Message from @Rils
Discord ID: 463199276642861059
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
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
laws can beimmoral
An eye for an eye is not United States law, and I'm ill equipped to debate anything else