So, are you for "Separate but Equal"?

Oh, and are you friends of these people here: A B C D

__________________
I Rather Talk About HurricanesThen Pregnant Teens

Christian Ministry Fined $23000 in Gay Discrimination Case



Anyway, and with regard to the Pinellas County ordinance in question, it’s amazing how our lefties in supporting the ACLU in “freedom of speech” cases paint themselves as principled elitists by not approving of the “content” of homosexual pornography put out by Robert Mapplethorpe, Jessie McBride, and others. And, they constantly assert, “Although I do not approve of these expressions, I will defend to my death these artist’s inalienable right to express themselves as they will“. Funny how when it comes to rights associated with property ownership and the inalienable right to reject unwanted contracts and associations, our principled elitists end defending the protection of inalienable rights, in order to help create a new privileged class identified in the ordinance in question.


JWK


As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

The arguments and philosophy of John W K are not unreasonable, and are put forth in a coherent and reasonable manner. John is an intelligent person, very thoughtful and not a "knee jerk reactionary".

He and I just happen to disagree. We have differant philosophies. He uses the word "inalienable" so many times in this thread that if I had $5 every time he uses it I could afford to take my date to dinner at Le Bec Fin.

John appears to believe (he can correct me) that business owners have an absolute "right" to discriminate against against certain people in both employment and in patronage. Courts and legislation throughout the US have repudiated this philosophy time and again. There are exceptions of course (see my examples posted before).

I guess John has never been the victim of discrimination or prejudice. He cannot imagine how humiliating, degrading, or oppressive it could be. Discrimination, in my view, is a form of persecution. John might argue that as the owner of the Hilton (or Marriott or Holiday Inn, et al) he has an "inalienable" right to discriminate against gays, Jews, Irish, or whatever ... he would say "the government is persecuting ME by forcing me to deal with THOSE people."
John doesn't see bigotry as a bad thing.

We have freedom of speech. I love freedom of speech. I also believe (it's just my opinion) that rights imply responsibility. There is no absolute freedom of speech, e.g., you can not shout "fire!" in a crowded theater (the famous example used by the US Supreme Court), if you slander or libel a person legal action can be taken against you, child pornography is not covered by freedom of speech, nor is inciting to riot or cause violence. So you see freedom of speech is not absolute or limitless.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

I've seen Robert Mapplethorpe's photos. (There are not a few, but literally dozens of books on his photos.) Many contain nudity, and many can be described as "gay." They are NOT pornography. Whoever thinks so must have a very salacious mind!

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

I use the phrase “inalienable rights” often because a society which ignores protecting the inalienable rights of all its citizens cannot truthfully be said to be a just society. Of course, there is an exception in protecting inalienable rights, and that exception is when one exercises their inalienable rights in such a fashion as to impinge upon another’s inalienable rights or cause them injury. When that happens it is a proper function of government to intervene so as to protect the inalienable rights of the party injured.

A homosexual business owner who only hires other homosexuals is not patently evil; a lesbian store owner who only hires other lesbians in not patently evil, nor is a “homophobe” evil simply because he chooses to not rent a room to a homosexual. And who can make an honest claim that Hooters, who “discriminates” in hiring only female servers, is evil? And so, how is an ordinance which forbids a business or property owner from discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, which is exercising nothing more than an inalienable right, justified? What is patently evil in people being free to mutually agree in their business contracts and association which is nothing more than people exercising their inalienable rights?


Our judicial system has been quite active in subjugating the American People’s inalienable rights and constitutional guarantees. What is your point?


“John doesn't see bigotry as a bad thing“? A bit presumptuous there aren’t you? Did you forget what I wrote above?


Although I do not approve or agree with “bigots” discriminating ___ for example in hiring on the bases of race without any other factors being taken into account ___ our system was intended to protect the liberty of all, including “bigots”, except when the force of government is used by bigots as it once was when writing Black Code Laws”, and which the 14th Amendment was intended to end.

Even bigots are to be protected in exercising their inalienable rights, such as their inalienable right to mutually agree in business contracts and associations.

Have you forgotten the clear language of the SC “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”




What the Court eloquently points out is,

No disagreement there. One may not exercise a right in such a manner as to cause injury upon another or impinge upon another’s inalienable rights.


