|
|
|
|
|
| | who has more rights? Page 5 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | They use to do the same thing to people with dark skin, they couldn't marry the whites, they couldn't stay in the same places, they couldn't eat in the same places, they couldn't drink from the same fountain...same thing only now it's the gay people who are being damned by bigots who are screaming about how they should not have to treat them like any other citizen. Use religion all you want, coming out of some book doesn't make it any less disgusting.
Do you have any idea how much cow farts damage the atmosphere? It's not the cows' fault, it's the way people have raised them into huge herds for easy food access. Methane (I hope I got that right) gas is a real problem, and may have also been a huge problem with the dinosaurs. So it's not a bunch of crazy's blaming cows, it's people trying to find a way to live in the world without ruining it.
Just because people have abused other people, and got away with it in the past, in no way means it was ever okay. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/10/2012 9:10:09 PM | Its a lose lose situation....
But....
The inn keeper (and every tradesman and service organization that agrees with him) can have the last word by contributing the fees he would have charged the homosexuals towards legislation limiting their causes advance.
If he makes this a publicly known policy he will effectively create a win-lose policy,
He will discourage those whose outlook he vehemently disagrees with, (and their supporters), he will give shelter and support to those whose worldview he wishes to propagate.
He will expose those whom threaten him, as the hateful bigots they are, in their inability to accept his mores and culture (even while the are crying discrimination they are ipso facto discriminating against his right to self expression and religious tolerance).
And for those whom simply must bull into where they're unwanted, turn their minor victory hollow with his political contributions. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 7:39:06 PM | I think even Jesus would rent a room
to someone who needed a room.
In order to be like the image God..
that we are told we must be.....
Then for those outside our moral views,
we must show more compassion.
not less.
Tis how God does it.
so why should we do different? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 9:53:27 PM |
In order to be like the image God..
that we are told we must be.....
Then for those outside our moral views,
we must show more compassion.
not less.
I read your posts with anticipation, your clarity (and economy of words) are a poets envy!
But within the context of the Inn keepers mores........
How does he show compassion by enabling the abominable?
And how does he set example for his children to stand up for what they believe in?
And how would he consider himself a good steward if his holdings were lent to sin?
For the sake of "compassion" if he turns a blind eye to this abomination, at what point should he resume being a moral man with standards?........only when the sinful won't object?..... or when its approved by his government? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:14:31 PM | By being in faith,
and cheerful
with those out of his faith...
he could have set an even better example for his own.
As it is now,
he has taught his family to fear and despise those that are different.
Fear does bring God closer.
It only keeps us in darkness longer.
As for me,
I cannot see "sin".
For I am mortal.
Only God can see that.
So I must accept all.
as they are.
(My only caveat is they be not rude or dangerous.) | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 6:45:35 AM | | They are bigoted idiots and got what they deseverved. I have absolutley no sympathy for people like this. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 3:21:16 PM | The christian Taliban in North Dakota, led by Fucus on the Family has proposed a religious exemption that goes beyond 14th amendment opponents and their desire to return to segregation and state sanctioned discrimination.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/10/north-dakota-religious-freedom-amendment-would-allow-the-precepts-of-religion-to-trump-the-law-of-the-land/
The North Dakota Religious Freedom Act proposes to revise the state constitution by adding the following section to Article 1:
“Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”......
The language of the bill is purposely broad and how it can and will be interpreted by the courts has legal scholars on edge. Essentially what was once a crime is no longer a crime unless the law can prove that the action that was once a crime is not part of the religion of the accused. Furthermore if the crime that was once a crime, (let’s say discrimination), is no longer a crime under the guise of religion, then to withhold federal funds from the group or organization that is committing the crime, (discriminating), that is no longer a crime due to religion, is against the law.
