And yet, advocates of the 1964 Civil Rights act maintain that if you do not hire unqualified people who happen to be of certain racial, ethnic, sexual, or other favored groups, you are "guilty" of discrimination.

So if I determine that a person suffering from Down's Syndrome can't manage my office, then that's discrimination? (the bad kind that you want to be illegal)?
Therefore if I determine that a person suffering from homosexuality can't manage my office, that too is the same kind of discrimination?

You're all over the board here.

The civil rights act of 1964 is wrong. It is an act, not part of the Constitution.

The civil rights act of 1964 can say whatever it wants to say. It can say that PI is 3.0. It can say that water flows uphill. Doesn't make it so.

Those who create laws cannot be allowed to think themselves above the Constitution, or that they can change or circumvent the Constitution via legislation or regulation.

And how is the free practice of religion tyranny?
The only way for religion to become tyrannical is if it adopts the trappings of government. Hence the 1st Amendment prohibition against a state religion (such as the Green religion we enjoy today).

Prove that discrimination isn't a protected right. The burden of proof is on you. And it's amusing that you went from "right" to "protected right". The 9th Amendment makes all rights "protected rights" as the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely... protects them.

Because you have everything backwards.

I have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe upon another person's rights.

We don't need permission from government to exercise our rights, as our rights come from God, not government.

If I should only consider women of my own race to marry... if I should alternatively only consider short women to marry, or red-headed women to marry... that is also discrimination, and is my right, and may well be based upon religious considerations or simply taste. Nevertheless, it is discrimination.

By your reasoning, I must marry every woman I meet who wishes to marry me, or else I'm guilty of the secular sin of "discrimination".

If I own my body, why do I have to wear a seat belt?

(the answer has nothing to do with safety and peripherally to do with Obamacare).

Nope. Businesses should not be permitted to deny service to customers simply because they dislike the particular group that a customer happens to belong to.

Now if a customer is being rude, disrespectful, and/or violent, then that customer can be ejected from the premises until they calm down. Discriminating against certain types of behavior is perfectly fine. Discriminating against certain demographics is not.

You are evidently presuming that said person has a *right* to *your* product or service.

We have a word for that, which describes a practice prohibited by the 13th Amendment...

"Slavery".

Very true, though I'm not sure how you would manage to accomplish that goal if you refused to provide service to your customers.

And from where does which government acquire the legal... LEGAL power to regulate public business? What is the converse of "public business"? A "public" business would be one owned by... the "general public".

Are you suggesting that government has no power to enforce laws? If people are not required to obey laws established by the government, what use then is government?

Very well, I will restate: government is well within its legal power to regulate public business.

The Klan was perfectly justified in burning crosses. I should be able to burn a cross in my back yard, if I so choose. The Klan, however, insisted on burning crosses on other people's property. The right of property is a fundamental right (again, protected by the 9th Amendment).

Please explain to me what rights I'm denying others by not doing business with them?

The 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee the separation of church and state. Reread it. it prohibits the federal government, specifically the legislative branch, from making laws establishing a national church (think Anglican), or prohibiting people from practicing their religions.
Note that the 1st Amendment does NOT prevent States or local governments from doing so. It was the 14th Amendment that extended the prohibition to the States.

The purpose of any business is to MAKE MONEY.

"You do NOT have a right to do business with me."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says otherwise... ;)

Obviously everyone is going to believe that their own religion is the only true religion, and there's nothing wrong with that. But problems arise when people think their religious beliefs put them above the law and make them exempt from following the laws. That can never be allowed.

How does it disproportionately target blacks?

What the hell, we let women kill people just for having an odd appearance and being inconvenient.

It could and did. There were bars and restaurants that closed their doors rather than comply. You justify them being forced to choose between violating the sensibilities of their customers, something they know better than bureaucrats in Washington, and going out of business.

So your position is that they only have the right to do business so long as they comply with YOUR vision of morality.

Protection from the tyranny of religion is just as vital to a free society as protection from the tyranny of government.

You assume that the victors and defeated are equally dishonest.

Exactly how does one separate the facts from the author's propaganda?

In point of fact, one can't. Propaganda can, and often is, true. Propaganda is merely information intended to promote an agenda (or discredit an agenda). How does one separate facts that are omitted from propaganda?