Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Civil Rights Act of 1964

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475725

    Default

    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.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    9,133
    Thanks (Given)
    71
    Thanks (Received)
    58
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OCA View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    9,133
    Thanks (Given)
    71
    Thanks (Received)
    58
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OCA View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306080

    Default

    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums