I never mentioned civil rights in my post… so don’t expect to be able to answer my remarks at such a pedestrian level.

Either laws violate the rights of the individual or they do not.

Are you saying that it was impossible to write a “civil rights act” in 1964 that did NOT violate the rights of the people?

I think it is easy to show that such an idea is silly… just delete all portions that violate the rights of the people. Leave the rest.

You still get your law, minus the offending bits.

You may argue that it would be less effective… but plantation owners would have argued the same thing with respect to cotton production… in favor of slavery law.

Is it too much to ask that solutions be found that don’t violate people?

Finally, the effectiveness itself is dubious.

Example: With regard to the Jim Crow-esk rules of the mainstream media that segregate conservatives in media… would you support laws that require that media companies hire conservatives?

I don’t. Because it created a MASSIVE vacuum that Fox News filled overnight.

For every business that was forced to allow blacks “in”, it produced people that REALLY HATED BLACKS for it. In other words, it grew hatred.

Also, it prevented an explosion of black run business… akin to the Fox news example.

So apart from generating hatred and killing business opportunity… the CRA’64 was awesome. (good parts and bad)