4 ms·

good luck to the people who want it back, it's an uphill battle from here. next up on the chopping block: hiring

beaglesss 2y ago
Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones to actually nix it.
- matrix87 2y ago
  this scotus has the political orientation needed to do something like that OTOH, it flies in the face of the classic conservative "letting corporations do whatever they want" attitude, so it might be a mixed bag
- underseacables 2y ago
  That is blatantly asinine. Are you saying that a hotel should be able to discriminate against someone based on their race?
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    In intrastate commerce I see no reason how the feds can constitutionally stop them.
    - underseacables 2y ago
      Banking. Money crosses state lines which makes it fair game under the commerce clause. There's only 50+ years of court cases on the subject.
      - hackeraccount 2y ago
        By that logic is there anything that the Federal government can't regulate? If that's the case why is the commerce clause in the Constitution at all?
      - beaglesss 2y ago
        Yes under the commerce clause in recent history has been interpreted to mean interstate commerce is something as simple as growing a weed plant on your own land and smoking it. The precious CRA is an oft cited law as to why we need expansive interpretation of that clause (as without it CRA as we know it would be finished), the sooner SCOTUS crushes the CRA the sooner we can finally crush the rest of the civil rights violating overreaches of the prior commerce clause interpretations.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Discrimination based on race has been strictly prohibited since 1964 and the United States based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Allegedly.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  The CRA explicitly allows discrimination of say off res private businesses in favor of employing Indians, but not say in favor of blacks near historically black neighborhoods. The CRA itself is quite racist, and not only that is used to hold the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause hostage.

Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones to actually nix it.

matrix87 2y ago
this scotus has the political orientation needed to do something like that OTOH, it flies in the face of the classic conservative "letting corporations do whatever they want" attitude, so it might be a mixed bag
underseacables 2y ago
That is blatantly asinine. Are you saying that a hotel should be able to discriminate against someone based on their race?
- beaglesss 2y ago
  In intrastate commerce I see no reason how the feds can constitutionally stop them.
  - underseacables 2y ago
    Banking. Money crosses state lines which makes it fair game under the commerce clause. There's only 50+ years of court cases on the subject.
    - hackeraccount 2y ago
      By that logic is there anything that the Federal government can't regulate? If that's the case why is the commerce clause in the Constitution at all?
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      Yes under the commerce clause in recent history has been interpreted to mean interstate commerce is something as simple as growing a weed plant on your own land and smoking it. The precious CRA is an oft cited law as to why we need expansive interpretation of that clause (as without it CRA as we know it would be finished), the sooner SCOTUS crushes the CRA the sooner we can finally crush the rest of the civil rights violating overreaches of the prior commerce clause interpretations.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Discrimination based on race has been strictly prohibited since 1964 and the United States based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Allegedly.

beaglesss 2y ago
The CRA explicitly allows discrimination of say off res private businesses in favor of employing Indians, but not say in favor of blacks near historically black neighborhoods. The CRA itself is quite racist, and not only that is used to hold the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause hostage.