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

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.