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

[TNF]

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?

You're using a straw man. I'm not opposed to the entirety of the CRA; the only sections I am opposed to are the ones that interfere with private property. I would support it if Titles II and VII were eliminated.

Because property rights > human rights.

[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?

You're using a straw man. I'm not opposed to the entirety of the CRA; the only sections I am opposed to are the ones that interfere with private property. I would support it if Titles II and VII were eliminated.

Jim crow laws enshrined discrimination that was outlawed by titles II and VII. Without the CRA, it is likely those laws would have remained in place for a long time, probably till this day.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ah, Libertarians...

[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.

But would Jim Crow laws have changed without the CRA?

You're using a straw man. I'm not opposed to the entirety of the CRA; the only sections I am opposed to are the ones that interfere with private property. I would support it if Titles II and VII were eliminated.

Jim crow laws enshrined discrimination that was outlawed by titles II and VII. Without the CRA, it is likely those laws would have remained in place for a long time, probably till this day.

Jim Crow laws made such discrimination mandatory, thus also infringing on property rights. Jim Crow laws and the CRA only differ in that one encouraged racial preference against blacks and the other encouraged racial preference towards blacks. I'm not arguing that legislation similar to the CRA in its other aspects was unnecessary; I'm merely opposed to those portions of the CRA that use Jim Crow-esque means to accomplish racially egalitarian ends. If a version of the CRA were passed that instead of Title II and Title VII had laws preventing state governments from interfering with private business' employment decisions and overturning mandatory segregation in private businesses, I would favor that.

[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.

But would Jim Crow laws have changed without the CRA?

You're using a straw man. I'm not opposed to the entirety of the CRA; the only sections I am opposed to are the ones that interfere with private property. I would support it if Titles II and VII were eliminated.

Because property rights > human rights.

It's not an inequality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

Quite the reverse.  By and large pre-1964 laws regulating who could hire whom had generally been dystopian, such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany.   The power of the government to tell people they must not use ethnicity to make a decision is the same power that could be used to tell people they must use ethnicity to make a decision.  I would deny the government the power in either case as a general rule.

I'm willing to make an exception to the general rule in the case of public accommodations, because in the context of 1964 I see no good way to ensure freedom of movement without it, tho I'm doubtful that Title II is particularly needed today.

But when it comes to private employment, I'm not comfortable with government forcing employers to hire people they would rather not hire, even tho it would be in their own economic interest to do so.

[Cryptic]

Yes (D)

[tmthforu94]

Well, for many of the reasons stated by others, I would have opposed it. With the removal of a couple sections, though, I would be an enthusiastic supporter.

EDIT: While I think there are flaws with the act and I would vouch for their removal, either before the vote or after the bill became law, I still would have voted for this.

[Franzl]

Well, for many of the reasons stated by others, I would have opposed it. With the removal of a couple sections, though, I would be an enthusiastic supporter.

You're joking....right?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

[Romney/Pawlenty2012]

No (R)

I am Strongly Against the Civil Rights Acts

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You people are so bold! It's such a brave stance to take! I'm impressed at your iconoclasticism!

[SPC]

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.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

ITT: White people complaining about things that don't harm them.

[Sbane]

Yeah, I am very glad there are anti-discrimination laws on the books. The people who aren't affected by it don't really care though it seems.....ugh.

[TNF]

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.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

ITT: White people complaining about things that don't harm them.

[DemPGH]

Without second thoughts, yes. It gives a modest amount of protections to the peasants, in this case ones who have suffered discrimination, so of course I support it.

[bedstuy]

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.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

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.  

Obviously, there's the potential for abuse of the civil rights act.  I wish we didn't need it.  But, you have to consider how the structural private racism that existed in 1964 utterly corrupted our society and destroyed the personal liberty of black people.  For that reason, personal liberty exercised to deny jobs, services and basic human dignity to black folks was not a private matter. Private racism ruined the lives of generations of people.  You can't truly be a democratic country or a free country without addressing that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think you know: Yes (R).

[Antonio the Sixth]

You people are so bold! It's such a brave stance to take! I'm impressed at your iconoclasticism!

Basically.

[SPC]

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.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

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.

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.

[JerryArkansas]

Yes, but i would propose amendments to bill to change it

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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

[SPC]

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

I see you have no intention of engaging in constructive discourse and merely intend on attacking straw men. If such is the case, there is no point in rebutting any of your arguments, since there is no substance to them.

[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.