|
Recent events have brought about a debate as to whether such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are Constitutional. There is a growing and vocal minority of libertarians in the United States that contend that they are not. I contend that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution make such laws Constitutional. Let's discuss this, in a rational and adult manner, and see if we can come to some agreement.
|
|
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
|
|
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I have always thought the success of our constitution is due to the fact it is a living document. It can change. Change is inevitable. If you can not change, you will be left behind, or worse.
So I am not sure the Constitution should be the end all, be all. Yes, it is an extremely important foundation and should not be discarded thoughtlessly. At the same time, I do not think it is sacrilege to question whether it, or parts, have become outdated or even wrong.
Obviously, there will be others who do not want change and I believe I understand where they are coming from. Still, the only thing that remains constant is change.
Oops. I guess I did not really answer the question.
|
While I think it is given that the government should not discriminate, you can get into fairly shaky territory real quick when the government starts forcing association upon people. The right to free association must include the right not to socialize or its not free.
Consider the following arguments:
The boy scouts, by not allowing girls into their membership, are not enslaving said girls, though they are discriminating. Would it be constitutional for Congress to pass a law demanding the boy scouts admit girls? If so, under what amendment?
By marrying my wife, I am discriminating against a host of other women by refusing to marry them. Would it be constitutional for congress to pass a law demanding I marry this person or that person?
By aiding the poor, many charities discriminate against the rich by not giving them money or food. Would it be consitutional for congress to pass a law demanding charities to give to everyone regardless of monetary ability?
While the last two are mostly tongue in cheek, if congress has the ability to force private association upon people, where does their power end?
|
|
So I am not sure the Constitution should be the end all, be all. Yes, it is an extremely important foundation and should not be discarded thoughtlessly. At the same time, I do not think it is sacrilege to question whether it, or parts, have become outdated or even wrong.
I don't think anyone would argue with you. The question really is, should one ignore the constitution when its inconvenient? Secondly, should you be able to change the constitution apart from an amendment?
|
|
I have always thought the success of our constitution is due to the fact it is a living document. It can change. Change is inevitable. If you can not change, you will be left behind, or worse.
So I am not sure the Constitution should be the end all, be all. Yes, it is an extremely important foundation and should not be discarded thoughtlessly. At the same time, I do not think it is sacrilege to question whether it, or parts, have become outdated or even wrong.
That was why the Founders added the Amendment process, so that the Constitution could change with the times. I also happen to be a literalist when it comes to how I read it. For example, I have a brother who is a Libertarian and I have had many arguments with him over the Constitution. He contends that every military conflict since World War II has been unconstitutional because Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war. In my reading of the Constitution, on the other hand, there is only the phrase "Congress shall have the power to declare war..." not a formal outline of how it is to be done. Therefore in my eyes Congress approving a use of force agreement still falls under the Constitutional requirement. In the case of Civil Rights, I believe that the key is the phrase "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," found in each of the three amendments.
|
|
While I think it is given that the government should not discriminate, you can get into fairly shaky territory real quick when the government starts forcing association upon people. The right to free association must include the right not to socialize or its not free.
Consider the following arguments:
The boy scouts, by not allowing girls into their membership, are not enslaving said girls, though they are discriminating. Would it be constitutional for Congress to pass a law demanding the boy scouts admit girls? If so, under what amendment?By marrying my wife, I am discriminating against a host of other women by refusing to marry them. Would it be constitutional for congress to pass a law demanding I marry this person or that person?
By aiding the poor, many charities discriminate against the rich by not giving them money or food. Would it be consitutional for congress to pass a law demanding charities to give to everyone regardless of monetary ability?
While the last two are mostly tongue in cheek, if congress has the ability to force private association upon people, where does their power end?
I here what you are saying and you have a limited argument. I agree that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be free to open their doors only to those whom they wish to admit. However, the key there is private. What the Civil Rights Act was intended for, even if not always enforced that way, is so that your FLGS which purports to provide a service and/or product to the general public cannot say that they will not sell to Jews but they will sell to everyone else. So long as you are operating in the private sphere, I agree that you should not have to associate with people you do not wish to. However, when you are in the public sphere I feel that you should treat even equally, regardless of your private feelings about them.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Walter Williams had an interesting take on this, yesterday.
