Many businesses pushed back against the state laws saying they had to segregate too.

You don't correct government overreach with more government overreach.

And remember the part about "didn't want to live under a tyrant", the federal government had to find a way to prohibit discrimination, but do it in a way that I'm sure the local businesses considered tyranical

They fought tyranny with more tyranny, and it's had major consequences

So they went back to the constitution, and found a section called "the commerce clause" that regulated interstate business, and interpreted that to mean that discrimination in public accommodations was related to the trade between the sates

And of course, it was fought then, lots of people tried to make lots of arguments against it. But that's why you don't see those signs in the windows of American businesses today

The courts created a bad precedent for more tyranny.

@Rils yes they did

The courts had also previously found Separate but Equal to be constitutional

I don't like to rely on the courts for legislation

It's not a great system

It's just better than all the others

Judging by the reaction today to the power of SCOTUS, I'm not quite sure

Amend the Constitution if you want to clarify the powers of the Fed, don't have SCOTUS make up new definitions that aren't there.

I once heard my father (this was like 20 years ago) wonder aloud what would happen if the President directly acted against a ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say it's a constitutional question that's not come up in 200+ years

What would happen is impeachment.

But SCOTUS doesn't have the absolute power to order POTUS to do anything

@Rils you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but how old are you?

I'll be 30 in a month

Do you think the better system would be to put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a new constitutional amendment?

Also, Discord etiquette, you don't need to keep pinging me unless it looks like I've wandered away.

Oh sorry, today is literally the most time I've ever spent on Discord. I walked away from online chatting in 2003

I think for the most part, the Civil Rights Act was a step in the right direction

It was the means by which they enforced it that may have been a necessary evil, I'm not fully sure how I feel about that part.

Agreed

At this point, I feel like we could have an amendment like it to the constitution pass, and that would be for the best

I don't think it's necessary anymore

I don't think they can enforce morality forever.

I would like to see it done, just so we don't have to rely on the commerce clause anymore. And add "sexual orientation" while we are at it

Interesting, I hadn't considered morals

morality debate still

jeez

lets debate god or something fun

i need inspiration lmao

It's government enforcement of morals via the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I like to think of the laws as there to guarantee our freedoms, and a law that prohibits someone from discriminating against me for something I cannot control as a way to guarantee more freedoms for more people

My concern is, what about that someone's freedom to associate?

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) what about eye for an eye

You're taking away that person's freedoms to make you more comfortable.

so someone kills one of your people

so you kill one of their people