Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964

message: "The South, which had started to vote increasingly Republican beginning in the 1930s"
Not true, FDR won Southern states overwhelmingly in Alabama he won 84.7% of the vote. The trend started in the 1920s but then there was a reversal in the 30s as it became moved more democratic again.
Should be changed to:
The South, which had begun to shift towards the Republicans in the 1920s
thoughts?---- A;ex 28/10/11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy.on.laptop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Repercussions 

message: Why do we have an entire section sourced to a David Frum book whose purpose is to argue that civil rights supporters were dastardly liars who tricked waverers into voting for a bill that allowed busing? john k (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busing 

message: [moved here from my talk page]
"Accepted" by whom? Anyone can say anything he likes about a non-existent landmark. It suits you to use a passive without an agent.
America is wallowing in post-war guilt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.33 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a google search of "landmark civil rights act" (with the quotes).  You will find that "landmark" is very frequently associated with "civil rights act." Justify your attempt to eliminate the term "landmark" -- blaming it on "post war guilt" is, at best, bizarre. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: North Shoreman is correct. Also, for example, look at the title of the first cited book: Wright, Susan (2005), "The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscrimination Legislation". Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accepted 

message: Found a typo in one of my edit summaries -- obviously it is Title VII, not Title VI, of the Act that prohibits employment discrimination (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin). Famspear (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title VII of the Act. 

message: There is a mistake in the phrase "President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party." it was actually President Kennedy. The following phrases make it clear: Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."
:Both President Kennedy and later President Johnson expressed the same fear that supporting civil rights would alienate white voters in the South and turn them against the Democratic Party. There are many quotes in many sources attesting to this. For example, in NY Times artice of July 2nd 1989: "Hours after he signed it [the Civil Rights Act], the President said to his press aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." Brucehartford (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken person 

message: >There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”.[47] Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”.[47] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.
I don't think this is NPOV. The guy's argument is a canonical libertarian line of argument, and representing it in the surrounding text as having an underlying ideological motivation other than that stated-- it just seems sketchy to me. & there's other stuff like this 2601:C:A200:7F8:644D:63B3:7245:882 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The blanket statement that the Civil Rights Act "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" is not entirely true. There are various contexts in which discrimination on these bases is legal. For instance, in casting parts for performance arts. Also, religious institutions have some leeway to legally discriminate in hiring based on religion. Et cetera.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.230.113 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions 

message: I made a small change to the first paragraph, as while the 11 states that made up the Southern Caucus also a century before also made up the CSA, it is to the Southern Caucus that historians cite in opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and not the CSA. Dubyavee (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  By Party and Region 

message: There is a photo on the page of the two Civil Rights leaders meeting and it says that this is the only time they met … I am pretty sure they debated on television at least once. So I worry that the caption is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.236.44 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLK and Malcolm X 

message: The Equality Act should be mentioned in the Amendments section, since it is a proposed amendment to CRA '64 and readers may come here looking for it if they don't know the name of the bill.   Pariah24  ┃ ☏   01:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Equality Act

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206191323/http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm to http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613010952/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/38.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/38.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012121716/http://www.abbeville.com/civilrights/washington.asp to http://www.abbeville.com/civilrights/washington.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110160304/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/39.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/39.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611210620/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640702.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640702.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would the 1964 Civil Rights Act not also invoke the 19th Amendment? Sion8 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  “and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.” just the 15th Amendment? 

message: from history, Sen (SC) Strom Thurmond gave the longest filibuster for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, spanning little over 24 hours. In the article, this can be highlighted to show the immense opposition to Civil Rights Acts in American history. Thurmond was mentioned by name in the article, so this blurb of information would add to content.
LLUCZEK (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not here, because that was in relation to the 1957 Act, not the 1964 Act and the opposition to the 1964 Act is covered herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be added? 

message: The Senate Historical Office and The Center for Legislative Archives both say that the filibuster lasted 60 days, not 54, as stated. This may be accounted for by the Senate having sessions on Saturdays, which the 54-day count may have missed.
However, in Political repercussions it says that there was an 83-day filibuster, for which I appear to be unable to find a source.
== Peter NYC (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filibuster: 54, 60 or 83 days? 

message: Are quotes from a couple reality TV actors relevant in LGBT civil rights? I agree the Equality Act should be mentioned in some form, but I don't why quotes from a couple D-list celebrities are used, even if they are LGBT. 137.99.142.6 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.--—indopug (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queer Eye" actors relevancy 

message: Has 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis affected the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I've seen some discussion that it has, but would like to be given confirmation before adding it to the article. Bill3602 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has ''303 Creative LLC v. Elenis'' affected the act?