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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No (decidedly abnormal)

[/troll]

Of course. Not voting for this would (and should) be near-criminal. Our Constitution guarantees equality under the law and preaches the inherent equality of men, no argument on property or personal liberty can trump that. Of course nothing less can be expected of crypto-segregationist, neo-Confederate libertarians, but that doesn't make your objection any less morally repugnant. It's one thing to dismiss it as narrow ideologism, but except for the ignorant naive fringe (who, in their defense, I think are most of our libertarians), it's nothing more than a crude constitutional cover for racism, again, ignoramuses aside. I mean, do you seriously think some white business owner would have sued against Jim Crow on property rights grounds? Do you think it would have even been heard by a state appeal court? Do you think the "race traitor" would have even survived the attempt?

Of course not.  Not with Negroes being systematically excluded from the polls and by extension the juries.  Not with Negroes having been subjected to de jure economic discrimination against them until the 1960s.  As a temporary measure intended to redress the harm done previously by the law, the provisions of Title VII could be justified.  However, it wasn't enacted as a temporary measure was it?

I believe that if Titles II and VII were repealed today, there would be an insignificant amount of discrimination in public accommodations.  In employment, there would unfortunately be significant levels of discrimination in employment against African-Americans and to a lesser degree women.  However, it would not be the most significant economic impediment facing African-Americans.  That would be the decidedly inferior schools many urban areas and black belt rural areas have.  Fixing the problems in education and also those indirectly caused by how the war on drugs has been fought should be a higher priority right now, but the solutions for those are neither as obvious or easy as the solutions adopted to combat over racism.

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating repealing or amending Title II or VII, at least not right now.  It's too early to phase out Title VII, and phasing out Title II alone would be sending the wrong signal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How much of a difference did the bill have in terms of black employment?  Or for other minorities and for whites? It would be interesting to see some data on this if it exists.

The BLS might have the data on employment rates by race and occupation for the 1960's.  I'm fairly certain they have the data on overall employment, but a major shift was in having fields previously denied them in some areas open up.