Before you start accusing people of posting in bad faith, it would behoove you to read the thread. From the OP:
If you have a problem with discussing reparations in the context of slavery, take it up with the OP, or, better yet, the congressional subcommittee.
If you want to have a more general discussion on here about reparations, that’s fine by me. We should start by addressing the reparations that the federal government has already put in place, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the Civil Right Act of 1991, section 1981, affirmative action in government employment and contracting, etc., etc., etc. The list of laws designed, not only to stop de jure and de facto discrimination, but to positively advantage African Americans since the Civil Rights movement goes on and on.
Or are you just talking about stroking a check to people based on the color of their skin?
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
Our constitution enumerates federal governmental powers, and the bill of rights and the 14th amendment set forth limitations on federal and state governmental power. The constitution does not set forth any prohibitions on private actions. That’s what laws are for.
So, no. The constitution can, does, and should prohibit governmental discrimination, but it should not prohibit private discrimination.
Our constitution enumerates federal governmental powers, and the bill of rights and the 14th amendment set forth limitations on federal and state governmental power. The constitution does not set forth any prohibitions on private actions. That’s what laws are for.
So, no. The constitution can, does, and should prohibit governmental discrimination, but it should not prohibit private discrimination.
Under the constitution, private actors, including businesses, have the absolute freedom to discriminate against employees, customers, or anyone else on any basis and in any way they wish. The constitution simply doesn’t apply against private actors.
You really are this dumb, aren’t you?
Correct, but my “belief” has nothing to do with it. It’s the way the constitution works. This is about as fundamental as it gets.
What a stupid post. You don’t think affirmative action, for example, advantages minorities? And, yes, Title VII’s protections, for example, are phrased in terms of “race” and not “African Americans,” but considering the proportion of white to black owned businesses, do you not think it disproportionately protects black people from discrimination? Being free from discrimination in employment, housing, etc., by the way, isn’t a constitutional right.
So, all those laws preventing racial discrimination in employment are unconstitutional?
You really are this dumb, aren’t you?
How could you possibly conclude that based on what I have said? I mean, what the actual fuck?
The fact that the constitution does not prohibit private discrimination does not mean that it forbids governments from enacting laws that prohibit private discrimination.
How can Wake grads be this dumb? Maybe I’m overestimating what an average Wake grad is capable of grasping, but this feels like high school level Con Law.
It prevents people from discriminating against you?
I’m just spitballing here.
It’s not just a leap of logic; it’s a total non-sequitur.
The constitution does not apply to private actors, so it necessarily does not prohibit private discrimination. But that is completely unrelated to the question of whether the constitution empowers congress to enact laws that prohibit private discrimination. And, of course it does. There are two provisions that are commonly invoked as justification for anti-discrimination laws: the commerce clause and section 5 of the 14th amendment. The commerce clause allows regulation of discrimination in commerce, which would include things like employment, hotel accommodations, etc., and section 5 allows congress to enact laws regulating private actors, including prohibiting discrimination, so long as the remedy is congruent and proportional to the harm.
I really can’t fathom how you could read my prior posts and think I was saying the government can’t pass laws prohibiting private discrimination.
You mean like this one?