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

laws can beimmoral

An eye for an eye is not United States law, and I'm ill equipped to debate anything else

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) ok but the us law is based upon that

Of course, you can't control how you look, but that person's thoughts and heart can be changed, but not at the end of the barrel of a gun.

it goes back to ancient times the eye for an eye shit

While I think it's admirable to force people to not discriminate, I don't think it's ultimately a social good to force people to cooperate.

you are better off with out laws we have now , but a new system of rule inside the digital age

It might be based on that, but like Rils and I were saying earlier, it's better to go by whats in the law now, instead of trying to manipulate the law into what you think it should be

for example decentralized control, concensus, arbitors

And also I don't think an eye for eye is the correct way to go through life. Context matters after all

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) and the way the laws are made mostly is by corrupting vote rigging

so if that action is immoral

are the laws moral

we can do down lots of these slippery slopes

for example the law for marijauna prohibition

causes harm and damage to people and eocnomy as result to people