He pointed out that the segregation as shown in the south was the result of state governments enforcing segregation laws, so that if I wanted to have a bar where blacks and whites could sit together I wasn't allowed to. So the freedom of the blacks wasn't the only freedom curtailed.
We do allow some private organizations to discriminate. The boy scouts and their 'morally straight' cause, as well as organizations like 'Curves' not being open to men. Also the NAACP doesn't, as a rule, give scholarships to Caucasians, or Asians. Try to form an NAAWP, using the NAACP's exact rules, and see how long it lasts. To say the government doesn't allow 'discrimination' is inaccurate. To say that it's done haphazzardly is more accurate.
In today's America, I do think private organizations should be allowed to discriminate. I mentioned elsewhere, I chose to live in an apartment complex where alcohol was banned. This discriminated against someone who wanted a beer in the house. Public pressure can be brought to bear w/o a government involvement. If I have a restaurant, and I want it to be, say, lefties only, I should be allowed to. Market forces would prove if there's a market for my business profile. While I won't have as many customers, (excluding right handed people) I may also lose lefties that find it abhorent. OTOH, I might have a steady business of lefties who find the restaurant more accomidating. The market will tell out.
Edit: David, the problem I have with your example is, if your FLGS has a 'no Jews' rule, you can get the books, dice, etc, somewhere else, either another FLGS or the web. If I've two stores in my area, then the one that doesn't discriminate gets all the business that the other store won't take (the Jews in your example) and the business of others offended by the first store's policy. If the first store fails because of their discrimination, then the market 'corrected' the discrimination.
|
|
@ David, by your reasoning there are ultimately no such things as a private organization and thus there is no freedom of association. If congress has the power to force a privately held business to associate in a certain way, there is nothing to stop them from having the power to force any citizen from associating in a certain way save their own conscience. Its one of those areas, I think, where people tend to think a law is good so long as congress agrees with them regarding how people should behave. But you have to assume that there will come a day when people who don't agree with you will be in power and they will have the same power as the other guys.
@ Matthew: I gotta admit I love listening to Walter E. Williams. I wish I could have taken classes under him but whenever I know he's going to be on Rush's show I make sure I'm there to tune in.
|
|
Taking the argument from the other angle: does the government have the right to enforce discrimination?
Smoking bans in private businesses are a good example of this. Arguably the government (states in this case) forces discrimination against smokers in privately owned businesses based on a percieved health risk. If they have the right to force this sort of behavior, what else can they force you to do? And why would it not be better to allow the market to correct behavior on its own.
Personally, if I have to choose between spending money in a smoke free environment or a smoke filled one, I'll go where there is no smoke. But why should people that enjoy smoking have the decision forced upon them?
It is useful to remember that whatever the government can give to you, they can also take from you. By giving the government the right to tell you who you have to associate with, you are also, ultimately, giving them the right to tell you who you can't associate with.
Walter Williams had an interesting take on this, yesterday.
He pointed out that the segregation as shown in the south was the result of state governments enforcing segregation laws, so that if I wanted to have a bar where blacks and whites could sit together I wasn't allowed to. So the freedom of the blacks wasn't the only freedom curtailed.
We do allow some private organizations to discriminate. The boy scouts and their 'morally straight' cause, as well as organizations like 'Curves' not being open to men. Also the NAACP doesn't, as a rule, give scholarships to Caucasians, or Asians. Try to form an NAAWP, using the NAACP's exact rules, and see how long it lasts. To say the government doesn't allow 'discrimination' is inaccurate. To say that it's done haphazzardly is more accurate.
