Can a lawyer chime in and answer whether people can sue if they have not been served?
Has it really boiled down to “But I want the same rights as a cactus!” to those that support this bigoted yahoo?
Hence the “not exactly true” qualifier. I objected only to “there would be nothing to stop the return of ‘sundown towns’” (my bolding). Not ignoring vigilante violence is one such way, but hardly the only or the best way.
That’s certainly true.
True, but the history of segregation laws suggest that enforcement is at least thought to be necessary. Maybe not in every single town, of course, but generally.
I’m not sure what you mean about being served, but people can sue for public accommodation CRA violations under 42 USC § 2000a.
So you agree that sundown towns could return in the absence of the CRA, and as long as they were not violent, they could not be legally stopped?
That has to be “served in a restaurant”, not “served with a subpoena”, right?
As evidence that ‘sundown towns’ are going to make a comeback once the CRA is repealed, that’s a bit thin.
Considering that the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act has led to states rushing to enact laws to suppress minority voting, I’d say it’s a pretty good bet that if the Civil Rights Act was repealed that Jim Crow would once again reign supreme.
Considering that through all of American history without the CRA there have been sundown towns (or their equivalent), and they mostly ended upon the passage of the CRA, why would we assume that they wouldn’t return if we were to end the CRA?
Is 91% chance of suffering housing discrimination evidence enough for you? If not, how high would that number have to be?
Could you please name the towns that you think currently qualify as “sundown towns” and give a reliable citation proving that they have the characteristics which you say they have?
Yes, I apparently did miss that. Could you please also provide a reliable citation proving that Republican-leaing states have new Jim Crow laws?
Sure. We can quibble over the likelihood (particularly if overt laws excluding one race were forbidden, and if not, whether violent acts indended to maintain obediance to the informal codes was permitted or not), but it’s certainly possible.
While you can’t alter what people think, you can stop them form or, at least, punish them for doing harm or potential harm to another person.
In the Southwest, there are towns in the middle of nowhere that subsist on giving out gas with a couple hundred miles between them and the next gas station. Should a black person who is driving from one end to the other call ahead to check if he can get gas at every location he wishes to stop, first?
That’s a ridiculous burden on someone, and it should remain illegal.
What’s your evidence that everything will stay the same with the CRA gone? And what level of reversal on segregation by businesses (As a part of the “free market”) would make you consider repealing the CRA a loss? One business? One thousand? Ten thousand?
I can only say that even with the CRA in place, we have half a state full of sundown behavior: Idaho. (Note that the other half of Idaho is empty.)
The Montgomery bus lines were operated by National City Lines during Rosa Parks’ protest. While there were some local laws requiring some segregation the bus lines took oppression much further, like collecting fairs from black customers and then leaving them behind before they could use the back door. The free market was failing in this instance.
For the free market to work in a given situation there are a few axioms that are required, including:
[ul]
[li]Most actors act rationally.[/li][li]Freedom from outside, non-market forces.[/li][/ul]
If these axioms are true then I believe that market forces can overcome racism. The South prior to the CRA did not fit those axioms. Today most of the US probably does fit and we could probably appeal the CRA with only a few pockets returning to systemic racism.
But why would we do that? It’s not like the CRA is a major burden on the market and even now it helps prevent some racism.
What’s your evidence for that?
For the sake of clarity, the part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed (some forms of) discrimination in public accomodations engaged in interstate commerce is Title II. Since I doubt you’d find many libertarians opposed to, say, Title I (which made unequal voter registration requirements on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin illegal) or Title III (which made denying access to government facilities on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin illegal), it’d be a good idea to refer to the CRA Title II, and not just ‘The CRA’.
Can you please answer my request to, what % of housing discrimination you find acceptable? If not, will you please at least answer? As-is, it seems you find it acceptable people being discriminated against in housing in 91% of inquiries in a single community - keeping in mind this is with it currently being ILLEGAL.
I’m not sure I understand this. To the extent that “sundown towns” exist (like the example of Vidor above) becuase of a reputation of historic racism or the actual racist attitudes of current residents, the CRA can’t stop them. To the extent that they exist becuase of town policy (official or unofficial) and harrassment by law enforcement or the enforcement of restrictive covenants, these are not permitted even absent the CRA.
When did I say that?
I provided an example of 91%chance of discrimination when looking for housing. You continue to ask for cites showing that some places wish to discrimination - this implies that you think 91% isn’t high enough.
So I ask;
Have I sufficiently proven that some places even now try to discriminate, or do you think 91% levels of discrimination is an acceptable number?