Anthony Lewis forgets federalism?

[David Bernstein]

I avoid the tendentious phrase "civil rights laws", which evokes Selma,
Birmingham et al, which are irrelevant to, say, laws banning discrimination
in housing against unmarried couples, and instead refer to
"antidiscrimination laws"

In a message dated 3/22/2002 11:14:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu writes:


>
>
>         I wonder whether the argument cited below assumes away the key
> question of what "civil rights" really means.  When a state law bars
> housing discrimination against unmarried couples -- or for that matter
> discrimination against gay couples -- some see it as advancing the "civil
> rights" of the tenants; others see it as restricting the "civil rights" of
> landlords.  If Boy Scouts v. Dale had come out the other way, the same
> would be true as to laws barring sexual orientation discrimination by privat
> e expressive associations.
>
>         Now I realize that some people don't believe that the right to
> choose with whom one does business, and whom one lets into one's
> association, really qualifies as a civil right -- or believe that it may
> often qualify as a civil right, but not when certain kinds of
> discrimination are involved.  But others don't believe that the right to
> live on someone else's property, or join someone else's group, over the
> owner's objection really qualifies as a civil right; and still others
> believes that it does qualify as a civil right when race discrimination is
> involved but not when sexual orientation or marital status discrimination
> involved.
>
>         Eugene
>
>

  David E. Bernstein
Associate Professor
George Mason University
School of Law
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20020322/10a8193f/attachment.htm