In today's America, I do think private organizations should be allowed to discriminate. I mentioned elsewhere, I chose to live in an apartment complex where alcohol was banned. This discriminated against someone who wanted a beer in the house. Public pressure can be brought to bear w/o a government involvement. If I have a restaurant, and I want it to be, say, lefties only, I should be allowed to. Market forces would prove if there's a market for my business profile. While I won't have as many customers, (excluding right handed people) I may also lose lefties that find it abhorent. OTOH, I might have a steady business of lefties who find the restaurant more accomidating. The market will tell out.
Edit: David, the problem I have with your example is, if your FLGS has a 'no Jews' rule, you can get the books, dice, etc, somewhere else, either another FLGS or the web. If I've two stores in my area, then the one that doesn't discriminate gets all the business that the other store won't take (the Jews in your example) and the business of others offended by the first store's policy. If the first store fails because of their discrimination, then the market 'corrected' the discrimination.
What happens if there is strong vain of anti-semitic thought and a citizen group comprising of the majority of consumers say they will boycott any service that either employs or serves jews? Is that okay?
Under such conditions, how do market forces protect the towns only jewish family?
|
|
What happens if there is strong vain of anti-semitic thought and a citizen group comprising of the majority of consumers say they will boycott any service that either employs or serves jews? Is that okay?
Under such conditions, how do market forces protect the towns only jewish family?
Realistically, when the majority decide to discriminate, there is nothing the market can do to stop it. But likewise, if the majority wants to discriminate, there is nothing the government will do to stop it either. Laws are only as good as enforcement and if the majority is in control and filled with hate, enforcement of the Law will reflect that. Besides which, who is to force someone to spend their money where they don't want to? Do you want laws telling you where you have to shop? Thankfully, our own civil right laws have been successful, because, even in the south, the majority does not want to discriminate.
But this was William's point: if congress has simply removed the segregationist laws, market forces would have forced businesses to rectify the situation on their own over time because the majority did not want discrimination and businesses which served all would have flourished while businesses that discriminated would have had their market share continually shrink in most areas.
|
I have always thought the success of our constitution is due to the fact it is a living document. It can change. Change is inevitable. If you can not change, you will be left behind, or worse.
So I am not sure the Constitution should be the end all, be all. Yes, it is an extremely important foundation and should not be discarded thoughtlessly. At the same time, I do not think it is sacrilege to question whether it, or parts, have become outdated or even wrong.
Obviously, there will be others who do not want change and I believe I understand where they are coming from. Still, the only thing that remains constant is change.
Oops. I guess I did not really answer the question.
My kind of thought process tells me that as far as the consitution goes as it was written by our founding fathers is timeless. I think that everything that can change or will change has already changed numerous times over and over threw out recorded history and that any changes now are only repeated changes that sombody else sometime else has already tried with failure or success. And that the wisdom learned from the past when applied by our founding fathers resulted in a document that really never becomes outdated. How can individual freedoms liberties and rights become outdated unless you believe that people shouldnt be allowed to do the things that constitution guarentees? Freedom and liberty never become outdated unless you are trying to control people against their will....
|
Recent events have brought about a debate as to whether such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are Constitutional. There is a growing and vocal minority of libertarians in the United States that contend that they are not. I contend that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution make such laws Constitutional. Let's discuss this, in a rational and adult manner, and see if we can come to some agreement.
The constitutionality of discrimination laws notwithstanding, no sane lawyer is going to take up the case for "Separate but Equal" or "No More Suffrage for Women."
So, without an actual challenge to the laws / regulations, they will stand as is.
Libertarians, by their nature, are a small group of individuals, and are highly unlikely to be able to effect the kinds of change they claim to want. That's not to say it is IMPOSSIBLE for a say, Libertarian President, at some point, but in current day, I find it unlikely.
As far as "Governmental Controls of Behavior" goes, we have been selling our "rights" piecemeal for quite some time. To take "health concerns" to their ultimate logical conclusion (admittedly ad abdsurdum), the Government will tell us what to eat (its the healthy route, eh?), where to work (its best for your health if you do this, rather than that), and who to marry/breed with (genetic compatibility, lack of pre-existing conditions, etc).
