*** I can't stop watching the constant daily rights violation videos of cops. I seriously believe that "good ones" are the exception to the rule instead of the "bad ones," we have been constantly told to believe. Now, I am observing the " good" cops watching or participating or backing that "blue line bad cop" not doing anything. This is even more egregious to me! All bad! 😡

African Americans continued to press in the 1950s and 1960s to end disenfranchisement and segregation in the state through the Civil Rights Movement, including legal challenges. In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that public schools had to be desegregated, but Alabama was slow to comply. During the 1960s, under Governor George Wallace, Alabama resisted compliance with federal demands for desegregation.The civil rights movement had notable events in Alabama, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56), Freedom Rides in 1961, and in 1965 the Selma to Montgomery marches. These contributed to Congressional passage and enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the U.S. Congress.

Legal segregation ended in the states in 1964, but Jim Crow customs often continued until specifically challenged in court.

Despite recommendations of a 1973 Alabama Constitutional Commission, the state legislature did not approve an amendment to establish home rule for counties. There is very limited home rule, but the legislature is deeply involved in passing legislation that applies to county-level functions and policies. This both deprives local residents of the ability to govern themselves and distracts the legislature from statewide issues.

Alabama has made some changes since the late 20th century and has used new types of voting to increase representation. In the 1980s, a redistricting case, Dillard v. Crenshaw County, challenged the at-large voting for representative seats of 180 Alabama jurisdictions, including counties and school boards. At-large voting had diluted the votes of any minority in a county, as the majority tended to take all seats. Despite African Americans making up a significant minority in the state, they had been unable to elect any representatives in most of the at-large jurisdictions.

Trial over Shenandoah County school renamings to begin in July https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/trial-over-shenandoah-county-school-renamings-to-begin-in-july/article_942b387e-cee7-5ebd-aa51-5fde555bb39f.html

Is there a civil rights law that prevents discrimination in non-loan banking?

I always kind of assumed there was, but when it came up in a conversation and I tried to locate it, I wasn't able to find a clear answer.

I'm asking specifically about checking or savings accounts that aren't loans, from banks.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age, and applies to home mortgage loans, home improvement loans, and other home credit transactions.

But checking accounts aren't loans.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination at hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues, but there is nothing that indicates a bank would be a "place of public accommodation".

Is there really no law that protects access to banking services from discrimination?

On August 28, 1955, Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) an African American teenager was abducted and lynched in Mississippi after being accused of offending a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, in her family's grocery store. The brutality of his murder and the acquittal of his killers drew attention to the long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the civil rights movement.

In her old age, Carolyn Bryant admitted that Emmett did nothing to deserve the violence that was inflicted on him resulting in his death.

His mother courageously had his body shipped back to Chicago and directed that Emmett’s casket remain open so the public could view the brutality inflicted on this young boy when he visited Mississippi. This galvanized the nascent American Civil Rights Movement.

You know how police tell people that being ignorant to the law isn’t an excuse? I am so tired of seeing incidents where people mess up, don’t know, have an accident, or just human error occurs and cops are so quick to ruin their lives with jail time, bail, lawyer fees, court dates, job loss, impounded vehicles, etc. But if a cop makes a mistake that has had very real consequences on an innocent person there is absolutely no repercussions. So if we can’t be ignorant how come that is an excuse for them? We are barely seeing officers having charges brought up on them but only for the most serious cases where someone ends up dead or very badly injured. What about all the other despicable cases of police behaving like they don’t have to follow the law and what they say is the only way? Thank goodness now with body cams and public recordings we are seeing civil rights violations that end up only being addressed if it goes viral and there is outrage. Then we see these dirty cops are allowed to resign or if they get let go can just apply in a different county. They should be help to an even higher standard because they have so much power and if they get caught abusing that power there should be very real consequences like the ones they hand out to the citizens they are suppose to be serving. When is this going to change? What kind of bills need to be passed? Why would politicians not want to back something like this? I’m just confused and went on a rampage after watching a bunch of YouTube videos of corrupt cops. This is my first ever post BTW 😁

You know how the feminist movement excluded women of color and trans people? And how the gay rights movement excluded trans people? I'm looking for other examples of civil rights movements in the US that excluded/exclude certain groups from getting the same rights they're fighting for. And how specifically have they excluded these groups? Has there been a civil rights movements that didn't do this?

My partner and I plan to get married in the near future, and while planning this important step in our life, we cannot help but worry about possible complications we might run in to if certain things happen politically.

If we get married in a red state or DC, and subsequently Obergefell is overturned, nothing stops that state or the federal government from banning gay marriages in the future. If that happens, would our marriage still be valid? (We are thinking of things like taxes, health insurance, dependent status, and other similar areas).

My understanding of the Respect for Marriage Act is that our marriage would remain valid.

. . . Section 3: “No person acting under color of State law may deny-- (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex […] of those individuals; or (2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex […] of those individuals.”

Section 5: “(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into […]. (b) <<NOTE: Definition.>> In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States. (c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.” . . .

Section 3.1 & 3.2 give strong protections, but might be subject to elimination through judicial review. Section 5.a would make me confident if we were to marry in a state like CA, WA, NY, MA, etc. However, it specifically says “Federal” laws. Without making an expensive trip for both ourselves and family, it would likely happen in deep red or swing state. Section 5.c specifically says marriage validity is determined by “only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into”. Which would mean if the state banned gay marriage, in the eyes of the federal government it would be valid. And theoretically it should also apply to other states too? But likely not the state itself?

Should we make an expensive trip for ourselves and family to wed in a deep blue state, or is this something that is already covered by the law? (Not interested in answers commenting on the likelihood of Supreme Court overturning precedent or legislative likelihoods)

===== TL;DR: Should we travel to a deep blue state to get (gay) married to prevent future complications from a possible overturning of Obergefell and states banning gay marriage? Respect for Marriage Act

--- 2020: Civil rights activist John Lewis died in Atlanta, Georgia. Lewis was a co-founder and chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). He also led and helped organize many of the critical events in the Civil Rights movement, such as the 1963 March on Washington and the 1965 March from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. He was also influential in the Freedom Rides of 1961. White and Black student activists rode buses throughout the Southern States to protest segregation on interstate buses and bus terminals.

--- 1936: Spanish Civil War began.

--- Please listen to my podcast, History Analyzed, on all podcast apps.

--- link to Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yoHz9s9JPV51WxsQMWz0d

--- link to Apple podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/history-analyzed/id1632161929