I didn't suggest that the two are necessarily in opposition. I merely posited a case where they were, which you cannot prove could not arise, and asked how you would deal with it. Obviously, you prefer not to answer. Okay.
The primary achievement of the civil rights movement was to cast off practices that supported segregation, not only Jim Crow laws, but practices hallowed by custom. That is why it was important to forbid discrimination in public accommodations, for example. You cannot detach the movement from its actual accomplishments.
There is little to be done if the local majority is intent on informally enforcing a regime of racial subordination accept to force them not to at a higher level of government. That means, for example, that property rights cannot be held to be absolute, so that a restaurateur has an absolute right to refuse service on racial grounds. The only way to break the back of such practices is to outlaw them, on the grounds that the social injustice perpetuated far outweighs the asserted property right. The Congress used its right to regulate interstate commerce, and all things affecting it, to regulate such matters. Certainly, it is at least as worthwhile to break the back of segregation as it is to enforce construction codes, sanitary rules, and safety regulations, among those things that impinge on property rights in order to safeguard customers and workers.......... |
