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to say ‘no blacks allowed’ in certain businesses, I’m genuinely curious what else is in there that should make it get repealed?
I personally would like it not repealed mainly because I would be personally affected by said policy obviously, but I’m curious in the reasons outside of just that, if y’all have reasons other than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.
I won't go into it, as I see a bunch of other responses that probably already covered it...but what I will say is...even some of the people who passed the damn thing openly said it was a necessary evil, and should be done away with at some point. Basically, it's anti-liberty. It treads on freedom of association/assembly, as well as opinion/speech. If the government can't tell me I have to have a black friend, for example, why should they be able to tell me I have to serve a black customer.
Uh. Not 1488 here. I still say people should be able to say "no X allowed," because I don't think it's any of the government's business.
Say I own property. I'm not obliged to let anyone in. But if I put up an "OPEN" sign, suddenly I'm obliged to let everyone in. But can "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...unless I say I'm refusing you because of your skin color? It's absolutely retarded.
It's not about being pro-racism. It's about being pro-freedom.
Plus, I think in the modern society, it's redundant anyway. We don't need the Civil Rights Act. Any business that actually said "no blacks allowed" would just be hurting themselves. But I support their right to do that.
How so? What do you think would happen?
If the law actually worked and anyone "protesting" the rules got a wood shampoo and a disturbing the peace citation, then those businesses would thrive.