Cons of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Cons of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
When faced with pointing out the cons of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one may feel there aren’t many if any. Or maybe that it’s a justified contradiction to the first amendment, which from the U.S. Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 1964 Civil Rights act is just one of the many problems that arise from the civil rights act. When the Civil Rights Act was passed it permitted voting rights, injunctive relief against discrimination in public places, of public accommodation, desegregation in public places and public education, non discrimination in federally assisted programs, equal employment opportunity, and prohibited DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. After reviewing it is apparent that the 1964 Civil Right act takes away an individual’s rights while attempting to apply new ones. The United States was built on freedom; the Civil Rights act prohibits one with opposite beliefs to act freely. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find (abarent)abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. The Civil Rights act intensified segregation verses tearing down racial
When faced with pointing out the cons of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one may feel there aren’t many if any. Or maybe that it’s a justified contradiction to the first amendment, which from the U.S. Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 1964 Civil Rights act is just one of the many problems that arise from the civil rights act. When the Civil Rights Act was passed it permitted voting rights, injunctive relief against discrimination in public places, of public accommodation, desegregation in public places and public education, non discrimination in federally assisted programs, equal employment opportunity, and prohibited DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. After reviewing it is apparent that the 1964 Civil Right act takes away an individual’s rights while attempting to apply new ones. The United States was built on freedom; the Civil Rights act prohibits one with opposite beliefs to act freely. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find (abarent)abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. The Civil Rights act intensified segregation verses tearing down racial