With access to Health Care records, Income Tax records, and all the other vital information that defines who YOU are, historically, there is no feasible limit to the controls one can be placed under.
Take that as you will, whether paranoid ramblings of a madman or whatnot, but with each new law designed to protect people from being offended or scared or challenged, we lose a bit more freedom.
|
|
What happens if there is strong vain of anti-semitic thought and a citizen group comprising of the majority of consumers say they will boycott any service that either employs or serves jews? Is that okay?
Under such conditions, how do market forces protect the towns only jewish family?
Realistically, when the majority decide to discriminate, there is nothing the market can do to stop it. But likewise, if the majority wants to discriminate, there is nothing the government will do to stop it either. Laws are only as good as enforcement and if the majority is in control and filled with hate, enforcement of the Law will reflect that. Besides which, who is to force someone to spend their money where they don't want to? Do you want laws telling you where you have to shop? Thankfully, our own civil right laws have been successful, because, even in the south, the majority does not want to discriminate.
But this was William's point: if congress has simply removed the segregationist laws, market forces would have forced businesses to rectify the situation on their own over time because the majority did not want discrimination and businesses which served all would have flourished while businesses that discriminated would have had their market share continually shrink in most areas.
Yeah I believe the vast majority of Americans are not racist and do not want discrimination. I think that government involvement has actually slowed down progress on this front. Seems like politicians try to group people together and pit them against each other so that they can say Im on your side and try to get their votes. Instead of all citizens of the United States being called Americans we are called Native Americans and African Americans or Irish Americans.
In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.
– Theodore Roosevelt, letter to the American Defense Society (1919)
In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans.
– Theodore Roosevelt
|
Does Congress have the right to ban discrimination? Good question. I do believe that Congress has the right to do anything they so wish until the People says otherwise. Why do I believe that? Because it is the de facto law of the land. Congress CAN do anything it wishes until stopped by the people. Interestingly the people rarely step up to stop abuses of power.
I will suggest that in this case, regardless of Congress's right, or power to pass laws banning discrimination, that Congress does not have the ability to ban discrimination.
Discrimination ultimately is based upon people's thoughts and opinions. Until Congress controls the people's thoughts there will be discrimination.
While Congress can pass all the laws they want providing all kinds of penalties for discrimination, the people will simply follow the letter of the law while still feeling the emotions of discrimination. Hiding the symptoms does not get rid of the disease.
Quite simply, Congress has the right to do anything they wish, until the People say otherwise, and while they have the right or power, they very often lack ability.
|
|
Does Congress have the right to ban discrimination? Good question. I do believe that Congress has the right to do anything they so wish until the People says otherwise.
I think you are confusing ability with rights. The congress has the ability to do whatever they want until they are told otherwise, but that is not to say it is right for them to do so. I may have the ability to murder someone and get away with it, but that is not the same as saying I have a right to do so.
I am not content to depend upon market correction. There needs to be protection for minorities. The question really comes down to where does one person's liberties end and another's begin. As an extreme example, I am not 'free' to kill someone. Are my personal liberties being restricted?
Perhaps we are trying to see things as black and white and not looking at degree. Is it o.k. for one person to like another based on race, age, belief or sexual orientation? One person? Who cares, right? Now if there is a large enough group of people who do not like a group of people based on race, age, belief or sexual orientation, then it becomes more problematic.
If this is the case, and I am just kind of thinking out loud here, then at what degree do we draw the line?
|
|
Ask them then, if they wish to repeal the amendments barring slavery, or giving women the vote.
The argument is not about whether government can or should discriminate (it should not) but whether government has the right to force private association. And if government has the right to force you to associate with others, how far does that right extend and on what basis do you draw a line? If government has the right to force association what is to prevent it from preventing association?
Incidentally, I'm not a Liberterian. I'm a classic liberal/modern conservative with a healthy distrust of a "progressive" state. I'm not really worried about the government forcing people to sell to those they don't like, I'm simply aware that when you give the government the right to start mandating who you can assiociate with, they can and will start mandating who you can't associate with. It cuts both ways.
