No, because of the diverse range of contributing points to creating laws. Specifically, vocal minority opinions that slip by the more silent majority without proper due consideration and/or realization of the ramifications of said laws.
See also, the 18th and 21st amendments for a good example with an issue that isnt so racial.
GameboyRMH wrote:06HHR wrote: 3. Jim Crow was and is racial animus codified. It wasn't meddling government that started Jim Crow, it was people who used government to advance their political and social views.06HHR wrote: If this oppression had not been made statute (Jim Crow laws) then the protective laws would not have been necessary.Wait what? Doesn't the second statement conflict with the first?
Not really, taken in context. Public access laws don't have a reason to exist unless public access is somehow restricted. In the case of Jim crow, by laws designed to restrict access to certain groups of people. It seems like a circular argument, but it's really more akin to a chicken and egg analogy. You can't have chickens without eggs, you don't need public access legislation for some groups of people unless public access is restricted for those people.
I suppose that's true for public access, but without the protective laws in the CRA is there anything to stop someone from doing just what was originally proposed in this thread?
Cone_Junkie wrote: I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms. Please go on...
How come in every discussion of civil rights it is always assumed that the racists are all white?
I am a white heterosexual male. I have been asked to leave an establishment because I was white, refused service on multiple occasions, kicked off a bus, beaten, and held up at gun point. I was even asked once to leave a funeral. All because I am white.
I was raised in a mixed race household, in a black neighborhood by a feminist civil rights worker. I am in a mixed race marriage.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
How does "heterosexual" have anything to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
In reply to SVreX:
Nothing, as I stated before it was just a typical Cone_Junkie inflamatory comment.....hence why I still don't understand how he never ended up under the patio like the others. 
Wait.. CJ's in the patio?
GameboyRMH wrote: I suppose that's true for public access, but without the protective laws in the CRA is there anything to stop someone from doing just what was originally proposed in this thread?
TBH, no there isn't. But, "fighting words", or language designed to incite violent action, are not protected speech, a person who does those things is not entitled to sponsorship of those actions by the authorities. Which is what the various laws we now refer to as Jim Crow did. There is no law against being racist or holding racist views, there are now laws against using the authority of law or government to enforce those views.
In reply to SVreX: There is definitely no requirement that you have to be white to be racist, if you live where I think you live, you know how it is.. My sister lives over in Doublegate, next time i'm up that way maybe i'll buy you a beer.
SVreX wrote: Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Are there cliff notes because I don't want to read the whole thing. Maybe if you put boobies on the cover it would look more interesting?
06HHR wrote: In reply to SVreX: There is definitely no requirement that you have to be white to be racist, if you live where I think you live, you know how it is.. My sister lives over in Doublegate, next time i'm up that way maybe i'll buy you a beer.
There's a lot of stuff called Doublegate around here, but if you are referring to the DG country club or any variation thereof, yeah, I'm within walking distance.
Call me. I'll buy.
SVreX wrote:06HHR wrote: In reply to SVreX: There is definitely no requirement that you have to be white to be racist, if you live where I think you live, you know how it is.. My sister lives over in Doublegate, next time i'm up that way maybe i'll buy you a beer.There's a lot of stuff called Doublegate around here, but if you are referring to the DG country club or any variation thereof, yeah, I'm within walking distance. Call me. I'll buy.
That's the one, she actually lives on Doublegate, maybe a half-mile from lee county. I'll take you up on that. I've been thrown out of a few places around there myself..
Interesting discussion...
Does the recent Hobby Lobby ruling change the perspective at all on the subject?
I think it does. It gives weight to the company owner's opinions and liberties, and their right to not provide (some) services to (some) people based on their Constitutionally protected views.
Oh yes, absolutely.
I think it moves the court one step closer to granting personal rights to corporations. IMO it's a more dangerous ruling than Citizens United.
06HHR wrote: That's the one, she actually lives on Doublegate, maybe a half-mile from lee county. I'll take you up on that. I've been thrown out of a few places around there myself..
I am about a half mile over the Lee Co line.
North Doublegate becomes East Doublegate as it heads west across Old Dawson, and runs parallel with West Doublegate 1/2 mile to the north, which is still West when it heads west.
Get it?? Me neither.
We could cruise the local establishments and see how many times the white boys can get thrown out! Great fun!!
SVreX wrote: Wait.. CJ's in the patio?
No, but those types of posts like you replied to were the same types that got others patio'd and probably should have yielded the same for him.
06HHR wrote: I think it moves the court one step closer to granting personal rights to corporations. IMO it's a more dangerous ruling than Citizens United.
Since drug laws allow confiscation of property without the owner even being accused of a crime by essentially using a civil suit against the property itself, perhaps it's time we gave some of those inanimate objects rights too? That's a whole 'nother flounder though.
SVreX wrote: ...Does the recent Hobby Lobby ruling change the perspective at all on the subject?....