Tell me, why do you feel it is proper to enact special legislation assisting an identifiable group [homosexuals, bi-sexual and lesbians] in pursuing their happiness and economic needs, while that very legislation is intended to subjugate another identifiable group’s [ “homophobes” and “bible thumpers”] inalienable right to reject unwanted contracts and business associations? Were they infringing upon the inalienable rights of homosexuals, bi-sexual and lesbians?


JWK

Christian Ministry Fined $23000 in Gay Discrimination Case

Quote:
One of Canada’s largest Christian ministries dedicated to caring for the disabled was fined $23,000 recently by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for allegedly discriminating against a former homosexual employee. Connie Heintz claimed discrimination against Christian Horizons after she said she was “subjected to a poisoned work environment” and pressured into quitting her job after she entered a homosexual relationship – which was in violation of her work contract back in 2000.

I suspect the court found that the Christian ministry (the name should be mentioned in the original quote) in question had found that the contract entered into by Connie Heintz violated Canadian law. As to the potential morality clause of such a contract: Jesus didn't ask are you gay before he cured the blind and sick, and he certainly broke his contract by working on the sabbath.

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule

That sounds right. In Canada, sexual orientation is explicitly a protected class in the Canadian equivalent of the bill of rights. Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, religion, or disability is explicitly unconstitutional in Canada. As such, putting it in a contract is as illegal as the U.S. government enforcing a contract of "as long as you never sell products to any black person", which violates the U.S. bill of rights.

And yet you're arguing that the rights of bigots must be absolutely enforced, even when they cause injury upon another or impinge upon another's rights.

You keep using the word "inalienable" as if was an "I win" button. No right is completely inalienable. All rights have restrictions. You clearly think that the right to discriminate should be absolute, unlike every other right in the Constitution.

Yes. That's the whole point. Constitutional law often involves weighing the rights of one party vs the rights of another. Given that, I'm not at all surprised that the courts consistently find that the right to be a bigot is outweighed by the rights of everyone to live peaceful happy and productive lives free from discrimination.

Lesbian wins $23,000 from Christian group
Discrimination Case; Ordered to pay damages plus lost wages

Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Saturday, April 26, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...html?id=472597

There was one interesting point made and that was that Christian Horizons served different people and probably gay people as well.

"If they had been serving only Evangelical Christians, then perhaps the situation would have been different," she said, but the group has long since expanded to serve disabled people regardless of faith, which makes it a public "service," and therefore subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule

Originally Posted by john w k Quote my words in which I argued that “the rights of bigots must be absolutely enforced, even when they cause injury upon another or impinge upon another's rights.”

Fact is, I never even remotely suggested such a thing..

Johnwk wrote:

I believe I covered that ground already. One may not exercise a right in such a manner as to cause injury upon another or impinge upon another’s inalienable rights. Yes! People have an inalienable right to “discriminate” , and, it is also important to point out how lawyers, over the years, have destroyed a perfectly good word, changing the word discrimination to mean one of the most dreaded of all plagues.

I do not view the word “discrimination” as an evil word. I do not even view individuals who discriminate on the bases of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc., as being inherently evil. When was the last time a Black American was condemned by the public for intentionally marrying another Black American, or, a homosexual store owner intentionally hiring another homosexual over a heterosexual, or, for that matter, Hooters intentionally hiring only women as servers? What is the big freaken deal when a person discriminates on the basis of sex or sexual orientation when it is made to advance their economic business interest? 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 business relationship with another individual based upon race, color, sex, or sexual orientation. But I do know a business owner who does discriminate based upon race, color, sex, or sexual orientation because doing so advances their economic interest ought not be condemned as being evil, a homophobe or bigoted..





There you go again using the word discrimination as a dirty word. But thank you for the rhetorical generalities, even though you forgot to mention the inalienable right of a homosexual being violate if Hooters refused to hire that homosexual as a server.

And tell me, is it bigotry for a homosexual store owner to only hire other homosexuals, or a lesbian business owner to only hire other lesbians. I see nothing wrong in people being left free to mutually agree in their business contracts and associations, and, I would not call a person bigoted for wanting to associate with people he/she feels comfortable with.. Why do you have such a problem with people exercising their inalienable rights? And, why all the name calling?

JWK