PDA

View Full Version : Civil Rights Act of 1964



ConHog
06-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Parts of this Act are patently unconstitutional

Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I think we can all agree that the fourth amendment guarantees us privacy in all our own affects. Would you stand for the government barging into your business and rifling through your cabinets? Then why do we stand for the government barging in our businesses and demanding that we serve people we may not want to serve?

Title VI

Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

General

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Title VII

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2[34]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[35]

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business," and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[36]

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Federally recognized Native American tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4[34]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Where a state law is contradicted by a federal law, is it overridden.[37] Every state, except Arkansas and Mississippi, maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)).

In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[38] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).


Once again, where does the government get the authority to dictate how I conduct business? No employee HAS to remain at a place that discriminates.

Title IX

Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who could not get a fair trial in state courts.

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities.


A blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees a person a trial in the jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred.

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 02:03 PM
Interesting that you are against the government taking steps to ensure equality and equal protections, but stand on the other side of the fence when the same theories are applied to, for example, gay marriage. Can't have it both ways.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 02:09 PM
Interesting that you are against the government taking steps to ensure equality and equal protections, but stand on the other side of the fence when the same theories are applied to, for example, gay marriage. Can't have it both ways.

incorrect Jim. I am for equal protection.

A black racist should be able to hang a sign outside his restaurant that says "no crackers" just the same as a white racist should be able to hang a sign outside his that says "no niggers"

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 02:13 PM
incorrect Jim. I am for equal protection.

A black racist should be able to hang a sign outside his restaurant that says "no crackers" just the same as a white racist should be able to hang a sign outside his that says "no niggers"

That's akin to me saying gay men are entitle to marry women and gay women are entitle to marry men. Equal protection.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 02:17 PM
That's akin to me saying gay men are entitle to marry women and gay women are entitle to marry men. Equal protection.

Not quite see in THIS scenario a black man can CHOOSE to serve whites if he wishes, while in your scenario a man can NOT choose to marry another man.

Do you see that in either case I support the right to choose free of government intervention, while in each case YOU support the government telling you what you can and can not do? I thought you were all about small government Jim?

OCA
06-06-2012, 02:18 PM
incorrect Jim. I am for equal protection.

A black racist should be able to hang a sign outside his restaurant that says "no crackers" just the same as a white racist should be able to hang a sign outside his that says "no niggers"

What a eautiful country you want.

You are exactly the type of person they had in mind when this was written and passed.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 02:20 PM
What a eautiful country you want.

You are exactly the type of person they had in mind when this was written and passed.

More flame crap from you because you incapable of straight debate.

Jim can we have ONE thread that I am posting in lately without OCA turning it into a flame fest. Thanks

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 02:21 PM
Not quite see in THIS scenario a black man can CHOOSE to serve whites if he wishes, while in your scenario a man can NOT choose to marry another man.

Do you see that in either case I support the right to choose free of government intervention, while in each case YOU support the government telling you what you can and can not do? I thought you were all about small government Jim?

Having laws against certain things that might be bad for society is hardly big government.

OCA
06-06-2012, 02:25 PM
More flame crap from you because you incapable of straight debate.

Jim can we have ONE thread that I am posting in lately without OCA turning it into a flame fest. Thanks

How is that a flame? You skin is thin, rice paper thin.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:27 PM
How is that a flame? You skin is thin, rice paper thin.

I figured out early on that someone needs to nip you in the bud.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:28 PM
Having laws against certain things that might be bad for society is hardly big government.

How pray tell is allowing someoene to do what they want with THEIR business bad for society? Oh, PS why then are you against something like a smoking ban in Central Park when we have irrefutable scientific evidence that smoking affects more than just the smoker?

gabosaurus
06-06-2012, 03:32 PM
There have been attacks on the Civil Rights Act since it was passed. I am guessing that quite a few Anglo Americans would prefer the return of slavery and second class citizenship for blacks.

Some have even pointed out that this country was founded by and for wealthy and powerful white men. No one else had a say in the matter.

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 03:35 PM
How pray tell is allowing someoene to do what they want with THEIR business bad for society? Oh, PS why then are you against something like a smoking ban in Central Park when we have irrefutable scientific evidence that smoking affects more than just the smoker?

You said I was a fan of big government because of my stances, and I was simply pointing out that if laws were passed to "protect marriage", that this was hardly big government. It would be another law, that's it.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:37 PM
There have been attacks on the Civil Rights Act since it was passed. I am guessing that quite a few Anglo Americans would prefer the return of slavery and second class citizenship for blacks.