According to Robert Doody, executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas, “this proposed amendment could lead people to refuse to follow virtually any law. It could allow people to argue that they have a right to abuse their children, refuse to hire people of different faiths, or deny emergency health care.” As per Alex J. Luchenister, Associate Legal Director for American’s United for Separation of State and Church,“Measure 3 could force the state government to provide taxpayers funds to religious groups. It would also cause religious groups to be favored over non-religious groups. As a result of Measure 3 religious groups and persons could claim exemptions from laws intended to protect people’s rights, such as laws requiring the provision of reproductive health services or prohibiting the infusion of religion into public education.” As per Jusita columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci J. Hamilton, the North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment is “an opportunity to unilaterally adjust public policy to fit each religious individual’s and organization’s world view.”
The North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment is little more than a power grab by the Catholic hierarchy, at the state level, to sanction discrimination and receive federal funds while doing it, under the guise of protecting religion. Pay attention because they are taking a page from the anti-choice movement, which is so successfully taking apart the legal right to abortion, also at the state level. Planned Parenthood has donated $650,00 to North Dakotans Against Measure 3. $610,400 of that is from Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Another $380,400 has come through the people. The good news is more money is being spent against Measure 3 than for Measure 3.
Grand Forks is North Dakota’s third largest city. The North Dakota Grand Forks Herald and its parent company Forum Communications DO NOT ENDORSE MEASURE 3. Tom Dennis the Herald’s opinion editor writes…
“In North Dakota, there is no threat to religious freedom so urgent that the measure needs to be passed right now. The state can take its time and study the issue with more care, including the laws and experiences in other states. Given the profound worries about Measure 3 as expressed by knowledgeable critics, that’s the prudent course.”
| |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 7:48:42 PM | ^^^^In 1993, Congress tried to require state and local governments to meet the "compelling interest" standard this amendment would impose by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The constitutional authority for the RFRA was section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which gives Congress power to make laws to enforce the amendment's provisions. But in 1997, the Supreme Court held that wasn't adequate authority for the RFRA.
So apparently North Dakota is trying to amend its constitution to do what Congress was unable to do with the RFRA. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as the Court now interprets it, can't require states to defer this far to religious practices in their laws. A state can't interpret the U.S. Constitution so as to contradict the Supreme Court's interpretation. But that doesn't mean a state can't amend its own constitution to require its laws to do what the U.S. Constitution can't require them to do.
This amendment would give North Dakota's courts power to strike down state laws that infringed a person's right to do or refrain from doing a thing because of his religious beliefs, unless the state could prove the law served some compelling government interest. And as long as a state constitution provides an "independent and adequate" basis for interpreting a state law, it won't violate the U.S. Constitution. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 8:13:58 PM | Once someone gets their Tax ID & business license, they have to do things on the up & up. They cannot legally do : "If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium" & get away w/ it!
So when the owners of the B&B drive up to a gas station, can the gay gas station owner refuse to gas up their car, cuz they know they are homophobic?
This is a world where people need to learn to get along in a respectful manner, otherwise-anarchy! | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 9:17:40 AM | So when the owners of the B&B drive up to a gas station, can the gay gas station owner refuse to gas up their car, cuz they know they are homophobic?
Most people think it's wrong to treat someone badly just because of his race, religion, or whatever. But in a free country, bigots have the right to hate anyone they want.
Legally, these things should be up to the state. If a state wants to make it the law that private businesses can't arbitrarily discriminate against customers, it can. There have always been state laws that forbid innkeepers to turn away customers, for example. A law can only intrude so far on the landlord's rights, though, because there are constitutional rights to free association and privacy. A state law that forced a Jew renting a room in his house to accept a Nazi would certainly be unconstitutional.
And if a state wanted to allow private businesses to discriminate, no matter how arbitrarily, in most cases the Constitution shouldn't prevent it. The Constitution limits what *government* may do. There are only two or three things in it that conceivably ban discrimination by private persons, and the only thing that clearly does that is the Thirteenth Amendment. But this isn't about keeping someone as a slave. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 11:47:55 AM | This is odd...
The 2nd post of this thread is from oct/2011 as an ongoing issue.
Yet, the case was won by the gays on jan/2011 getting 3 600 pounds as compensation. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 12:26:03 PM |
What Match fails to understand is that you're free to hate anyone you like, but you're not free to act on that hate in a discriminatory manner.
