Title VII: Unconstitutional?

Heading into 1964, Barry Goldwater was all but set to win the GOP nomination and capture the White House from the hands of Texas' Lyndon Johnson. With waning popularity and a an administration tarnished due to hosts of scandals, the incumbent president needed a ploy to distract from his weaknesses and retain the American executive's chair for a bit longer, even if the price to pay was in absolute dishonesty. Behaving like a practical politician, Johnson took the plunge by spearheading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his hopes high that this game-changer would cause the strict constitutionalist ego in Goldwater to overpower political instinct and create a problematic image in the public eye. Regrettably, he was precisely right, and the White House went to Johnson with 486 electoral votes and a 61% popular vote mandate, leaving Goldwater with defeat due to his upholding of the Constitution by opposing the bill. Few other breaches of  the nation's founding rules have been more easily adapted by an administration, and thus the impact of the bill must be considered beyond its initial negatives to demonstrate the dangers of the uneducated masses clinging to emotions rather than governmental knowledge.

 (Photo credit goes to knowledgerush.com)

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does establish some reasonable rules for service companies and larger, departmental stores, its more evident problems come in how the tenets included with its pages deliberately hijack the First Amendment when concerning market-specific businesses. Such an entity is one that primarily targets a certain age group or ethnic interest, generally vamping up tactics and promotions to get the greatest benefit from their customers by appealing to a specific desire or concern. Because the business may need to focus solely on a particular type of employee, the legislation creates conflict where it should not remain by undermining business sense.

Thus Title VII's inclusions end up forcing some businesses to make excuses or ridiculous concessions in order to pave the way for the acceptance of employees who may do nothing but detriment to their operating successes. At the most fundamental level, consider a Mexican-styled restaurant targeting both Mexicans and others who enjoy the cuisine and culture. The manager may choose to higher a stage with three guitar-strumming Mariachi, and perhaps a dashing Latino couple, dancing the salsa while the dinning guests look on with interest and wondrous appreciation. Nothing about this arrangement is unnatural for the owner, who wants to attract more customers, and yet a sinister element stands: the desired race. For what if an African-American woman (attractive and trained in dance) applies for the position?

Defenders of the act will argue that this situation is unlikely, yet we all know it is hardly impossible. Under these circumstances it seems natural that the manager-owner might desire a Latina woman instead, though Title VII ties his hands by implying he is a racist for refusing her application on the basis of race. It is doubtful that the man is in fact harboring racial hatred against the applicant, but the 1964 legislation essentially makes this his intent.  

Even on a more specific level, Title VII hurts some companies when marketing is concerned. In the case of the popular restaurant chain Hooters, customers could hardly be described as attending one of its locations simply to dine on mediocre burgers and fries--with all the options available in fast food, this motivation seems more like a pitiful excuse to spouse or girlfriend than anything else. In reality, most attending Hooters for what exactly? Perhaps the stunning women with frontal personality and strategically low-cut shorts? Though not entirely the highest form of marketing out there, the owners have a strategy and intend to follow it, yet once again the problems arise.

Assume for a moment that a Muslim woman wishes to apply not as a kitchen worker but as a waitress, serving food to the horny consumers who wait expectantly for servers in the sexually-charged atmosphere. Now further consider that this woman is prescribed religiously to wear a full body covering and hijab scarf whenever she is out and about or within the workplace. Obviously this does nothing to help Hooters, seeing as few men enter into the restaurant expecting to be served by a semi-ninja, so it seems reasonable that under the First Amendment the management would be justified by rejecting her on the basis of her religious practices in the workplace. Makes sense, right? Tell that to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission however, and Hooters gets smacked with a massive fine (this is adapted from an actual incident).

Civil rights will always remain a subject of controversy in America, yet tossing the Constitution out the window to make way for a neo-multiculturalist agenda is unacceptable and un-American. Businesses should not discriminate with hate towards any one religion, gender, or race, and yet a time must come when it is realized that some discrimination on these foundations is absolutely fundamental to freedom. 

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman