Other than the 1488 crowd wanting to be able to say ‘no blacks allowed’ in certain businesses, I’m genuinely curious what else is in there that should make it get repealed?
I personally would like it not repealed mainly because I would be personally affected by said policy obviously, but I’m curious in the reasons outside of just that, if y’all have reasons other than that, as AFAIK, the CRA violates freedom of assembly in the view of people who have that opinion.
Because it arbitrarily restricts people's abilities to discriminate.
Pretend I am a shopkeeper and protect my business with surveillance cameras. A ethnic culture or religion wears masks all the time. If I ban masks, according to the law, I have created a "disparate impact" to that ethnicity or religion. Does that make sense?
When people say "no blacks allowed", do you think most of that strong feeling is simply because of skin color? Or are they associating (regardless of how correct they are) said skin color with behaviors and attitudes that they detest? And are people allowed to make personal judgments that you disagree with? Or are we only allowed to make associations that you consider "fair"? To what extent are you allowed to restrict their actions?
It's a huge crack in the Constitution. We are supposed to and used to have a number of rights. Most of which are now subservient in some way to so-called Civil Rights. Speech is called hate speech. Habeas corpus is irrelevant if you shot a black guy. Pretty much any right you can think of, your right to it ends at as-you-pointed-out "disparate impact."
It's actually a rewrite of the Constitution on principle, too. The original document valued freedom, whereas Civil Rights values more equality.