That’s what the owners of the Heart of Atlanta Motel and Ollie’s Barbecue thought too. They were wrong. So are you. Thank goodness.
Other people’s freedom is hard to tolerate, isn’t it?
And you take a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s higher purpose to staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person, at least if those persons are mere patrons of businesses instead of owner’s.
It is a moral choice to decide whether the patrons or the owners need or deserve certain protections under the Constitution.
You have made your choice and thankfully most have made a different and much more broad choice in favor of patrons including those that are part of a racial minority.
I just wanted to be clear where you stand. It is clear you stand with Rand Paul on this issue.
Why should we believe Senator Paul when he says he would not work to reverse Title II? Aren’t we supposed to know that politicians are not to be trusted by what they say?
Being denied service at a business, due to the owner’s wishes, as opposed to the law, is not an infringement upon a right. What right do you speak of, here?
Yeah, I understand that you support Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Do you at least acknowledge that the moral choice of prohibiting property owners of select businesses from racial discrimination is an infringement upon their property rights? It can be argued that the infringement is worth the social benefit, but at least recognize that it is an infringment.
Yes, this hot-button issue of a law from 1964 that no one is trying to change.
For one thing, Rand Paul didn’t bring the issue up, Maddow did, and Paul has introduced no legislation as a Senator that affects the Civil Rights Act. Besides, who cares if you believe him? Unless you live in Kentucky, he’s not your Senator.
On this matter, do you believe that this civil right was created by the Civil Rights Act, and did not exist until its passage?
Apparently we do.
If a black family is driving across the country and needs to find a motel for the night, it is not necessarily a civil right to be able to stay in the only motel for the next 100 miles because that motel might be full. But the sleepy black family has a right to equal opportunity to available accommodations and have a Civil Right not to be denied a room based solely on the color of their skin.
And you must make the argument that those black travelers do not have ‘equal opportunity’ with white travelers because the business owner has a civil right to discriminate against them.
No, we don’t. The Civil Rights Act permits civil actions and injunctions in such cases, but there’s no right involved.
And the source of this right is…? The owner has a Fifth Amendment right to not be deprived of his property, without due process of law; and that it shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
My copy of the Constitution says nothing about equal opportunity, just equal protection of the laws.
It’s a civil right according to the law and the law has had constitutional standing nearly fifty years.
Any other rights that apply to private businesses, rather than the state?
The same rights that Rand Paul says he will staunchly defend - Civil Rights/Inherent Rights.
That’s nice and vague.
You wrote of “protections under the Constitution”; where might I find the right to dine at a restaurant of your choice in the Constitution?
Are you referring to this?
Yes. The owners have the Fifth Amendment; what protections do you claim patrons have?
Indeed. Issues of constitutionality are legal issues, not moral issues.
Since you insist on being literal, where in the Constitution do the the racist business owners have their inherent right to discriminate immortalized in writing?
The constitution doesn’t work that way. It’s not a list of things we are allowed to do. Unless it is prohibited, it is allowed.
Who says?
I was saying that when one group’s rights conflict with another group’s rights the determination on which group must give up something becomes a moral issue.
In the case of Title II the moral case is easily made that the haters needed to give up hating, keep their establishments and property but begin operating them in ways that treats and serves all Americans equally.
The Commerce Clause is meant to protect customers as well as owners. It is in the Constitution.
And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been constitutional for fifty years.
It’s a legal document, not a moral document.
Having been passed by the legislature, it is assumed to be Constitutional until and unless it is deemed to be not by the SCOTUS. And I’m not even sure if the SCOTUS has ruled on Title II.
At any rate, that doesn’t mean we all have to agree with a particular interpretation. I’ll bet you don’t agree with several SCOTUS decisions, including Citizens United.
The Constitution then does not prohibit black people from doing business with white business owners who may or may not hate black people, but you asked for it to be listed in the Constitution.
No black people expect to barge into a white supremacists private residence and force the owner to feed them dinner. They only ask to be treated as equals when they may need service from a privately owned but publically operated business just like the majority.
It doesn’t prohibit them from trying to do so. But it doesn’t force the white person to go along. It also allows blacks to boycott and protest.
Of course they do. But lots of people “expect” to get things that aren’t guaranteed under the constitution.