Sure you are. At least in the US, you can freely discriminate against any number of groups. The number of federally protected classes are well defined. If I have some irrational fear or loathing of left-handed people, there is nothing in the Law that keeps me from discriminating against them. A B&B owner has every 'legal right' to refuse services to them.
The Lefties recourse is to let people know about this practice and allow the market to decide if they will patronize the business or not - but no one can tell the owners they HAVE to serve Lefties (and I know for sure that Match agrees with me on the Lefty point in particular). ;-D
Lefties are not a 'protected class'. Neither are Democrats, Republicans, Blondes, or Child Molesters. We as a nation are free to discriminate against them as we choose - until the Law is changed. Whether it is 'just' to practice such discrimination is up to the individual to decide.
Discrimination can have either legal or social consequences, or both. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 12:37:19 PM |
What Match fails to understand is that you're free to hate anyone you like, but you're not free to act on that hate in a discriminatory manner.
As a flat statement about the U.S., at least, what you're claiming is not true. In choosing personal associates, private individuals are obviously free to discriminate for any reason they like. Whether they can do it in business should in almost all cases be for the state to decide.
In my state, I would like to see private businesses free to discriminate in hiring or serving because of race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic. If the employees or customers some businesses reject can profit their unbiased competitors, they will be glad to take them.
Almost everything in the Constitution of the U.S. was meant to apply to government--and originally only the federal government. Before about 1900, nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted what states could do. Before a bad Supreme Court decision in 1947, a state could have had its official religion, if it wanted.
The Constitution restrains government's power over the individual person. Almost nothing in it, except for the 13th Amendment, can reasonably be interpreted to limit what individual persons may do. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 3:12:04 PM |
In my state, I would like to see private businesses free to discriminate in hiring or serving because of race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic. If the employees or customers some businesses reject can profit their unbiased competitors, they will be glad to take them.
Almost everything in the Constitution of the U.S. was meant to apply to government--and originally only the federal government. Before about 1900, nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted what states could do. Before a bad Supreme Court decision in 1947, a state could have had its official religion, if it wanted.
Or perhaps the 14th Amendment which Match apparently hates with prejudice.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Pay particular attention to the last sentence. Partisan hacks cherry pick the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rights in general to suit their prejudices. Glad some are proudly wearing their sheets and hoods on these forums.
Meanwhile down in Redneckistan, the KKK is being challenged on their desire to pick up trash, while being trash. I was sooo looking forward to a mile stretch of highway where good people could throw copious amonts of litter and feel good about it. We shall see how this plays out with your peeps.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9VC9CJ01.htm
Georgia denies KKK application to adopt highway
By ERRIN HAINES
ATLANTA
A Ku Klux Klan group in Georgia lost its bid Tuesday to join the state's highway cleanup program, but a legal challenge to the decision may be looming. Similar groups in other states have won legal battles after initially being turned down for highway cleanup programs.
The International Keystone Knights of the KKK in Union County applied last month to the "Adopt-A-Highway" program, hoping to clean up along part of Route 515 in the Appalachian Mountains. The state program enlists civic groups, companies and other volunteers to pick up trash, and the groups are recognized with a sign along the road they adopt.
Transportation Department officials met with lawyers from the state Attorney General's Office on Monday and also consulted with Gov. Nathan Deal. The agency said Tuesday it would deny the KKK group's application, adding that the program is aimed at "civic-minded organizations in good standing."
"Participation in the program should not detract from its worthwhile purpose," the department's statement reads. "Promoting an organization with a history of inciting civil disturbance and social unrest would present a grave concern to the department. Issuing this permit would have the potential to negatively impact the quality of life, commerce and economic development of Union County and all of Georgia."
The statement went on to explain that motorists who drive past signs promoting the KKK or who see members picking up trash could be distracted -- creating a safety issue -- and that the section of highway the group wanted to adopt is ineligible because of its 55 mph speed limit.
The group said they wanted to preserve the area's scenic beauty. Harley Hanson, a member of the KKK group whose wife sent the application, said Tuesday that the International Keystone Knights' national leadership is considering legal action.
"If this does go into a litigation situation, the state really cannot afford to be wasting the money on something based on somebody else's beliefs," Hanson said in a phone interview. "It's saddening, really."
