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to say ‘no blacks allowed’ in certain businesses, I’m genuinely curious what else is in there that should make it get repealed?
I personally would like it not repealed mainly because I would be personally affected by said policy obviously, but I’m curious in the reasons outside of just that, if y’all have reasons other than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.
Multiple reasons. 1st and foremost is the freedom of expression and assembly, which the civil rights act blatantly violates. There’s also the fact that the act has never been held to the “equal” standards but has allowed the brazen racist insanity we see today where even US Colonels are allowed to say “Don’t hire white men” with zero repercussions. The only version of a civil rights act that should exist is one that prevents the government from discriminating against it’s citizens. Not one that openly allows racial, sexual, etc discrimination as long as you are not a “minority” or “protected class”.
Doubtful, if anything you would see a massive boost in acceptance for not being a SoundCloud rapper with face tattoos. Sowell covered this quite explicitly and is something he is more than qualified to speak on being a black Harvard graduate before the CRA. He also goes over how most economic businesses would have “racial policies” that were rarely enforced (see the actual story of Rosa Parks) because it was completely economically unsustainable to have to run two passenger cars or buses for people that were all able to fit into one. The government were the ones who forced businesses hands on the matter and cost them massively financially, same with minimum wage, affirmative action, on and on.
The government should have no say in how I want to run a business, if I want to hire straight white men exclusively then I should be able to, the economy should be the decisive factor on whether or not that is sustainable or enough “diversity of thought” to compete with “diverse” businesses.
Can’t remember which book what you mentioned comes from but I had never considered that point about how it’s easy for the government to impose such rules since they don’t have to pay for it. It was either Sowell or Walter Williams who mentioned how the Pullman Train company didn’t want segregation for economic reasons since they didn’t want to have to build new train cars
"Intellectuals" never face consequences for being wrong.
Exhibit A: Fauci
twice now.
is that a for asshole which is on display?
That was Sowell, I want to say Discrimination and Disparities, which is a great read
Oh yea. I read that a while back but it was good. Next Sowell book I want to read is either Vision of the Annointed or Quest for Cosmic Justice. Also need to pre order his latest
Anointed is crazy accurate on how leftists view themselves
Both are absolutely fantastic. Sowell's work fit together like a puzzle piece.
Don't worry in the brave new world, the government will subsidy the new train cars required, so the corpos will have no doubt.
Naturally. Income tax at 99% will be for the best reasons.
They'll call it a green energy initiative. Perhaps the segregation will be based on social credit.
That is a fairly well-known story. The company in Louisiana supported the plaintiffs in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case because, as you say, they did not want separate rail cars limiting their profits.
I didn’t know those details until I read that book. Also didn’t know they purposely picked Plessy because he was mostly white
Same reason Rosa parks was picked. Because if they picked the usual people, segregation would still exist.
Jim Crow was government policy, absolutely.
I'm 95% with you, but I do think discriminating on the bases of race or gender should be illegal. None of this protected class or affirmative action crap, just 100% color blind ban on racial discrimination. The only thing that should be considered when hiring someone is whether they can do the job.
of course, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser, and so the accuser should be the person responsible for providing proof that they were discriminated on by race, and not just because they were not qualified.
Here’s the thing, it’s one case to say if the government itself is discriminating, it’s a whole different beast when we look at how the law is applied, don’t forget all the fake racism cases that have imploded over that sentiment and completely ruined lives simply because someone was offended
you touch on one of the other significant problems that needs to be addressed. a false accusation should bear a heavy penalty. I'm of the opinion that a false accusation should have the same consequence as that of the accused crime. if you lie about someone racially discriminating it against you in the workplace, and they can prove it, you should pay whatever fine that carries. the way I see it, this is the only way to prevent the law from being abused by average citizens.
Okay, what if someone holds the sincere belief that women or a particular race can't do the job as well as other applicants? Should they be forced to hire them anyway because that judgement is based on race or sex?
And even if that person does not believe that women or a particular race would perform worse, but they simply feel uncomfortable around them or have some personal belief that would be in conflict with hiring them, why should they be forced to? Isn't that tyrannical? Why should the government get to dictate acceptable hiring criteria to private business owners?