favored toward white men during the first centuries of America. However, you don't fix that by suddenly making it biased in the other direction (albeit not as flagrantly.) That problem is alleviated by eliminating state discrimination.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

The idea that the only impact of a bill with this sort of bureaucratic and economic significance is that it has improved opportunities for minorities strikes me as naive. 
If someone says that the free market would take care of discrimination, that’s unrealistic and ideological.  Prejudices are often powerful enough to overcome the profit motive.  And if segregation is held at a high premium, it can create demand.

Given what blacks were going though at the time, the significance this bill held for them, I imagine I’d support it in spite of some significant difficulties.  Different circumstances call for different priorities.  Likewise, one should be able to go back in and make reforms to a bill like this
- but then too often any hint of criticism toward any aspect of such a landmark legislation is considered reactionary, unpatriotic, bigoted, or worse. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes (R), which means my time as a 1960's Tennessee Congressman might have been rather short

I am greatly disappointed that we have so many people on this forum who voted "no".  I don't think a "no" vote means someone is a racist.  Yet, a "no" vote on this issue in 1964 was certainly a vote to enable racists to infringe on freedom.

Racial discrimination is by far the greatest threat to individual liberty that has ever been faced by any group of individuals in our country's history.

The federal government was the only agent with the political and logistic capability to attempt to restore that natural liberty.  The freedom for many individuals to be able to gain equal access to prosperity and happiness far outweighs the infringement on the right of a restaurant owner or businessman to discriminate against a man based on his skin pigmentation.

[CatoMinor]

It's fun seeing pasty white teenagers saying how evil it is to require businesses to not turn away black customers/prospective employees due to race.

Says the white teenager still in highschool..... (Yes, hispanics are white, especially Cuban hispanics.)

------------------------------------

While I do think the sections in question are flawed I would vote yes.