The Transportation Department sent a letter to the applicant, April Chambers, explaining the agency's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 rejected Missouri's attempt to turn down a controversial group's application, saying membership in the program cannot be denied because of a group's political beliefs. In Kentucky, the transportation department accepted a white-separatist group's contract to participate in the state's highway cleanup program, fearing an unsuccessful legal battle.
An emailed request for comment from the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday was not immediately returned.
Hanson insisted the group's aim was to beautify the highway, not to seek attention. He also said the move might help recast the image of the Klan beyond its racist and violent past.
"We can't change what happened, but we can still work for a better tomorrow," Hanson said, adding that the group does food drives and has collected toys for Christmas. "It was not just to warn people, `Hey, the KKK lives next door,' but to do some good for the community."
Critics balked at the move as little more than an offensive publicity stunt. State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, who raised objections to the application, hailed the DOT decision as the right thing to do.
"They make the point we've been making: This is not a group that really qualifies as a civic organization," said Brooks, a civil rights activist who experienced Klan violence in the segregated South. "It's a terrorist organization. This is the right decision, and I commend the Department of Transportation for reaching a decision in due speed."
| |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 4:40:50 PM |
Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
Which part of it do you want me to pay particular attention to? The Privileges or Immunities Clause? The Due Process Clause? The Equal Protection Clause? Maybe you'd like to give us a disquisition on the history and meaning of each of them.
Apparently you hate one very important feature of that sentence--the fact it applies to *states.* Pay particular attention to these words: "No *state* shall . . . nor shall any *state* deprive . . . nor deny . . . ." The doctrine of "state action" the Supreme Court has developed in a series of decisions (just let me know if you'd like the citations) means that the 14th Amendment applies only to actions taken by a state--not by an individual. Which tracks what I said earlier.
When a person knows as little about constitutional law as you've made clear you do, he can't begin to make an informed judgment about whether anyone else is "cherry picking" the Constitution to suit his prejudices. But your own prejudices are too strong to let a little detail like stand in your way. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 5:58:40 PM | No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So sorry for your disdain of the intent and purpose of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You repeatedly show your prejucice and hood and sheets. It is partisan, and based in disdain of rights for people who are not white, to the right and in dire need of protection for their prejudices. The same crap ya'll used to justify apartheid, discrimination, anti-miscogenation lawas, renditions, torture, and indefinate detentions, are covered under the bill of rights and the constitution. Just because you choose to live in a few centuries in the past, does not give you the right to consign current and future generations into an ancient, but antiquianted and obsolete, time and place. North Georgia welcomes you back. The rest of the world thinks you are obsolete. Get over it. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 6:47:57 PM | | regardless gay or not the retard christian had no business smarts else he would have quit his ****in and rented the room out regardless. He would have gone out of business anyways due to his lack of ability to manage a business. Damn bible thumpers. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 8:01:24 PM |
So sorry for your disdain of the intent and purpose of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Those of us who have read and studied those things know that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and not some separate document. If I ever want you to presume to educate me about the intent or purpose of documents you obviously don't give two hoots in he!! about, I will let you know.
You repeatedly show your prejucice and hood and sheets . . . The same crap ya'll used to justify apartheid, discrimination . . . North Georgia welcomes you back.
I take it you meant to include me in "y'all." But except in your wild imagination--which I am sure regularly conjures up all sorts of strange visions--I've never defended South Africa's former policy of apartheid, never attended a Klan meeting, and never been to the fair state of Georgia. From what I have seen, people with racial biases are often the ones accusing other people of harboring them.
You don't know enough to make coherent arguments, so you quickly get in over your head in a debate. And when you realize you don't have anything intelligent to say, you get sulky and start making personal insults. I'm always glad to see you and other leftists follow this pattern--it shows your true colors. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 8:22:26 PM | Whats sad is watching the number of people weaseling around trying to excuse this B&B for just being complete hypocritical douchebags. -bladesmith
Gay neighbors of mine with a B & B, only rent to male gay nudists. I find it a little off putting when they want to casually discuss their "issues" with me at parties and home owner meetings, however to each their own. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 4:04:05 AM | http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/gay-couple-wins-fight-against-christian-bandb
Within that link is an update to this story - spoiler alert: The owners of the B&B were ordered to pay the couple $4000.00 in damages and lost wages. The couple was suing for $5000.00.