Some have even pointed out that this country was founded by and for wealthy and powerful white men. No one else had a say in the matter.

What a crock of shit. I'm sure there are SOME who oppose the CRA because they want whitey to be on top , but that has nothing to do with my argument that the portions of the CRA telling me what I may or may not do with my own business are unconstitutional.

On a side note Gabby, even though you're a minority (female) I would gladly let you be on top any time you want. :D

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:39 PM
You said I was a fan of big government because of my stances, and I was simply pointing out that if laws were passed to "protect marriage", that this was hardly big government. It would be another law, that's it.

Correct, and what is government made of if not laws? Take Obamacare for example. what is it other than a law and yet there is no argument that it is expanding government. Therefor wanting more laws = wanting bigger government no matter what those laws are for. Now of course in SOME cases we just have to live with bigger government; because those things are neccesary; but when those things violate the COTUS that should trump all.

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 03:42 PM
Correct, and what is government made of if not laws? Take Obamacare for example. what is it other than a law and yet there is no argument that it is expanding government. Therefor wanting more laws = wanting bigger government no matter what those laws are for. Now of course in SOME cases we just have to live with bigger government; because those things are neccesary; but when those things violate the COTUS that should trump all.

There's a LOT more to government that just laws, a LOT LOT more. If I would like a law to prevent 300lb men from wearing Speedo's to the beach, or any men for that fact, that means I like big government? Nope. I think limited government is what I would like, as it does have it's purposes.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:45 PM
There's a LOT more to government that just laws, a LOT LOT more. If I would like a law to prevent 300lb men from wearing Speedo's to the beach, or any men for that fact, that means I like big government? Nope. I think limited government is what I would like, as it does have it's purposes.

No matter how you argue it Jim wanting more laws = wanting bigger government. IF you wanted to shrink the government you would want to get rid of every useless piece of shit law you could find on the books. Because for every law the government feels the need to create an entire bureaucracy aimed at catching "criminals."

For all the talk about the money the government has wasted on the war on drugs , how much have they wasted prosecuting people for violations of Title II of the CRA?

jimnyc
06-06-2012, 03:49 PM
No matter how you argue it Jim wanting more laws = wanting bigger government. IF you wanted to shrink the government you would want to get rid of every useless piece of shit law you could find on the books. Because for every law the government feels the need to create an entire bureaucracy aimed at catching "criminals."

For all the talk about the money the government has wasted on the war on drugs , how much have they wasted prosecuting people for violations of Title II of the CRA?

If you want to turn me preferring a law banning gay marriage to mean I want an increased government, so be it. For the one law I would want in place I could probably come up with 1,000 I would love to see repealed. So your argument is null and avoid when looking at the big picture.

OCA
06-06-2012, 03:50 PM
I figured out early on that someone needs to nip you in the bud.

Guess that someone is going to have to be someone other than you, your not man enough for the task.

ConHog
06-06-2012, 03:51 PM
If you want to turn me preferring a law banning gay marriage to mean I want an increased government, so be it. For the one law I would want in place I could probably come up with 1,000 I would love to see repealed. So your argument is null and avoid when looking at the big picture.


I'm not talking about the big picture, I'm talking about this ONE law; and only using the "big government" stick as hyperbole anyway.:2up:

fj1200
06-07-2012, 12:39 AM
Interesting that you are against the government taking steps to ensure equality and equal protections, but stand on the other side of the fence when the same theories are applied to, for example, gay marriage. Can't have it both ways.

Adding sexual orientation to Title VII would also be an interesting thread. Against that one BTW.

fj1200
06-07-2012, 01:35 AM
Parts of this Act are patently unconstitutional

Apparently not. :slap:


I think we can all agree that the fourth amendment guarantees us privacy in all our own affects. Would you stand for the government barging into your business and rifling through your cabinets? Then why do we stand for the government barging in our businesses and demanding that we serve people we may not want to serve?

Not originally:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html


A blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees a person a trial in the jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred.

No.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You have the right to those things but you are not required to have those things. The problem was that there was no chance for an impartial jury in certain jurisdictions so moving it was the only option for being fairly tried or even tried at all due to collusion.


Once again, where does the government get the authority to dictate how I conduct business? No employee HAS to remain at a place that discriminates.

This is the tricky one. At the time blacks were not receiving equal protection under the laws and had no power by which to gain equality. I think when a business owner is actively trying to keep blacks from achieving equality and economic status they are in effect denying them liberty and property.

