On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Certainly there was ample reason for the Federal government to act on behalf
of making sure all people who wanted to could vote and that all the rights
guaranteed under the Consitiution were being granted to all persons. There
is however no civil right to shop or trespass on the private property of
those who would refuse to grant someone access to do business. The concept
of public place first had to be corrupted to mean any place open to the
public, instead of places supported by public tax money.

That's because there are few "private businesses" that haven't
benefitted from public largess, whether or not it's the roads that
bring customers to their doors, or the power that keeps their lights
running, or, heck, being beholden to the very Constitution that has
made it possible for them to operate freely. Are they somehow exempted
from operating in the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution because
they don't want races to share lunch counters?

Of course, as we know, the Constitution wasn't a perfect document to
begin with. That's why they allowed amendments that *expanded* the
*true* spirit of the Constitution to include *all* of its citizens.

Thank god that strict constructionists have been limited in their
sphere of influence. Otherwise, my friend Rob would still be only
3/5th of a person and my sister wouldn't be able to vote.

Oh yeah, you claim that capitalism was moving toward equality when the
government stepped in. What evidence do you have for that? I'd say
virtually none. Without government intervention, we'd either still be
where we were in 1949 or we'd be in smoking ruins after the
ineveitable rend in the social fabric.