I am not content to depend upon market correction. There needs to be protection for minorities. The question really comes down to where does one person's liberties end and another's begin. As an extreme example, I am not 'free' to kill someone. Are my personal liberties being restricted?
Courtfool, this is why the inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness are your rights. To take another's life means you have deprived that individual of their inalienable rights.
I think the bigger question that Rand Paul tried to make (really unsuccessfully, btw) is whether or not the Unites States needs a Civil Rights Act anymore. There isn't legalized segregation anywhere. There is no longer a group of people denying someone a job based on the color of his skin. Are there individuals that do this? Sure, but those people scurry away like roaches when light of their activity makes it into public view. Not because a law was broken, but because certain actions are abhorrent to the vast majority of people.
Was the Civil Rights Act necessary at one point? Absolutely. But at this moment, the government actively violates this law by enforcing affirmative action laws, by giving special dispensation to minority or women-owned buisnesses bidding on government contracts. I seem to remember a case in Philadelphia where militant Black Panther members were stationed outside a voting precint intimidating voters. Those thugs were not prosecuted.
Kinda hard to have people respect and obey a law when the government ignores it at its convenience.
For the record, I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional, although certain ways it has been enforced are violations of the freedoms that are protected by the Constitution.
There is no longer a group of people denying someone a job based on the color of his skin. Are there individuals that do this? Sure, but those people scurry away like roaches when light of their activity makes it into public view. Not because a law was broken, but because certain actions are abhorrent to the vast majority of people.
At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, now, I no longer maintain that position. My wife has been repeatedly passed over for promotion for a less qualified (less experience, less education) male. The last time, my wife was specifically told that she needs to continue her education if she wants to be promoted. She has a degree in business and is a certified insurance counselor. The gentleman they promoted over her had been with the organization fewer years, does not have a degree or a certification.
Sure, this could be an isolated incident, but I am not convinced people guilty of such blatant discrimination scurry as readily as you believe.
I do believe affirmative action is just as discriminatory, so I agree there is a discrepancy.
Kinda hard to have people respect and obey a law when the government ignores it at its convenience.
Fair enough. I still maintain that everyone is not treated equally and that there needs to be some measures in place that, for the most part, everyone is treated equally. I acknowledge that, unless we want to go all 1984, there is no way to make everyone equal. I am not prepared to simply turn a blind eye on what I see as unjust because we can never attain one extreme.
There is no longer a group of people denying someone a job based on the color of his skin. Are there individuals that do this? Sure, but those people scurry away like roaches when light of their activity makes it into public view. Not because a law was broken, but because certain actions are abhorrent to the vast majority of people.At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, now, I no longer maintain that position. My wife has been repeatedly passed over for promotion for a less qualified (less experience, less education) male. The last time, my wife was specifically told that she needs to continue her education if she wants to be promoted. She has a degree in business and is a certified insurance counselor. The gentleman they promoted over her had been with the organization fewer years, does not have a degree or a certification.
Sure, this could be an isolated incident, but I am not convinced people guilty of such blatant discrimination scurry as readily as you believe.
I do believe affirmative action is just as discriminatory, so I agree there is a discrepancy.
Kinda hard to have people respect and obey a law when the government ignores it at its convenience.Fair enough. I still maintain that everyone is not treated equally and that there needs to be some measures in place that, for the most part, everyone is treated equally. I acknowledge that, unless we want to go all 1984, there is no way to make everyone equal. I am not prepared to simply turn a blind eye on what I see as unjust because we can never attain one extreme.
The individual who was promoted over your wife . . . no law would have prevented that, and no law can prevent that. What your wife experienced was a poisonous corporate culture that should encourage her to look to other employers. That is how companies are punished for poor behavior. The "old-boys network" exists, whether you call it that or another name ("nepotism" comes to mind). The fact is we all discriminate. I moved out of a neighboorhood where I (as a person of pallor) was the minority, not because I was the minority, but because there was a lot of crime in the area. My son doesn't need to grow up surrounded by gang-bangers. Was I wrong to discriminate? If I hire a booth-babe for my next convention, am I wrong to discriminate against 300lb men who haven't shaved their backs? Am I wrong to discriminate against gaming with the guy who doesn't think he needs to shower?