I will agree with you that in a perfect world, the CRA is no longer needed and should be repealed but the public isn't anywhere close to that. The judicial extensions beyond the CRA are a different story.

logroller
06-07-2012, 01:49 AM
There's a LOT more to government that just laws, a LOT LOT more. If I would like a law to prevent 300lb men from wearing Speedo's to the beach, or any men for that fact, that means I like big government? Nope. I think limited government is what I would like, as it does have it's purposes.
So you wanna see naked men at the beach...not big govt, just big naked non-smoking men. :poke::laugh2: (

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 10:38 AM
Adding sexual orientation to Title VII would also be an interesting thread. Against that one BTW.

Maybe not Title 7, but there's already 20 states that prohibit discrimination of sexual orientation at the state level. I think that's crap too. And there's at least one state that prohibits it against fat people! :lol:

fj1200
06-07-2012, 11:21 AM
Maybe not Title 7, but there's already 20 states that prohibit discrimination of sexual orientation at the state level. I think that's crap too. And there's at least one state that prohibits it against fat people! :lol:

Which is not a constitutional question but there are also scads of companies that do the same.

gabosaurus
06-07-2012, 11:35 AM
So you wanna see naked men at the beach... (

Nah, there will be TSA style screening at the beach. Only men meeting specific requirements will be allowed to go naked. Others will be have to wear a shirt. Men over 50 or exceeding certain weight and girth regulations will be required to wear a burqa. :cool:

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 12:09 PM
Which is not a constitutional question but there are also scads of companies that do the same.

Unless of course you're a company not wanting to hire gay people, and to an extent are "forced" to, or couldn't fire based on it if you found out - you might feel the law/protection is unconstitutional.

fj1200
06-07-2012, 12:17 PM
Unless of course you're a company not wanting to hire gay people, and to an extent are "forced" to, or couldn't fire based on it if you found out - you might feel the law/protection is unconstitutional.

I was just referring to the states having more flexibility than the Feds Constitutionally speaking. I think I could make a good argument that you wouldn't be able to fire someone because they're gay even without protections based on contract theory, of course we've gone around and around on that before.

ConHog
06-07-2012, 12:50 PM
I was just referring to the states having more flexibility than the Feds Constitutionally speaking. I think I could make a good argument that you wouldn't be able to fire someone because they're gay even without protections based on contract theory, of course we've gone around and around on that before.

Assuming they are contracted employees of course. Most employees are not though, they are at will employees.

Kathianne
06-07-2012, 01:52 PM
Assuming they are contracted employees of course. Most employees are not though, they are at will employees.

hmmm,

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/at_will.html

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/careereducation/l/aa092402_3.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/at-will-employment-overview.aspx

fj1200
06-07-2012, 01:59 PM
Assuming they are contracted employees of course. Most employees are not though, they are at will employees.

You overstate at-will. If their handbook spells out disciplinary procedures they had better follow them.

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 02:21 PM
Assuming they are contracted employees of course. Most employees are not though, they are at will employees.

Still protected by most laws. In fact, it's the "at will" employees that get the most protection from the feds and states.

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 02:23 PM
You overstate at-will. If their handbook spells out disciplinary procedures they had better follow them.

Don't make me fight you on this one again!!! :lol: So long as they make it clear that the HB is for guidelines only, and doesn't rise to a contract, it isn't, and the overwhelming majority of courts that have stepped in agree. Yes, it's wise to follow the HB, for loads of reasons - but it's hardly the "golden rule" or a contract.

fj1200
06-07-2012, 02:29 PM
Don't make me fight you on this one again!!! :lol: So long as they make it clear that the HB is for guidelines only, and doesn't rise to a contract, it isn't, and the overwhelming majority of courts that have stepped in agree. Yes, it's wise to follow the HB, for loads of reasons - but it's hardly the "golden rule" or a contract.

I won't but... :slap: suffice it to say at-will is not what it's perceived to be. :)

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 02:38 PM
I won't but... :slap: suffice it to say at-will is not what it's perceived to be. :)

I hate you! LOL

But yes, at will isn't a green light for employers to shit on employees.

ConHog
06-07-2012, 03:03 PM
You overstate at-will. If their handbook spells out disciplinary procedures they had better follow them.

You're correct , my bad I over looked the fact that an employee handbook is for all intents and purposes a contract.

jimnyc
06-07-2012, 03:35 PM
You're correct , my bad I over looked the fact that an employee handbook is for all intents and purposes a contract.

The opposite - probably 99% of handbooks do not make a contract. It CAN, but they very, very, very rarely do. AND, since a few have been ruled a HB in the past, all most employers need do now I simply state that the HB is NOT a contract, for guideline purposes only, as a reference, and that more or less guarantees that it can't be perceived as a contract.