Radicals try to revive deceptive equal rights amendment! - Page 5 - PhillyBlog

Mixiboi · #41 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 01:35 AM

Only in America...

john w k · #42 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 07:12 AM

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.

Colin P. Varga · #43 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

...Homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians have been made into a privileged class and can now run to government...

Whada mean they run to the government, they run the government, Lynne Cheney, etc.

Colin P. Varga · #44 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 10:01 PM

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/lou...tml#post758018

Phillybud · #45 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillybud

These arguments are tired and quite boring to me. I am old enough to remember when I was living in Miami in 1977 the same "logic" to justify or condone a business person's right to discriminate against a group.

Stay with me and I'll explain it to you: If I am a Christian and I want to run a Christian-only " bed -n- breakfast" establishment that has five guest rooms and three paid employees (and these employees are required to be Christians) ... do I have a problem with that? NO!

If I run a small gay bar and I employ two bartenders and two waiters, why not exempt me from hiring a heterosexual?

If the same Christian built the largest and finest hotel in his city, a twenty-five story four star establishment with 400 rooms and three restaurants ... does he have a right to exclude all non-Christians, both as guests and as employees ... would I have a problem with that? YES!

I am asked if I have a problem with a store owner who is gay hires only other gays and forbids emplyment to heterosexuals? If the store is a 2000 sq. ft. emporium with 20 employees in sales, shipping, office, etc capacities ... YES!!! There are qualified heterosexuals who need the job!

Not so long in this country (not Nazi Germany) a Department Store in Harlem - of all places - refused to hire black employees. There were cities and towns all over America that would refuse lodging to Jews (didn't you ever see the movie "Gentleman's Agreement"?)
No, if you are the manager of a department store you DO NOT have the right to exclude gay people because your "right to discriminate" is trumped by the gay person's "right to get employment". You DO NOT have the right to exclude an African American couple from your rental apartment building even if you and the other tenants want to keep the building 'all white'. The couple's right to have a place to live trumps your "right" to discriminate.

Maybe by running this again , john w k , you will get an 'insight' on the other point of view.

frankdialogue · #46 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pug

What is wrong with homosexuals, transsexuals and lesbians?

Nothing, in the sense that they are people who have the same rights under our Constitution as other people...but, as our Constitution provides for the rights of all US citizens, there is no need of 'special laws' for minority 'factions'.

Colin P. Varga · #47 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 08:52 PM

Murder is immoral but murders can marry and the marriage is recognized by law. Let's at least give everybody the same rights as a murderer.

Phillybud · #48 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankdialogue

Nothing, in the sense that they are people who have the same rights under our Constitution as other people...but, as our Constitution provides for the rights of all US citizens, there is no need of 'special laws' for minority 'factions'.

"Minority 'factions'" ... what are those?

Civil rights laws do not give additional rights to minorities.

Human rights are not 'special rights.'

Yes there are laws enacted by the government to PROTECT all Americans against the discriminatory practices of those racists who would deny employment opportunities to African Americans, sexists who would deny credit or mortgages to Women, anti-Semites from prohibiting Jews from buying a home in a certain town or community, or homophobes who would do any of the above acts of discrimination against Gays and Lesbians.

We are talking about Equality.

No "<" ... No ">" ... just "="

A day without human rights and civil liberties is like a day without sunshine.

Mixiboi · #49 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillybud

"Minority 'factions'" ... what are those?

Civil rights laws do not give additional rights to minorities.

Human rights are not 'special rights.'

Yes there are laws enacted by the government to PROTECT all Americans against the discriminatory practices of those racists who would deny employment opportunities to African Americans, sexists who would deny credit or mortgages to Women, anti-Semites from prohibiting Jews from buying a home in a certain town or community, or homophobes who would do any of the above acts of discrimination against Gays and Lesbians.

We are talking about Equality.

No "<" ... No ">" ... just "="

A day without human rights and civil liberties is like a day without sunshine.

john w k · #50 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillybud

"Minority 'factions'" ... what are those?

Civil rights laws do not give additional rights to minorities.

Human rights are not 'special rights.'

Yes there are laws enacted by the government to PROTECT all Americans against the discriminatory practices of those racists who would deny employment opportunities to African Americans, sexists who would deny credit or mortgages to Women, anti-Semites from prohibiting Jews from buying a home in a certain town or community, or homophobes who would do any of the above acts of discrimination against Gays and Lesbians.

We are talking about Equality.

No "<" ... No ">" ... just "="

A day without human rights and civil liberties is like a day without sunshine.

The only problem here is under your version of Civil rights laws and the use of government force, business and property owners loose their inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations based upon sex and sexual orientation, even if they believe such contracts and associations may not be in their best economic interests, and just happens to be a distinguishing reason for rejections based upon sex and sexual orientation.

In addition, your version of Civil rights laws singles out an identifiable group which the advocates of the ordinance in question refer to as “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, “bible thumpers” “bigots” and other malicious phrases simply because this group may feel uncomfortable with entering into contractual relations and business associations with homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals. I certainly do not know what is in the hearts and minds of each of those who may choose to exercise their inalienable right to reject a relationship with another individual based upon sex or sexual orientation. Some may deserve condemnation while others may not. It depends what is in their minds and hearts. But the ordinance in question is intentionally designed to use government force to restrict liberty and prohibit one identifiable group from exercising an inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations so that another identifiable group may assume an economic gain in addition to an added measure of liberty under the ordinance.

The argument of those who favor the ordinance, which unquestionably impinges upon an inalienable right, claim it is justified to advance a moral code. But such an argument, when liberty and an inalienable right hangs in the balance, and its constitutionality is questioned, seems to carry little weight as pointed out by the SCOTUS in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.

What the Court eloquently points out is,

“Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about”… “ moral and spiritual implications”….” Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

“ It is conventional constitutional doctrine that, where reasonable people disagree, the government can adopt one position or the other. …..That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other”

And what is the ordinance in question designed to accomplish? It is intentionally designed to forbid business and property owners, American Citizens, to make distinctions based upon sex and sexual orientation when carrying out ordinary business functions. Does this view not conflict with those who hold a different view, a view which supports and defends the inalienable right of people being left free to mutually agree in their business contracts and associations?

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.