Amazon.com Widgets
  • According to a proper interpretation of the constitution...Yes

    The Supreme Court already ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the law applies to the private sector; however, I don't think the court made a proper interpretation of the constitution. I agree that 9 out of the 11 provisions within the law are indeed constitutional. I only believe the following two provisions are unconstitutional:

    -Title II outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

    -Title VII prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

    According to the First Amendment, we all have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. People don't question the legality of saying that we have the right to issue racist comments in public or on our own private property because it is protected by the First Amendment. Why do then people claim that a private employer cannot chose whom he wants to hire or not? It is his constitutional right (in my view, not the court's) to choose whom he wishes to assemble or not assemble with.

  • States' Rights for all

    I strongly believe that most of the civil rights legislation passed in this country is unconstitutional. First of all, these issues are a state issue and should not be dealt with on a federal level. Secondly, Why should the government be telling a businessman who he hires and fires and who he lets in his business? How is that any of their business?

    The civil rights act gave the government a way to much control over the hiring and firing process and if i was president in 1964, i would not have signed it.

  • It is unconstitutional!

    1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech."

    14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

    The Civil Rights Act abridges the freedom of speech, which therefore makes it unconstitutional.

  • Freedom of association

    While I agree that the government may mandate policies and guidelines for their behavior and actions and those of their employees. They may NOT mandate those same policies onto the public. We are free to deny the establishment of any relationship. We have the choice on who we wish to enter into a relationship with or not to. Its called liberty. While I agree the discrimination as a whole is wrong it is constitutional.

  • Free Association is the bedrock American principle

    Yes it is, and even if it wasn't, I would advocate amending the constitution so that it was: No one has the right to access things that aren't theirs.

    Without free association, society cannot organize itself in any satisfying fashion, and the culture that follows is never a full expression of the people, but a artificial construct for the benefit of those in power. Early America was a collection of States that each had a culture and people, and the Federal Government was never envisioned to have the ability to shape the association preferences of civil society.

    Discrimination empowers the citizen to act on their normal and natural preference for their own group and values, which leads to optimal high-trust society and shields the people from tyrannical cultural occupation by outsiders. It allows peoples' honest differences to matter in real life. These differences create cultural context by contrast. Otherwise, like today, we live in a gray, lowest common denominator, culturally decaying salad.

    As currently understood, "Civil rights" gives racial groups impetus for eternal racial grievance, when their accomplishments as a people may never achieve parity with other groups in multiracial, integrated society, or when their group is forced to subsidize other groups with whom they don't identify.

    If we believe that the reestablishment of free association would naturally end with people separating themselves into their basic racial groups, then it would follow that each community would have no one to blame for their relative successes or failures but themselves. Also, it would form a concentration of similar peoples, which would encourage honest folk culture among localities, instead of encouraging the homogenous mass market, shopping mall culture we suffer today.

    Ironically the reigning false mythology of America today is a fundamental violation of its original vision. Removing the ability for people to exclude those they deem undesirable or unfit for whatever reason they wish, is to disallow the entire act of liberty and thus the concept of America as a whole.

    Forced association is a crime against the dignity of people and should be ended as soon as possible.

  • It is unconstitutional and is itself discriminatory.

    Others have covered very well why the Civil Rights Act is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. I would also add that the Act itself is profoundly discriminatory as it treats differently parties to private contracts: the Act only applies to the seller of the goods/services or the employer, not to the buyer/consumer/employee. If as a buyer or consumer of goods/services you don't want to patronize a business because of gender/race/national origin, it's ok to do so. It is illegal only if the business refuses service because of said reasons. This is in itself discriminatory and contravenes both Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution prohibiting laws impairing the obligation of contracts and the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • Good Intentions Don't Justify Immoral Means

    The Civil Rights Act violates the 14th Amendment. You are violating property rights without due process. It really is as simple as that.

    The arguments used to bolster the Civil Rights Act are based on whims and a desire for a perceived social outcome without respect to the rule of law.

  • Good Intentions Don't Justify Immoral Means

    The Civil Rights Act violates the 14th Amendment. You are violating property rights without due process. It really is as simple as that.

    The arguments used to bolster the Civil Rights Act are based on whims and a desire for a perceived social outcome without respect to the rule of law.

  • Not if it's based on the Commerce Clause.

