Politics
Out of context: Reply #12645
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ukit0
Tommy, I guess the question is, what's even in the Civil Rights Act. Because there are a few different elements, right?
-Governments must give everyone the right to vote fairly
-Government can't deny people access to publicly funded institutions - i.e., public transport, libraries, city hall etc
-Public schools shouldn't be segregated by race
-Government agencies can't discriminate when they hire people
-Businesses that rely on interstate commerce (hotels, motels, restaurants) can't kick people out based on discrimination
Notice what this doesn't say. It doesn't single out black or white people, or even race. It simply says, governments and public businesses can't turn people away based on ethnicity, gender or religion. People are still free to be as racist as they choose to be in their free time. Private organizations, like the KKK or whatever, are still free to do whatever the hell it is they do.
So what I was trying to say with my analogy is that the present giving example is completely wrong. The government, at the end of the day, works for us and is funded by us...why SHOULDN'T there be a law mandating that it does it's job for everyone? That law really should have been there from the beginning.
The only really debatable part here is that final clause which says businesses engaged in intertstate commerce can't discriminate, and that is the part Rand Paul took issue with, although it doesn't seem like you really made that distinction. And that is the part where I can understand the legal debate against it, although I disagree with it. People would argue that the government really doesn't have the right to mandate businesses comply, based on their authority over interstate commerce. But you guys never brought that up, so I'm guessing that's not the part you take issue with.