As stated in the article, this was a business and the owners were discriminatory in refusing to rent to the couple. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 8:57:17 AM | Just curious,,, but what about a restaurant or club that has a dress code?
If you don't wear certain clothing, you aren't allowed to enter.
How is that different? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 10:49:31 AM | ^^^^^^Good point. I don't think there is any constitutional authority for federal laws prohibiting private individuals and businesses from discriminating--against any person, at any time, for any reason, no matter how arbitrary. A private landlord should be free to rent or not rent to whomever he chooses. And private businesses should be just as free to discriminate in hiring and serving people.
With state laws, the question is not if they're legitimate but rather if they're desirable. With a few exceptions, I am not in favor of state laws that prohibit private discrimination, either, as a matter of policy. But I recognize that unlike the federal government, any state government has authority to make private discrimination illegal if its people want to.
For centuries the common law has prohibited private innkeepers, common carriers, and water suppliers from discriminating without good reason. We don't want travelers to freeze to death because no one will rent them a room, or people to be kept from traveling because the cab or bus or train won't take them, or a household to live on bottled water because the private water company won't run a line to the property.
We should keep exceptions like those where lack of competition allows people to be misused. But otherwise, it's no one else's concern if a black business owner wants to hire and serve only blacks, or a white landlord wants to rent his apartments only to whites, or a private club owner wants to turn away people he thinks are homosexuals. If a person wants to limit his share of the market that way, let him. Someone else will be glad to take the people he turns away. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 11:03:00 AM | discrimination is everywhere and practiced by all. although when it comes to prosecutions christians seem to get targeted a lot as there is usually a nice little earner for the complainants and their 'human rights' lawyer.
its all about the cash. hope the greedy scum never got a chance to spend any of the cash they robbed from the couple. they already got compensation then demanded more. it would be heartbreaking if the greedy scum were to pop their clogs soon. wouldnt it? lol well maybe not
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Gay-couple-demand-compensation-hotel-owners/story-11236901-detail/story.html
and from the bbc
Flat adverts that may be breaking the law
The same principle applies to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion, and sexual orientation.
So "gay flatmate wanted" may be equally illegal.
Not everything is off limits though. "Those characteristics do not include vegetarianism," the spokeswoman explains.
The idea that the law should dictate how landlords advertise a property is a step too far for some people. "We've become too politically correct about these things," says Anil Bhanot, managing trustee of the Hindu Council UK. "If people have choices let them."
To demand "Indian only" is a mistake, he says, but there is nothing negative about expressing a preference.
"It could be people are looking for someone with whom they have more common interests. It's not that they can't live with an English person."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612
this is an absolute beezer. honest folks it shows how far 'human rights' and discrimination laws have went.
Advert for 'reliable' worker 'rejected' by Jobcentre
A Hertfordshire recruitment agency boss says she was told she could not request "reliable and hard-working" applicants.
Devonwood Recruitment boss Nicole Mamo said the Jobcentre Plus in Thetford, Norfolk, told her such an advert could be "offensive" to unreliable people.
Ms Mamo said: "I started to laugh. I said: 'That's crazy'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8483171.stm | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:17:29 PM | I'm really surprised this thread is still going, but not at all surprised that it has turned (once again) into a debate about the constitutionality of U.S. Federal anti-discrimination laws, which (strictly speaking) the original topic has little or nothing to do with.
1. Matchstick, you and I have crossed swords plenty of times on legal issues. Once again, you are well aware that you are adopting a position that is completely outside the mainstream of the vast majority of legal opinion in the U.S. on this issue.
You opine: "I don't think there is any constitutional authority for federal laws prohibiting private individuals and businesses from discriminating--against any person, at any time, for any reason, no matter how arbitrary."
I leave the response to the SCOTUS: Since Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination in public accommodation has been clearly understood by the vast majority of legal opinion as fully constitutional. You do not like the decision-- but it's there.