Am I wrong to hire the guy who I know versus the woman I don't?
|
|
The thing is... private associations don't exist in a separate universe where they have no impact on the public sphere. Heck even privacy itself is becoming nonexistant, more by corporate action, social networking sites like Facebook which are used for corporate dataminig, then by government itself.
My point is that these arguments aren't even relevant to the present day, the whole public/privacy issues have taken on completely different dimensions. The real issues are corporate accountability in matters ranging from the ongoing series of Wall Street fiascos, the self-destructive way the speculative market is run, the domination of state governments by insurance companies, atm fees, in short the bulk of closed door private decision making which has major impact on the way you and I live, yet little to no accountability.
I would respond by I'm not really sure what relevance corporate accountability in relationship to financial ethics has upon corporate accountability in regards to free association.
The individual who was promoted over your wife . . . no law would have prevented that, and no law can prevent that. What your wife experienced was a poisonous corporate culture that should encourage her to look to other employers. That is how companies are punished for poor behavior. The "old-boys network" exists, whether you call it that or another name...There is no longer a group of people denying someone a job based on the color of his skin. Are there individuals that do this? Sure, but those people scurry away like roaches when light of their activity makes it into public view. Not because a law was broken, but because certain actions are abhorrent to the vast majority of people.At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, now, I no longer maintain that position. My wife has been repeatedly passed over for promotion for a less qualified (less experience, less education) male. The last time, my wife was specifically told that she needs to continue her education if she wants to be promoted. She has a degree in business and is a certified insurance counselor. The gentleman they promoted over her had been with the organization fewer years, does not have a degree or a certification.
Sure, this could be an isolated incident, but I am not convinced people guilty of such blatant discrimination scurry as readily as you believe.
I do believe affirmative action is just as discriminatory, so I agree there is a discrepancy.
Kinda hard to have people respect and obey a law when the government ignores it at its convenience.Fair enough. I still maintain that everyone is not treated equally and that there needs to be some measures in place that, for the most part, everyone is treated equally. I acknowledge that, unless we want to go all 1984, there is no way to make everyone equal. I am not prepared to simply turn a blind eye on what I see as unjust because we can never attain one extreme.
Didn't you get the memo? Discrimination only counts as "bad" when it is based on color, race, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or (non-Christian) religion. Everything else is fair game.
|
I will refrain from picking apart individual arguments in this thread and simply state that:
Congress cannot BAN discrimination, since the term itself implies a frame of mind and not an action. No one can legislate that you like or dislike something.
Congress CAN ban discriminatory actions, because the Supreme Court, which was supposed to be a check on Congress gave it the power to do just these things through a series of decisions in the early 19th century. There is no check and balance here--the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, and more often than not, that interpretation has been for the expansion of federal power far above anything ever intended in our Federalist system of government which itself was created to be a check on the government.
One comment on an above statement. We as a people do not need a law or a Constitutional Amendment to tell us that slavery in its most malicious form is evil. In fact, once we are enlightened to that fact through sound reasoning and economic reality, such systems dissolve of their own accord. Such an end is far more lasting and embedded than when the question is answered by the person with the biggest gun or the last man standing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yup and they already cast Hank Azaria as GargamelHey everybody take a break today and enjoy a Smurf.. The movie will be out in the not to distant future.Oh god. Is there a live action smurf movie coming out, or is this a movie about deer politics?
Bambi II - Bambi's Revenge?
I don't remember Gargamel in Bambi...
|
|
I don't remember Gargamel in Bambi...Yup and they already cast Hank Azaria as GargamelHey everybody take a break today and enjoy a Smurf.. The movie will be out in the not to distant future.Oh god. Is there a live action smurf movie coming out, or is this a movie about deer politics?
