Radicals try to revive deceptive equal rights amendment! - Page 7 - PhillyBlog

Michael Tree · #61 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

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..

Yes you did, or at least it's the implicit result of what you're advocating. You have repeatedly argued that people should be able discriminate regardless of the consequences to the people discriminated against. The "inalienable" right of people to discriminate against gays is absolute, regardless of the gays' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You might mean it only in an academic way, or a matter of economic interest, but the actual results in practice are far more serious than that.

Quote:

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.

It's not illegal discrimination if the factor at issue is actually relevant for the job. Men are not qualified to be hooters girls, so there's no problem with only hiring women. It's the same thing with only hiring women to be a girls' gym coach, not accepting someone with an IQ of 70 into medical school, and not hiring deaf mute people to work in telephone call centers and most retail stores.

Similarly, it's perfectly fine for a hotel owner to refuse service to someone who's reasonably likely to cause harm to the building or other residents, or clearly don't have the ability to pay. Heck, it might even be okay for the owner of a hostel advertised as a "strict Christian values hostel" to refuse admittance to jews and gays, as long as that advertisement isn't just a sham.

Quote:

And, why all the name calling?

I'm not calling you a bigot, and apologize if that's how I came across. I'm just pointing out that you're supporting the rights of people to discriminate in bigoted ways over the rights of people to live free from bigotry. You know the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" line in the declaration of independence? It's a reference to the bigotry and discrimination in England that was one reason behind the colonization of American and the Revolution.

Colin P. Varga · #62 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 06:54 PM

If Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals can fight and die in Iraq & Afghanistan they should be equal to and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Phillybud · #63 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 07:50 PM

There are historical examples where business owners were allowed to discriminate against minority groups, and members of those groups were denied access to goods, services, and public accommodations:

NAZI GERMANY, South Africa, and the Southern States of the USA under JIM CROW laws.

Imagaine, as recently as 40 years ago, if you were a distinguished African American, you couldn't stay in a 3 star or 4 star luxury hotel in Atlanta or Raleigh ... you had to check into some crummy filthy motel on the edge of town for "colored only".

Phillybud · #64 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

Similarly, it's perfectly fine for a hotel owner to refuse service to someone who's reasonably likely to cause harm to the building or other residents, or clearly don't have the ability to pay. Heck, it might even be okay for the owner of a hostel advertised as a "strict Christian values hostel" to refuse admittance to jews and gays, as long as that advertisement isn't just a sham.

Yes, there are exceptions to civil rights laws, a point I already made. Nothing wrong with a Buddhist only campground and retreat center.

What about the Hilton Hotel chain? The Marriott Hotel Chain? Or the Ramada Inn chain? What if Taco Bell refused to hire or even serve anyone in the L/G/B/T community? The last time something like that happened - about 15 years ago I think - the owners of a restaurant chain call The Cracker Barrel made it a company policy to discriminate against gay people, i.e., not only in hiring, but to fire any employee who was gay. The firings actually commenced. Three fired ex-employees began a suit against Cracker Barrel, and soon every major L/G/B/T organization was on the restaurant chain like a duck on a junebug ... a quick out of court settlement was reached to the benefit of the fired employees. The restaurant chain has a strong nondiscrimination policy now.

john w k · #65 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

If Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals can fight and die in Iraq & Afghanistan they should be equal to and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

And shouldn't the same apply to “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, “bible thumpers” and "bigots" who have also laid their life on the line in the war?

The truth is, one of the most fundamental rights that should be protected for war veterans, regardless of sexual orientation or political beliefs, is to be free to exercise their liberty to reject unwanted business contracts and associations.

What is the big deal if Bobbie the "feminist", who hates men, refused to hire men? What is the big deal if Dominick the homophobe, who hates homosexuals, refuses to hire homosexuals? I thought our government’s job was to protect the liberty of all.

The argument of those who favor the ordinance, which unquestionably impinges upon an inalienable right of a politically unpopular group, claim it is justified to advance a moral code ___ bigotry shall not be tolerated! But such an argument when the liberty and inalienable rights of a politically unpopular group hangs in the balance, and is threatened using the force of government, carries 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.

Indeed,

What the Court eloquently points out is,

Quote:

“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 more than ten years later, in LAWRENCE v. TEXAS protecting the rights of homosexuals, decided June 26, 2003, the Court again points out that Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.

And what is the ordinance in question designed to accomplish? It is intentionally designed by its advocates to end what they allege is the “bigotry” of “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, and “bible thumpers” who may prefer to not engage in business contracts or associations with homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians. It is quite obvious that the “moral” views of these two identifiable groups conflict and as the Court has correctly stated: “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” and thus:

“ 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”

An so, both of these identifiable groups must be left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations without the force of government interfering, and left free to reject unwanted contracts and associations as each may see fit. To use the force of government to favor one of these group’s “view“, is to deny the other their liberty which our constitutional system was intended to protect, and would also make a mockery of equal protection under law.

