Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
As far as protection against Employment discrimination, the civil rights act would be dead on and exactly what it should do. voting rights, public education, and anything else under the jurisdiction of a government body should have been handled by the Amendments and not the CR act.
|
Discrimination in voting rights or education can be shown to tangibly abridge the privileges of US citizens. It is much more difficult to make that argument for separate public drinking fountains that provide the same water. One could argue that having separate public drinking fountains abridges the rights of black citizens by disallowing use of white drinking fountains that are otherwise public, but the same argument could then be made for public restrooms, and I don't see anyone rushing to convert everything to unisex restrooms because gendered restrooms keep the sexes "separate but equal." Furthermore, to bring this discussion back to the context in which I brought it up, if separate drinking fountains are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, than denying same-sex marriage, or even creating a separate mechanism for it, would be unconstitutional for the same reason. Personally, I'm happy to accept this interpretation, even with its demand for unisex bathrooms, but I don't think it's what was intended. I happily support the idea of a living constitution, but I've gotten a different impression from you. Maybe I was wrong.