I never said blacks, asians and hispanics shouldn't have equal rights. As a matter of fact, unlike those who here attack me, I do in fact support the protection of the unalienable rights of all, and the protection of the unalienable rights of mankind under our system of government is one of government’s primary functions!


The argument here is not about the rights of blacks, asians and Hispanics, it’s about identifiable special interest groups such as homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and lesbians jumping on the ERA bandwagon with the intention of infringing upon the unalienable rights of others!

For a number of years this identifiable group [homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and lesbians ] under the banner “Equality Florida” pushed for what they called a human rights ordinance in the city of Gulfport in Pinellas County Florida. But, when one analyzes the touted “human rights ordinance” it turns out that Gulfport’s City Council, in approving the ordinance, has decided to ignore its oath to support and defend the constitutionally protected rights of all. In essence, the ordinance creates a favored class and allows this class to impinge upon the unalienable rights of others such as their freedom of choice, individual liberty, and rights associated with property ownership.


What the ordinance does is to allow the identifiable groups characterized in the ordinance [homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered, and even those having unique "physical characteristics"], to invoke the force of government as a favored class against owners of property and business owners who may be unwilling to enter into contractual agreements or business associations with the favored class created by the ordinance. Under the ordinance business and property owners can be fined for not hiring the protected class or renting their homes or other property to them. The ERA would accomplish the same goal!


Make no mistake, such an ordinance in general should be applicable to publicly owned property and government operations, but not applicable to privately owned property and businesses.


Since the founding of our nation, inalienable rights of mankind have been repeatedly recognized which include, among other things, the right to life, liberty, rights associated with property ownership and the pursuit of happiness. And, within the meaning of “liberty” the U.S. Supreme Court has properly noted that the right to contract is within the meaning of liberty:


In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 , we are reminded by the Court:


But even more important, let us not forget what Florida’s own Court stated in the Terri Schiavo case. The Court declared that a government act “impinging” on a fundamental right is “presumptively unconstitutional” and requires the state to carry the burden to show the act does not violate the Constitution.


So, as it turns out, the ordinance in question, which impinges on the fundamental right to contract, impinges upon fundamental liberty and impinges upon rights associated with property ownership, is therefore “presumptively unconstitutional”!


Those who promoted and supported the ordinance, and are now supporting the ERA, have pretended to take a high moral ground and denounce the immorality of discrimination. But the Court has succinctly addressed this frivolous and misleading claim.


In Lawrence vs. Texas, an opinion well known by the supporters of the ERA we find:

The Gulfport ordinance, an unmistakable “moral code”, is intentionally designed by political advocates to interfere with and impinge upon the fundamental rights of an identifiable group, and specifically, property and business owners who loose their unalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and business associations..


If the belief in `equal protection of the laws' means anything, surely it must at the very least mean that a politically unpopular group, such as “homophobes”, should not be singled out using the force of government in a manner which deprives them of irrefutable unalienable rights such as the right to mutually agree in contracts and business associations as well as their rights associated with property ownership.


The question is, why is there such a fervor among homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals to impinge upon the fundamental rights of a politically unpopular group who may choose to avoid any dealings with them? Does this unpopular group not deserve the same equal protection under the law in pursuing their happiness as those who assert a different life-style than theirs?


JWK