If you are a business owner looking to hire someone in Pinellas County Florida and two applicants apply for the same job, one who flaunts their homosexuality and one who is an every day Joe Sixpack, be very careful in making your choice as choosing Joe Sixpack may very well lead to a nightmarish legal encounter.
Homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians have been made into a privileged class and can now run to government and claim you “discriminated” against them if you don’t hire them. This is what the misleadingly named “human rights” ordinance is really all about ___ creating an economic advantage, the threat of a legal process, for homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians to exercise if you don't hire them, rent to them, or engage in other contracts or associations.
Whatever happened to the inalienable right of people being left free to mutually agree in their business contracts and associations?
See:
Pinellas extends human rights ordinance to include gays, lesbians and bisexuals
Quote:
The county's human rights ordinance protects against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. The expanded ordinance adds to the list sexual orientation, defined as "an individual's actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality."
In practice, what that means is anyone who thinks they've been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation can now file a complaint with the county's Office of Human Rights. Discrimination complaints most often lead to settlements. When a settlement can't be reached, the case goes before an administrative law judge.
|
I guess the real winners in this one, as always, will be our nation’s leach infested lawyer industry.
In any event, what astonishes me is after our SC struck down a law which singled out homosexuals [see Lawrence vs. Texas] and protected an inalienable right of this “politically unpopular group” against government force used to subjugate their inalienable right, this very group turns around and seeks to use government force to deprive the inalienable rights of a group they perceive to be politically unpopular, and who they refer to as “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, “bible thumpers”, and other phrases used in a vitriolic manner.
Didn’t the SC in LAWRENCE say the Court's obligation is to “define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code” when protecting an inalienable right of homosexuals?
Why do so many people have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their business contracts and associations?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.