    The Supreme Court decided that Title II of the Civil Rights Act was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause had been systematically abused by the court ever since Wickard v. Filman, when they said that the federal government could prohibit a man from growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own chicken. Because it affected interstate commerce. If that sounds ridiculous to you, it's because it is. What happened is that the court was striking down all of FDR'd programs so he threatened to increase the court size to 15 and appoint six brand new judges (beholden to him of course) unless SCOTUS played ball. Well, they did and the rest is history.

    Now, once something is decided, future courts don't look to the constitution but to precedent. The problem is that the court had an unfortunate history of making decisions based on what they want and then making stuff up and saying it's in the Constitution when it clearly isn't. So you have one horrible ruling and it produces a whole slew of horrible rulings based on that one. Once the courts decided the Commerce Clause didn't mean what it said, but gave the federal government permission to do anything they wanted because interstate commerce.

    So that brings us to Title II of the Civil Rights act, in which privately held businesses were magically deemed to be "public." Moreover, even though they conduct all of their business within a state, they're somehow engaged in interstate commerce. Perfectly reasonable if you go by Wickard v. Filman, but that ruling was ludicrous.

    Now, is it constitutional based on the 14th amendment? Prior courts said no, which is why they had to misuse the interstate commerce clause to get the desired result.

  • Anti discriminatory labor laws transgress the 14th amendment.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    anti-discriminatory laws in private business abridge the employer's rights in the 14's amendment. The government is taking away liberties to operate his business how he/ she choses. Also, these laws infringe upon the right to his/her property, capital investment (their own money). The government would be forcing him to hire individual which he might regularly not choose because of any form of prejudice. They rather invest their money in the employment of those whom they support and are their top choice for whatever reason.

    By hiring based on prejudice, an employer may create a bad reputation for his/ her company. For example, If a man has a sign outside his shop saying, "Now Hiring White Women only", they would have a bad public reputation because people disapprove of the employer's racism/ sexism. His shop could fail because less people might patronize his store because he's perceived as "immoral" and a "bad person." His discriminatory employment would prove to be harmful to business, but it is his right to make poor business decisions.

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc; these only become illegal when transgressing another citizen's rights.
    In this instance, a denied employee's rights are still intact.

    Finally, discrimination could be good for business. It allows employers to hire base on their target market. For example, if you own Hooter's, you would deny employment of old hairy men; employing young attractive women only. You would be discriminating based on age, appearance and gender, but hiring the attractive women would fit your target market better and ultimately promote business. Nobody wants and old hairy guy in a tight shorts to serve them wings at hooter while watching a football game. People want the stunning young lady.

  • Public entities do not have the right to discriminate.

    If an entity is public, it has no right to discriminate. That is just wrong. The government can and does have the right to act to protect life and civil liberties. I am quite disgusted that anyone would say otherwise. Dear God, this world is cray cray. Random word filler. Word.

  • Its not illegal to intervene in the private sector

    Anyone who thinks that its unconstitutional needs to understand that the government is fully within their constitutional power to control the private sector in anyway they see fit. They have the power to tax, they have the power to intervene, and they have the power to impose regulations in any way they see fit. Its not unconstitutional for blacks to have basic rights, its actually unconstitutional for them to not have basic rights, thats the simple truth.

  • The government has broad power to intervene in the private sector.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights ACt of 1964 in the case "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States" under the auspices that the federal government does have the constitutional right to regulate commerce between states. There have also been citations of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases, and the Court has ruled that preventing discrimination is the only way to provide equality for all, and give all people an equal right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They followed this up with decisions on discrimination by gender, race, and other factors repeatedly afterwards, in such cases as "Pittsburgh PRess Co. V. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations", "Griggs v. Duke Power Co", "Washington v. Davis", "Wards Cove Packing Co. V, Davis", and Ricci v. DeStafano".

    So essentially this question is undermining the Supreme Court, whose entire purpose is to determine Constitutionality of laws and legislation. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held up the Civil Rights Act as Constitutional, this question is rather silly.

  • 14th amendment makes it legal

    The 14th amendment empowered the federal government to protect civil rights of citizens. It empowers congress to pass any legislation necessary to that end. It enables congress to create that fascist distopia some fear. Hopefully it never comes to that, but yes, congress has the power to legislate the behavior of private citizens when in the interest of civil rights.

  • I don't think so

    The constitution states that we formed a more Percocet union . The only thing that would make sense is that it is not in constitutional. See ya all later suckers j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

  • It is necessary

    The Civil Rights Act was put into place as an attempt to rectify an ongoing situation where people in this country were being treated like some kind of second rate citizens. The rest of the people in this country didn't have the common decency to make it right without the law getting involved. So no, it's not unconstitutional. It's absolutely necessary.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.