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

Colin P. Varga · #66 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

And shouldn't the same apply to “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, “bible thumpers” and "bigots" who have also laid their life on the line in the war?

The truth is, one of the most fundamental rights that should be protected for war veterans, regardless of sexual orientation or political beliefs, is to be free to exercise their liberty to reject unwanted business contracts and associations.

What is the big deal if Bobbie the "feminist", who hates men, refused to hire men? What is the big deal if Dominick the homophobe, who hates homosexuals, refuses to hire homosexuals? I thought our government’s job was to protect the liberty of all.

The argument of those who favor the ordinance, which unquestionably impinges upon an inalienable right of a politically unpopular group, claim it is justified to advance a moral code ___ bigotry shall not be tolerated! But such an argument when the liberty and inalienable rights of a politically unpopular group hangs in the balance, and is threatened using the force of government, carries 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.

Indeed,

What the Court eloquently points out is,

And more than ten years later, in LAWRENCE v. TEXAS protecting the rights of homosexuals, decided June 26, 2003, the Court again points out that Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.

And what is the ordinance in question designed to accomplish? It is intentionally designed by its advocates to end what they allege is the “bigotry” of “homophobes”, “religious fanatics“, and “bible thumpers” who may prefer to not engage in business contracts or associations with homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians. It is quite obvious that the “moral” views of these two identifiable groups conflict and as the Court has correctly stated: “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” and thus:

“ 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”

An so, both of these identifiable groups must be left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations without the force of government interfering, and left free to reject unwanted contracts and associations as each may see fit. To use the force of government to favor one of these group’s “view“, is to deny the other their liberty which our constitutional system was intended to protect, and would also make a mockery of equal protection under law.

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

Bigots are not discriminated against by law; however, bigotry can be a legal matter.

Phillybud · #67 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

What is the big deal if Bobbie the "feminist", who hates men, refused to hire men? What is the big deal if Dominick the homophobe, who hates homosexuals, refuses to hire homosexuals? I thought our government’s job was to protect the liberty of all.

If Bobbie was the owner was the owner of Boeing, a lot of men would be out of work.

If Dominick was the owner of WalMart, a lot of gay people would be out of work.

Bobby and Dom have the right to prohibit the people they hate from their homes and backyards. They have the freedom of speech to denounce and ridicule the people they hate to others and they have the right to publish the bigoted opinions. They can join groups of the others of like-mind like the KKK, the American Nazi Party (sorry but I never heard of a feminist who is anti-man and I happen to know that organizations like NOW have many male members). What they can not do is prohibit people they don't like from living in an apartment complex, or going to see a baseball game, or staying at a large resort hotel, or going to the symphony ... even if the bigot happens to own one or more of those venues.

Gay people have the right to stay at the city's only Four Star Hotel, even if the owner of that hotel hates them. It is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. They do not have to stay at the crummy motel at the edge of town.

Gay people have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejudice and discrimination by bigots are a form of PERSECUTION that abridges those rights.

If bigots have the right to discriminate against gay people in public accommodation, then gay people's rights to employment, opportunity, goods, services, and public accommodations TRUMP the so-called "right" for the bigot to put into action his hatred, bigotry, and homophobia.

Get it????!!!!!

What is so hard to understand??!!!

Someone out there help me out if I am inarticulate and not getting my point of view understood.

Mixiboi · #68 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

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..

Any place that discriminates for economic benefit, doesn't have much time before they declare chapter 11...

Michael Tree · #69 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

Bigots are not discriminated against by law;

They are, but only in the same sense that slave owners were discriminated against by the 13th amendment, when they no longer had the right to own other human beings as property. This example is less extreme, but it's essentially the same: their ability to do unjust things to other people is limited by law.

John, if you hate this law so much, then campaign for Congress to repeal it. Arguing that it's unconstitutional and repetitively saying the word "Inalienable!" isn't only pointless, it's incorrect, since the supreme court and many other courts have upheld the law. You may not like it, but you disliking it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

john w k · #70 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theLovebelow

Any place that discriminates for economic benefit, doesn't have much time before they declare chapter 11...

discriminates?

I see you, like our leech infested lawyer industry, views the word discriminate as a dirty word and the world’s greatest of all plagues.

In any event, you should think before making such statements. I don't recall Hooter’s restaurants which discriminates in hiring female servers declaring chapter 11 because it only hires female servers in its restaurants.

On the other hand, If Bobbie the feminist was the owner of Boeing, and fired male employees, I suspect Boeing would soon be filing under chapter 11..

Likewise, if Dominick the homophobe was the owner of WalMart, and fired all gays, I suspect Dominick would likewise destroy his own business, and deservingly so!

The simple truth is, a free market system has a way of policing itself in a just and equitable manner.

JWK