2. Your claim about the common law is fairly dubious, on all kinds of grounds, only a few of which I will bother to list.
"For centuries" is a category mistake to start with, because the "common law" never was a fixed body of rules, whether you are talking about English common law as it predated the formation of the United States and was received into individual colonies and Commonwealths (e.g. Virginia, not the post-British Empire international Commonwealth), state or Federal common law in the U.S. as it existed after that time or the common law in Commonwealth countries (U.K., Canada, Australia, N.Z., some others).
Second, your reference to "without good reason" basically makes your statement meaningless. It's "not even wrong" because it's so vague as to be completely inaccurate. It's like claiming "micro-organisms cause disease"-- except it is way further away from being right than that statement.
Third, it's just obvious that "common law", at least as interpreted in the pre-1964 U.S. southern states, was not effective in doing anything like what you are claiming. That was the whole reason for the Civil Rights Acts in the first place.
3. Your discussion of exceptions-- or more precisely, your mingled invocation of dubious economic policy arguments and intentional evasion of what you are well aware is the legal distinction between public provision of services and purely private association, is no more coherent. Comparing racial discrimination in hiring and employment for jobs offered to the public, racial discrimination in housing offered to the public, and sexual-orientation discrimination in entry to a purely private club, is comparing an apple, an orange, and a brick.
As for your economic argument, you are deliberately ignoring the extreme pervasiveness of racism and it's stubborn resistance to economic rationality. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 7/19/2012 4:40:42 PM |
You do not like the decision-- but it's there.
No, I don't agree with either that or Katzenbach v. McClung, the Ollie's Barbeque decision. They are examples of the era during which the Court again and again abused the Commerce Clause by expanding it far beyond any reasonable interpretation. At least the majority showed in the Obamacare decision that the Court may be ready to reverse that trend.
Whether having used the Commerce Clause to prevent private discrimination for 48 years makes that widely recognized as proper doesn't interest me. I notice that in Boumediene v. Bush, where the crying-towel majority was determined to extend constitutional habeas protection to alien war criminals for the first time in U.S. history, it managed to find a way to overrule a decision that was also widely recognized as proper--and it was then fifty-some years old.
"For centuries" is a category mistake to start with
Phrase it however you like--it doesn't change the point. And that is that laws in most states--whether common law or statutes--have for a very long time prohibited certain types of businesses such as the ones I mentioned from serving some people but not others. When I said "without good reason," all I meant was that despite the general legal obligation to take all comers, an innkeeper could always have refused to put someone up who was threatening to burn the place down in the middle of the night, a bus driver could always have refused to pick up someone who was blind drunk and waving a gun around, and so on.
Third, it's just obvious that "common law", at least as interpreted in the pre-1964 U.S. southern states, was not effective in doing anything like what you are claiming.
It's not obvious to me, without having researched a lot of cases to see how Southern courts interpreted the obligations of innkeepers, common carriers, and private water companies to serve all comers. But recall that Plessy v. Ferguson upheld Louisiana's right to segregate rail coaches--not to prevent blacks from riding trains at all. So at least one southern state's railways were serving them in the 1890's. And I doubt very much if it was ever general practice in the South to allow private water companies to serve only the white customers living within their service areas. The rule is that once you "hold out" service to an area, you can't deny it to anyone living there who wants it.
Comparing racial discrimination in hiring and employment for jobs offered to the public, racial discrimination in housing offered to the public, and sexual-orientation discrimination in entry to a purely private club, is comparing an apple, an orange, and a brick.
That's easy to say. But you don't explain exactly what you object to. I was just giving a few examples of discrimination I don't think state laws should prohibit, although they now do. I don't really care why a private person or business chooses to discriminate, or against what category of people.
As for your economic argument, you are deliberately ignoring the extreme pervasiveness of racism and it's stubborn resistance to economic rationality.
Of course I deliberately ignore those things, just as I deliberately ignore stories about the chupacabra or cold fusion. I don't believe they are true. But even if there were a lot of racially biased Americans, it wouldn't be the business of the federal government to correct their thinking. Under what authority? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