Bambi II - Bambi's Revenge?
He is not...I am unsure however if he was in Bambi 2 or not. Personally though I preferred Bambi vs Godzilla
Yes, I believe Congress does have the right to ban discrimination, at least in businesses or anything involving the government or public funding of any kind. The problem arises when people confuse being unaccommodating with being discriminatory. Not having kosher items on the menu of your restaurant is not discrimination, putting a sign up on the front door your front door that says “No Jews” is. That people (on both sides) can’t seem to distinguish between the two is silly.
|
|
Yes, I believe Congress does have the right to ban discrimination, at least in businesses or anything involving the government or public funding of any kind. The problem arises when people confuse being unaccommodating with being discriminatory. Not having kosher items on the menu of your restaurant is not discrimination, putting a sign up on the front door your front door that says “No Jews” is. That people (on both sides) can’t seem to distinguish between the two is silly.
Silly...it smurfing is!!!!
*Rummages through his pack*
I know I’ve got that smurf to gold recipe around here somewhere…
Furthermore, with regards to places prohibiting smoking or consuming alcohol being discriminatory, this is also silly. A person has the right to decide what activities can take place on his property. If a deli owner tells a group of people running a game of D&D at one of his tables to stop, or leave he isn’t being discriminatory to geeks (well, he might be, but not necessarily). A more “controversial” example, if same deli owner kicks a Muslim man out of his deli because he unrolled his prayer mat, kicked off his shoes and started his mid-day prayers this is also not discrimination. So long as the deli owner does not refuse the Muslim man the same service he would provide to any of his customers he is not discriminating.
An establishment which bans smoking or drinking is not discriminating, these are activities which a person engages in that have nothing to do with the service provided by the establishment owner (unless of course we’re talking about a smoke shop or a bar, in which case if the owner is dumb enough to ban the use of his own product, well that’s really up to him). Of course I’m against the government putting bans on smoking in businesses as I believe that should be up to the owner, but honestly that’s a separate issue.
Yes, I believe Congress does have the right to ban discrimination, at least in businesses or anything involving the government or public funding of any kind. The problem arises when people confuse being unaccommodating with being discriminatory. Not having kosher items on the menu of your restaurant is not discrimination, putting a sign up on the front door your front door that says “No Jews” is. That people (on both sides) can’t seem to distinguish between the two is silly.
I wouldn't say it's silly, I'd say it's damn ugly, primarily because it's true that some people just can't tell the difference.
True story. I went to the bank that I am a former employee of and current customer. The line at that particular branch- a newish one- was particularly long that day. After years of working at a bank and having to scythe lines like that down to size, waiting about 15-20 minutes to do my financial tango is nothing to me, and in fact I look forward to the extra time, as it gives me an opportunity to go over my math.
Not so with most of the other people there, and 3 people in particular who thought this was a slight against them racially speaking. They accused the bank of having a serious bias against them by cutting down on the amount of tellers in black neighborhoods, and decided to call the banks business line to lodge a complaint. Personally, I rolled my eyes at this, but it was scary that there were so many people egging on this conversation with a potentially exasperated CCR. The staff on the floor(of which there was admittedly few) attempted to defuse the situation to no avail, and this was a rather ethnically diverse group of people. It didn't matter to the three people involved however- it was discrimatory that their time was wasted, when(according to one woman) they could have gone to the jewish neighborhood a few blocks over for no lines/faster service.
I wanted to tell them that their call was going to be probably ignored- there are cameras in banks partially to get a good view of any potential robbers, but also to provide a non-biased account of situations like this one(it was also a DAMN good reason to be on your best behavior and only defend yourself/get angry after several attempts to calm someone down). Long lines are just that- long lines. When people are on their break, they're on their break, for the most part no bias is involved, because the managers have a very good incentive(i.e. keeping their job) to keep the amount of accounts opened much, much higher than the amount of accounts closed in a month.
smurfs have the right to do anything
smu^fs have the right to do anything
Mostly because we can't stop them even if we wanted to :P
