The Congress used the commerce power in the U.S constitution to enact the provision that the Supreme Court subsequently upheld (Schwinn, 2015). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the provision could apply in small local hotels since they bought most of their raw materials from other states thus amounting to interstate commerce that falls under the regulation of the commerce clause (Cornell University Law School, 2015).
The provision is an effective business measure that eliminated the eminent negative image on interstate commerce since it criminalized the behavior of denying the minority groups access to accommodation and catering services. Ideally, racial discrimination has substantial effect on interstate commerce and hence the provision seeks to regulate this effect (Cornell University Law School, 2015). The provision has control over non-state businesses unlike the Fourteenth Amendment that only applied to state actors. The Fourteenth Amendment only illegalized state-sponsored discrimination but did not address private discrimination. The provision developed a private right of action that allowed the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations (Schwinn, 2015). Apparently, most businesses serve interstate travellers and hence the significance of the provision. As such, I agree with the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that illegalizes racial discrimination in businesses that provide accommodations to interstate travelers.
Schwinn, S. (2015). Civil Rights Act of 1964: Enduring and Revolutionary. Retrieved from