It seems like it might generate some unintended consequences:
Satanists want to use Hobby Lobby decision to exempt women from anti-abortion laws
You do wonder how else it could be twisted. After all, it is pretty much impossible to define what is and what isn't a religion (and by extension, a religious belief)
SVreX wrote:Cone_Junkie wrote: I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms. Please go on...How come in every discussion of civil rights it is always assumed that the racists are all white? I am a white heterosexual male. I have been asked to leave an establishment because I was white, refused service on multiple occasions, kicked off a bus, beaten, and held up at gun point. I was even asked once to leave a funeral. All because I am white. I was raised in a mixed race household, in a black neighborhood by a feminist civil rights worker. I am in a mixed race marriage. Don't judge a book by it's cover. How does "heterosexual" have anything to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I never called anyone racist, so no patio is necessary. My point is that white, heterosexual males don't have to deal with the hate and discrimination that is governed by the Civil Rights Act. Which I explained in a later post to clarify to those who want to make something of nothing.
Gay rights are the latest chapter of civil rights, so that is how being hetero makes a difference.
Just like a panel of old white men have no business legislating women's reproductive rights. Or is that sexist?
Spin it however you like O'Reilly, but most reasonable and intelligent people can can see that.
aircooled wrote:SVreX wrote: ...Does the recent Hobby Lobby ruling change the perspective at all on the subject?....It seems like it might generate some unintended consequences: Satanists want to use Hobby Lobby decision to exempt women from anti-abortion laws You do wonder how else it could be twisted. After all, it is pretty much impossible to define what is and what isn't a religion (and by extension, a religious belief)
I wonder if Scientologist businesses could deny health coverage for behavior-altering meds, or maybe even everything except "touch healing."
In reply to Cone_Junkie:
O'Reilly... Nice. I've never even seen his show (nor anything else on Fox).
Guess you missed the part where I shared that my own kids are minorities, huh? That gun in my face wasn't hate. Thrown out of my own father's funeral- yeah that was just a friendly reminder.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The spin, sir, is entirely from you.
I don't belittle your life experiences, and you certainly know nothing about mine. What is your beef?
Methinks he doth protest waaaay too much.
In reply to SVreX:
He really can't help himself. Something about the taste of toe jam... he can't get enough. To each his own.
SVreX wrote: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The spin, sir, is entirely from you.
Not wading into your disagreement, but factually your statement is a little off.
In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
see Wikipedia
So, basically, to my understanding it is codified that "Sexual orientation" and "Sex" have the same meaning under the 1964 Act as a result of that ruling. It could be that it would need to be challenged and brought to SCOTUS, and it might even lose, but it is at least starting in that direction.
As far as the above disagreement, it need not necessarily be about race or sexual orientation. There is a valid discussion debating where the line is exactly regarding "When your rights overrule my rights"
In reply to Apexcarver:
I couldn't find what you are referring to in that Wiki link- it's a wee bit wordy.
I did, however, research it on the EEOC site. What I found was:
EEOC said: "Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims..."
This appears to be a clear statement regarding Title VII as it relates to transgender(which makes sense), but not necessarily to gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals. It looks like it is inviting people to file claims, that can then be resolved in court.
There may be more. I am not familiar with the details.
That statement, however, would fall short of being "codified". That would be a departmental policy under the current administration seeking judicial clarification.
Has this interpretation been settled in court? I have never heard of it (in spite of over 30 years of civil rights and gay advocacy).
I'm not trying to argue. I am trying to learn, but I also think it is important for us to understand the differences between the laws and the positions of one party or another, especially if they are merely advocating a change.
SVreX wrote: That statement, however, would fall short of being "codified". That would be a departmental policy under the current administration seeking judicial clarification. Has this interpretation been settled in court? I have never heard of it (in spite of over 30 years of civil rights and gay advocacy). I'm not trying to argue. I am trying to learn, but I also think it is important for us to understand the differences between the laws and the positions of one party or another, especially if they are merely advocating a change.
I will grant you that "codified" was perhaps an overreach on my part, using too strong of a term.
I share your interest. If that exists, I would bet there is more that they used to base that decision on.
I have some doubts that it is by necessity an act of "the current administration" that netted that, but more likely something akin to a legal interpretation granted by that office. (Meaning not from the office of the white house or even, by necessity congress). If it is that track, wherever they published the intrup, there should be information pointing out the basis for it.
That represents my best guess. A lawyer, I be NOT.
I hate going to wikipedia for information, but it seems that is a thread that could be followed back to a source and shed a lot of light on the subject. Much of what is being discussed in this thread all seems to be covered by the civil rights act as a broad umbrella.
In short, I share your curiosity.
BTW, wiki link, paragraph 4, end of the paragraph.
(if you use firefox, edit -> Find can be your friend on wordy sites, try "1964" in this case, its a lifesaver when skimming large documents for things)
Following the trail of crumbs, try some stuff here http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)
The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service
that said, it seems that it may be a narrowed view and only apply to federal employment. Worth looking into though. (might be one of those things where if you arent working for the federal government, it falls to state law)
You'll need to log in to post.
