Discrimination as to who can use your services, or buy your goods, should be your right as a business owner. Of course, as others have pointed out, you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot if you're too heavy-handed about it. Forcing people to mingle based on some sense of "promoting diversity" is one of the silliest things that has ever happened to the world. If we are to promote diversity, then why stop at color (or, well, perceived color... there's a big group of "tan people" that the world seems to forget about in its rush to mend fences between "blacks" and "whites"...)?
Why not make sure that schools are representative of gender ratios in the community? In fact, why not make the classes in those schools precisely color/gender/religion/height/weight representative? Diversity was touted to help us learn from one another, so the argument could be made that inclusion of both obese and non-obese students in every class would help the obese ones learn healthy habits, and the non-obese ones might learn to be more sensitive to people "of size"
Doesn't it get silly, the further you go into it?
Now, the Civil Rights movement did intersect with a lot of violence directed at people based on the color of their skin (or their family's skin, if the two didn't entirely match). This doesn't require new laws, or a new Act. This simply requires that the laws on the books be applied without prejudice. If an assault occurs, it should not matter whether the victim is white or black, nor if the guilty party is white or black. The law's already there.
I would have supported the Civil Rights Act if that had been the scope of the entire thing (a symbolic piece of legislation ensuring that the existing laws apply to everyone). To that effect, Title I. is okay. Title II. is silly, though it allowed for exemptions for "private" businesses (which is probably how that golf course mentioned earlier got by). Title III. makes some sense in that, without it, I'm not sure whether or not someone could be brought up on charges and then denied access to the courtroom where their case was being heard, or similar things along those lines. Title IV. had a place at the time... I guess... but I don't see the point of it. I have been to schools with extremely varied levels of "diversity" and the real differences were seen when you factored in economics and parental involvement, not skin color.
Title V. is just bad, because the Government doesn't need to grow. Title VI. makes sense in that, if you're going to accept money from a source, the source has the right to put restrictions and conditions on it, in my opinion. If you're going to accept Government money, then they can wag their finger at you and tell you not to discriminate. The obvious solution is to just not accept Government money.
Title VII. is the most insulting on various levels. First off, as discussed, an employer should be able to do what they like with very little restriction. If that means they want to hire only smooth-skinned black girls with big boobs and open a place called "The Chocolate Bar" or something, they should be able to. The second reason Title VII. is stupid is that when it was originally enacted, the Federal Government was exempt! Lastly, this section created lots of departments to police employers and, again, extra Government sucks.
Title VIII.... I don't remember learning much about this one. Anything that compiles data for the Government, though, always makes me paranoid.
Title IX. seems redundant, and outdated. It seems like it could be abused to high heaven nowadays.
Title X., again, seems redundant as "private" organizations (even though I dislike them) sprang up to serve this role of representation anyhow.
* * *
Overall, this doesn't strike me as a great piece of legislation. It's just another thing people are taught to love, even though it's a long list of things to treat symptoms rather than the disease. Make people equal under the law, and all the rest of it really becomes redundant at best... dangerous at worst.
