Civil Rights Act of 1964

[jimnyc]

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]

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]

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 For the one law I would want in place I could probably come up with 1,000 I would love to see repealed.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]

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]

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.

[fj1200]

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]

Parts of this Act are patently unconstitutional

Apparently not.

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/project...ofprivacy.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]

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. (

[jimnyc]

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!

[fj1200]

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!

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

[gabosaurus]

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.

[jimnyc]

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]

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]

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]

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

hmmm,

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/emp...t/at_will.html

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/ca...aa092402_3.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...-overview.aspx