ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Activism

Civil Rights Act of 1964-Title VII

Updated on May 15, 2016

Why it Was Enacted

During a period of time in society, it(society) promoted and applauded racial inequality. At that time, there were no laws outlining what would protect the then Negro race rights from enduring the inhumane, and cruel discrimination that allowed degradation of a human people based upon the visual observance of the color of their skin.

Many would argue that this Civil Rights Act was based upon a small majorities of people who were simply sympathetic to the alleged plight of the then Negro race, and that such sympathies didn't embody the US as a whole. In 2016, there are people who are intent upon degrading what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 embodied. In Title VII of this Act outlines that it pertains to a person-meaning an individual or entity, something that has a physical attribute. Below is a short explanation of what this Act was created for.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").wikipedia

With this being said, of course I would want to address the present issue in society today, whom of which, intends to hijack the true purpose of this Act. There's too much at stake here to let this opportunity pass by without presenting to the public the reasoning the Civil Rights Act was enacted.

Dr. Martin Luther King giving his "I Have a Dream" speech on 28 August 1963.
Dr. Martin Luther King giving his "I Have a Dream" speech on 28 August 1963. | Source

Explaining it!

Use of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to obtain a individual or groups desire or affirmation by putting pressure on an individual, group, or entity is clearly unethical, pretentious, and illegal.

In the Act, it pertains to a person, and the definition of a person is a human being regarded as a individual. As a individual, I must therefore be able to observe that you are a living, breathing, walking, talking, being with blood flowing through your veins to determine if you are indeed a human and an individual. The key word here is, observe-see with the naked eye. If I observe(see) your physicality to be among one or more, or all of the characteristics mentioned in the Act of 1964, and I proceed to deny you or a group the rights given unto you by the law, then it should be determined that I'm attempting to display a discriminatory stance against you or a group.

The physicalities outlined(race, color, religion,sex, and national origin) can not be misinterpreted or expanded beyond what it clearly states in order to provoke a consensus of cacophony among the opinion of the majority. The determination of sex is attributed to male or female, and doesn't include what a person may think or envision in their mind, or display on their body to be a precursor for inclusion into these classifications.

Thankfully there appeared a tired and worn out people who refused to to sit around and continue accepting this type of treatment, that was clearly a violation to their inalienable right to enjoy the same privileges as other Americans enjoyed without fear of repercussions and harmful threats, being willing to endure the most degrading treatment a human beings should not have to encounter.

What's the Equation

The above article states that North Carolina has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, concerning a new law it has enacted prohibiting the rights of the transgender community to have access to a bathroom, and in doing so, is at risk of losing millions in federal funds if it doesn't rectify these violations.

Quoting from the article in the NY Times, "The state measure, House Bill 2, known as HB2, was signed into law in March and says the bathroom a person uses is determined by his or her biological gender at birth. That requirement “is facially discriminatory against transgender employees” because it treats them differently from other employees, Ms. Gupta wrote."

It is impossible for one to agree that this House Bill 2 in any way prohibits one's ability to access adequate restroom facilities. The opponents admit that HB2 is facially discriminatory meaning superficial, or on the surface it appears/look to be discriminatory. There are many things that appear on the surface to be discriminatory, but within a due diligent process, the determination must be fully and unequivocally proven. There has to be to definitive outlining, and/or correlation of how this pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Caution must be exhibited concerning this Bill because it shall set a precedence for future laws surrounding issue similar to this.

As with any media outlet reporting any story of substance, or lack thereof, the American public must learn to seek out the underlying meaning to what these outlets are attempting to sway opinions either to the left or right, or to report as fact using very ingenious catch phrases knowing that the American public can sometimes be superficial when tuning in to world events. It's all about spiking readership. This is no time to get caught sleeping America. Wake-up!!


We the People!!

It has become vitally important in 2016 that, We The People, Of the United States of America, come together and let our voices be heard, and remove any person/s who with their private interpretations would threaten the very fiber of our Constitution. Our government was created by the people, and for the people as a protective measure to ensure that our government could not force upon the people laws that would suppress the people's rights to live in peace and harmony. And, one particular group or entity could force upon the majority any requirements of conduct. When I was in elementary school we were taught about voting and were told that the outcome would be determined by the majority. When a society with intelligent beings decide it no longer want to play by the rules set forth by its' ancestral establishment, either in times past or present, that society shall cease to exist as a productive, and democratically run society. When the righteous rule the people rejoice, but when evil people rule, the people grumble, and are discontent. Everyone should be encouraged to voice your opinion in this clear cut violation in the use of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do you think by maintaining that the American people continue to use gender specific bathrooms violate a civil right/

See results

How do you think this situation can be resolved?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.