Obviously. I reiterate:
The state action doctrine flatly prohibits enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment against private entities. That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was overturned, and why
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US focused on the Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors.
I'd suggest that you read
Heart of Atlanta Motel or
Katzenbach and note how the Act is upheld solely on Commerce Clause grounds, but after the
Lombard debacle I hesitate to give you more material to misinterpret. Let's stick with
the summaries.
I did read it. And here's the paragraph that gets me:
"The sole question posed is, therefore, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to these facts. The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress based the Act on § 5 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as its power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution. "
Now you're correct that the court only ruled that the act was legal under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The court didn't rule on Congress' assertion that it was supported by the EPC. But
historically speaking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeks to enforce the EPC of the 14th Amendment. I don't think there were any Congressman who were interested in revitalizing the interstate economy when they passed the law. The cases that I looked at in the run up to the 1964 law were focused on 'ways to figure out how a private business could be considered a state actor.' thus getting around the state action doctrine. In my mind, regulating all public accommodations under interstate commerce laws is effectively making them state actors as well. You are correct that the courts never ruled on that explicitly.
But using the Commerce Clause to enforce desegregation doesn't really make sense to me without the context of the 14th Amendment. It feels to me as enforcement of the 14th Amendment by other means. The 14th Amendment introduced the concept of equality to the Constitution. That is why when I see legislation that encourages segregation of discrimination, I look at the 14th Amendment as the part of the Constitution it contradicts, not the Commerce Clause.
Oh an also. . . don't be a douche about things. If you know more than me, I'm happy to learn. If I ignored all your snide remarks, I found I learned a lot more of the details of the history of the court running up to and after 1964. But I'm not sitting in a law library. I just have my browser, spare time, and a desire to know more.