Tweet
I was thinking this in relation to the ability of property owners to discriminate on who it's clientel is in an overt way:
In times of segregation property owners were able to prohibit blacks from entering their establishments and this was their right as property owners.
Around comes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specificly Title II
Now is the Civil Rights Act the biggest blow to personal property rights ever? The effect is you don't have the right to discriminate and all peoples have the right to patronize your public establishment.
Will some people argue that while the intent is in the right place, the actual exsistence of a law prohibiting it is bad and infringes on a fundamental right?
Will some people argue that we have fundamental rights to be treated equally and this is why this law was established?
And what is the mostly correct answer?
Imran, Berzerker, Drake, Diety Dude, Im calling you!
In times of segregation property owners were able to prohibit blacks from entering their establishments and this was their right as property owners.
Around comes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specificly Title II
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
Will some people argue that while the intent is in the right place, the actual exsistence of a law prohibiting it is bad and infringes on a fundamental right?
Will some people argue that we have fundamental rights to be treated equally and this is why this law was established?
And what is the mostly correct answer?
Imran, Berzerker, Drake, Diety Dude, Im calling you!
Comment