Had to hunt a bit for this one - there are still places that discriminate heavily when it comes to housing, to the point where I have hear non-white renters will even ask white renters to start the process for them. And who can blame them, if they’re discriminated against 91% of the time?
Wow, is this a bad argument. Business owners turning away customers because of their race is not the same as no business owner in the desert.
The CRA was passed in a background (as you mentioned) of large-scale violence and other transgressions against black people. Being turned away at businesses was one of these. Not finding a coffee shop in the desert was not one of these.
But in one case the white customer doesn’t have to travel further and the black person does. That’s why one case warrants legal relief and the other doesn’t.
That’s a rather weak argument. In the absence of the CRA, one can lead to the other.
It’s actually akin to the argument anti-vax nutjobs use. Because of the efficacy of vaccines, we had (until people stopped vaccinating their kids) more cases of complications from the vaccine than cases of the diseases themselves in the US. Does that mean vaccination is no longer needed? Or that we should let the free market handle the ones who don’t?
Again, there may be a case that the federal government shouldn’t be involved, but the concept this isn’t a problem in America is just flat wrong. Or that it isn’t a problem because of a facile trivialization of the situation.
The CRA was passed under Congress’ commerce power, its 13th Amendment power to legislate against “badges and incidents of slavery”, and the 14th Amendment.
Do we need the CRA to prevent violence against black people? No we don’t. Period. If you want to refute that statement without inserting your own verbiage to make some tangential point, go ahead and try.
Alternately you could admit that justifying the CRA on the grounds that it provides protection from the burden of uncomfortable travel is weak tea.
Oh please.
I’m not the one arguing that Congress only has the power to regulate private behavior in the face of “widespread violence against black people.”
Denying service to black people absolutely IS violence. Preventing black people from conducting business in certain areas absolutely IS violence. It was for centuries before, and it still is.
I’m a fairly strong libertarian when it comes to the free market but this is one of the areas where history shows that the free market is not enough by itself to protect rights. The private bus companies in the South–prior to the CRA–treated their black customers quite poorly even though they made up most of their riders.
The free market would work if there was no societal pressure on those that would go against public opinion. E.g. in the 50’s a restaurant might have made money by opening its doors to blacks but the owner would have (likely) been subjected to death threats. The CRA was required to counter those societal pressures.
This post looks like a winner. Not only do such towns exist, but whole states and regions of the country are this way. Such towns are called “Sundown” towns, as in no dark skinned person should be in one after sundown. And you must have missed Jim Crow laws, including the new ones about voting that Republican leaning states are so keen on passing. Like Texas.
As for your bakery example, don’t be surprised to find that it is in fact illegal to refuse service to people because of their color or religion. And that is a good thing. Now if a baker should realize that the foreign script advocates violence against a protected group, then you have a dispute that can be resolved in our dispute resolving system, the courts.
[QUOTE=Great Antibob;17091876
[Vidor, TX]
(Texas city haunted by 'no blacks after dark' past - CNN.com). It’s still 97+% non-Hispanic white (in SE Texas, no less!) due to unofficial town policies. It’s even on a major interstate highway.
[/quote]
I’ve read the article about Vidor that you linked to. I found nothing in it which says that Vidor would become a ‘sundown town’ of the type iiandyiiii describes, if the CRA were repealed.
As for Vidor being 97% white, so what? Why is that a problem? As for the “unofficial town policies”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. “Unofficial policy” sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Prove that withholding services from a group leads to violence against them. Upscale clubs and restaurants discriminate against the poor, but it doesn’t lead to them bopping the poor on top of the head.
Never said racism wasn’t a problem. I would say that government doesn’t decrease racism, but i haven’t thus far. Until now.
In both cases capitalists are refusing to provide services. I didn’t say it was the same. I said there were identical problems created for the consumers.
Being turned away from a business was small potatoes compared to the violence used by the state against black people at this time. Now it is the only potato you have, and it’s even smaller.
So everytime there is disparity between the lives of white individuals and black individuals it warrants “legal relief”. How about between smart and dumb people? Short and tall people? Blind and seeing people? Perhaps you have realized this is impossible.
I’m arguing that popular support for the act was generated due to widespread violence against black people. That is all that matter in regards to legislation and its viability. Constitution has been dead.
It’s good to see the “We won’t discriminate against minorities, we swear” arguments have just been abandoned after Chik Fil A and Duck Dynasty bru-ha-has, and we’re straight into “It’s my legal right to make sure there are no black people in my community, goddamit!”
When it comes to other types of discrimination…Got Law?
edited to add: This idea that no form of discrimination should be addressed until all forms of discrimination are addressed at the same time is stupid.
You can’t possibly believe that it isn’t a problem (if true) merely because the government of the town doesn’t lay it out in black and white.
This old chestnut?
How about preventing t-shirt wearers from conducting business in my restaurant? Am I doing violence upon them?
Who is refusing to provide service in the desert? If there are no businesses out there, then there is no service being refused.
Wrong wrong wrong. Being turned away from business and not being allowed to take part in certain regions and sectors of the economy was absolutely a ‘big potato’ part of the violence used by the state (and society in general) against black people. It was not just bats and bullets – it was far more.
That was only part of the popular support. There was also popular support for the ‘sit-ins’ of businesses like lunch counters that segregated.