[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Indiana religion law is Jim Crow of our time
Source: Cincinnati.com
URL Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi ... on-law-jim-crow-time/70617014/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Ryan Messer
Post Date: 2015-03-29 04:44:12 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 29048
Comments: 127

The arguments for Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are strikingly similar to the arguments for racial discrimination some 50 years ago. Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love.

Let’s tell it like it is: The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Jim Crow legislation of our time. Today, African-Americans are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free. Alas, LGBT people enjoy no such protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but at least always had trusted their home state legislatures and governors not to turn on them.

I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply.

The passage of this discriminatory legislation brings back painful memories in Cincinnati of a charter amendment, commonly known as Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law. It was a sorry moment in our city’s history – one in which an entire class of people was singled out for non-protection.

The city’s image was damaged throughout the country, and the economic impact was significant, with conventions being canceled and prestigious companies choosing not to do business in our city. I was a resident of Cincinnati at the time, and the passage of the charter amendment created a cloud over the city that ultimately contributed to my decision to leave. I wasn’t alone. Many people I knew moved to cities that they viewed as more welcoming: Chicago, Atlanta, San Diego. I moved to New York.

Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could. Cincinnati now is seen as one of those welcoming cities – one dramatically different from what it was. Did we fall into the dream that the rest of American had taken that journey with us? If so, we’ve had a rude awakening.

Now I have to question where in Indiana my family can go without discrimination. Can we visit the Indianapolis Children’s Museum? Will a hotel turn us away? Would we be allowed to buy a cupcake at a bakery? If you can, put yourself in our shoes for a moment you can see how unsettling and infuriating this situation is.

Maybe the good people of Indiana will come back to their senses as the good people of Cincinnati did some years ago. While they’re pondering what they’ve done, we Cincinnatians should contact the convention organizers who have announced they will pull their meetings out of Indiana and let them know that they are heartily welcome in the Queen City.

We should work with the business leaders who have decided not to expand in Indiana and let them know that they are very welcome to locate in our Ohio and Kentucky counties. And we certainly should let all the talented Hoosiers who happen to be LGBT know that they are welcome to live, work, love and play here.

Indiana may have lost its sense of justice and good sense for a while but the rest of us understand the human and business cases for diversity and inclusion. Let’s cash in on the progress we’ve made in Cincinnati and elevate our status as a city that welcomes diversity of all kinds and declines to discriminate against any of our citizens.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

#6. To: Willie Green (#0)

"Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love."

I agree. Let's not screw around. Let's settle this once and for all.

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   9:59:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: misterwhite, Willie Green (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-ii/section-2000a/

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS - 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2012)

§2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a) Equal access

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments

Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined

The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Support by State action

Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) Private establishments

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title II, §201, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 243.)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   21:00:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: nolu chan (#59)

I'm aware of the law.

"Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses?

It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   10:00:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: misterwhite (#64)

"Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses?

It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.

You use the term interferes with interstate commerce. The law uses the term affects interstate commerce. There is very long standing precedent that someting that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction. The Court's definition of affects is ridiculously broad. Activity that "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect,'" triggers the interstate commerce clause jurisdiction.

Any national debate would need to focus on a constitutional amendment to force a reversal of that. A law contrary to the Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, would be held unconstitutional. Then you would practically need a constitutional convention to get that done because Congress just ain't ever gonna go there, at least not in the foreseeable future.

A national discussion of discrimination law could address the problem and legislation could act upon it. Legislation cannot act to change SCOTUS interpretations of the constitution, including those regarding the breadth of jurisdiction, but it can act on prior legislation.

I agree with your point about kosher food, and would include halal food in the same context. Also, I would look at forcing a baker to create a special cake for the SAE fraternity at Oklahoma University, complete with verses from the fraternity chant or cakes decorated with a pornographic theme.

I do not even see why the discrimination law needs to change. I do not see it as discrimination when a business declines to create a product it does not currently offer for public sale. There is nothing in the law which should be interpreted to require a business to do something contrary to their religious beliefs or which they find morally repugnant. They need only sell the cakes and decorations they offer for sale. I agree with your main point; I disagree with your selection of target.

The interstate commerce argument is aimed at federal jurisdiction rather than the regulating law. Precedent expanding jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause predates Heart of Atlanta.

The opening salvo of Heart of Atlanta regarding jurisdiction harkens back to precedent from 1824.

7. The Power of Congress Over Interstate Travel.

The power of Congress to deal with these obstructions depends on the meaning of the Commerce Clause. Its meaning was first enunciated 140 years ago by the great

379 U. S. 254

Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), in these words:

[...]

379 U. S. 255

[...]

“We are now arrived at the inquiry -- What is this power?”

“It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution. . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress . . . is plenary as to those objects [specified in the Constitution], the power over commerce . . . is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States. The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments. [At 22 U. S. 196-197.]”

In short, the determinative test of the exercise of power by the Congress under the Commerce Clause is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is “commerce which concerns more States than one” and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest. Let us now turn to this facet of the problem.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) expanded jurisdiction under the commerce clause further.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/

Wickard v. Filburn

Location: Roscoe Filburn's Farm

Facts of the Case

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

Question

Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wickard, 0 vote(s) against

Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Agricultural Adjustment Act

According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-30   15:26:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: nolu chan (#68) (Edited)

"The law uses the term affects interstate commerce."

Fine. We'll go with that.

"There is very long standing precedent that something that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction."

The long-standing precedent has been, "has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating." That was true for Wickard, The Shreveport Rate Cases, Raich, and a whole slew of others.

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   16:15:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 71.

#77. To: misterwhite (#71)

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30 16:51:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: misterwhite (#71)

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

They were regulating racial discrimination.

Regarding my point about the commerce clause and jurisdiction, it does not matter what Congress was regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case. They were not disturbing the long standing precedent regarding jurisdiction under the commerce clause. They held that what was being regulated has a substantial effect of the economy and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal government to regulate it.

The matter of jurisdiction is separate from the merits of the regulatory act. The expansive interpretation makes the jurisdiction applicable to almost anything that has a substantial effect, direct or indirect, on the economy.

Justice Scalia has written that, with Filburn, the Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason.” I agree with Scalia, but it remains that the clause is still expanded beyond all reason. Legislation cannot reverse that ruling.

http://www.powershow.com/view/236c2-ODIwZ/The_Commerce_Clause_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

Powerpoint, slide 14

The New Deal Regime

• During the 50 years since Wickard, Congress expanded national regulation into myriad aspects of national life, using the Commerce Clause as the constitutional base, all with the Supreme Court's approval.

• For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations such as motels, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, movie theaters, etc. throughout the country.

• In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) the Supreme Court upheld the act reasoning that racial discrimination has a substantial negative effect on the economy.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-31 23:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com