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: 29080
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 Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could.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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#56)
Before anyone boycotts riding trains through Indiana below link is a better explanation of the law. Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also. http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom- restoration-act- explained_900641.html This is leftist hysteria from not knowing history.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
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/ §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.)
I think the claim is that Section 7 is expansive in its definition of person.
I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks. It also has the absolute right to not serve anyone. It should be the same for every business, but not for the government. Take away the right to refuse to serve a minority and you effectively nationalize everyones business.
native nationalist wears a pillow case on his head in addition to his white diaper. I didn't realize it until I started reading this thread.
Or whites. If I walk into a black bar in a black neighborhood, the owner has every right not to serve me and to ask me to leave. Although he doesn't have to give a reason for doing that, I can think of a half-dozen good ones off the top of my head.
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.
You need to read through the thread Bill, I'm not the one who suggested banning blacks. I am the one who opposed that idea. I'd say your reading comprehension sucks, you'd better read the thread again William.
The RFRA of Illinois was one of the few votes the emperor cast a vote for , instead of voting present .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Interesting.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
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. 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/ 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.'"
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1228 HB1228 - TO ENACT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/03/arkansas-senate-passes-religious-freedom-bill.php By Dominic Yobbi [JURIST] The Arkansas Senate [official website] on Friday approved a controversial bill [bill backgrounder] intended to protect religious freedoms of businesses. Those supporting the Republican-backed say it will protect religious freedoms for businesses, and those opposed say that businesses may be allowed to go too far with the law and refuse service to homosexuals. The bill states that "governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification." Supporters stated [Reuters report] that a business should not be forced to, for example, cater a same-sex wedding if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owner. Those opposed to the bill include local business giants Walmart [corporate website] and Apple [official website]. A Walmart spokesperson stated, "We feel this legislation is counter to this core basic belief and sends the wrong message about Arkansas, as well as the diverse environment which exists in the state." Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights remain controversial throughout the US. Last week the Indiana Senate gave final approval [JURIST report] to a "religious freedom" bill that would allow business owners to turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation. Earlier this month Utah lawmakers unveiled legislation [JURIST report] that aims to balance religious rights and protections against LGBT discrimination in the workplace and housing. In February an Arkansas enacted a bill, similar to the bill enacted Friday in that it prohibits cities and local governments from establishing ordinances with anti-discrimination codes became law [JURIST report] when Asa Hutchinson declined to veto it. Also in February Kansas Governor Sam Brownback rescinded [JURIST report] a number of executive orders by the former governor, including one that protected LGBT state employees from unfair hiring practices, sexual harassment and other types of discrimination at work.
We can debate it. My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason. That's what our law currently is, and I expect that it will upheld. In particular, owners of private business have no constitutional right to bar anyone from service on the basis of the person's race, ethnicity or religion. If you're going to open your doors to public commerce, you can profit from access to the stream of commerce, but there are certain things you cannot do. And forbidding blacks, Hispanics, Muslims or Jews (or Catholics, or Protestants) from using those services is the most historically important of them.
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?
Sure he does. He has the right to liberty. The right to be free. You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his. I don't see it that way. I disagree with the current law.
What's ridiculous is for anybody think that in America, after a million dead in a Civil War and another century of racial strife and apartheid that only ended with a lot of heavy-handed legislation and Supreme Court rulings, that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people. Perhaps it needs to be stated more clearly: BECAUSE OF America's history of slavery and racial segregation, lynching and brutality against blacks, no America has the constitutionally protected right to discriminate against blacks in any way, or under any circumstances, other than in the privacy of his own home. It is entirely illegal in all of its manifestations in the workplace, or in commerce. That's the truth of it. And unfortunately, given the nasty, stubborn, persistent desire to engage in that sort of behavior, and to defend it and connive at it, the only way to prevent the reinfestation by that particular form of political poison ivy is to kill it every time it pops up, with fire. Too many people died and too much suffering has occurred for us to continue to pretend that Americans have the right to discriminate against blacks. They do not, and if they try, the system will destroy them. And should.
Who said that? Not I. I said in post #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." I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.
That's right. I am. He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be. America has a specific bad history concerning blacks. We enslaved them and then segrated them, lynched them and beat them down. And then, once they were legally freed, the evil minds of many Americans sought to keep them down still by private means such as restrictive covenants in the sale of land (you cannot sell to blacks), or in hiring, or in forbidding them service in certain places of business, because they were black. We killed a million people in a Civil War that ended slavery, and we had a long and bitter struggle to end racial apartheid. Because of the stubborn persistence of that evil, to root it out and keep it gone, the personal liberty of white people has to be restricted somewhat. You can still have a business and make money in that grand stream of commerce, but you no longer have the right to say that black people cannot come in, and you do not have the right to refuse them service. If you hate them so much you think it is wrong for you to serve them, then don't go into business. But your right to operate a business as you please is no longer unlimited. BECAUSE white America fucked the blacks so badly for so long, some of your rights have been permanently lost in order to force you to treat blacks as equal. That's the way it is, and that's the way it has to be, because some Americans were too evil to allow it to be any other way, so they ruined it for everybody. Once upon a time, business owners were completely free to do as they pleased. And once upon a time states were sovereign in their rights. But, because the states decided to use their states rights specifically to crush the liberty of one part of the population, the blacks, and because white business owners decided to use their rights as business owners to keep blacks out, and we had to lose a million lives to end slavery, the states no longer are permitted the rights they used to have: the rights to do that sort of thing had to be chopped away, and were. Likewise, because business owners just had to be evil, rules were made that no longer leave them completely free. You're still free to run your business as you please, except that you have no right to discriminate against blacks and remain in business. That's the way it is now, and that's the way that it has to be, because the racist whites were too committed and too stubborn to the principle of equality. So, they ruined it for everybody, and we all lost some of the rights we used to have, because it's the only way to ensure that blacks have the same rights we do. There isn't any other way to do it, and we're not going back.
The nation, historically, ALWAYS singled out blacks. That's what "States Rights" were always fought about: the right to have slaves, to extend slavery, to have fugitive slave acts, and then, to have racial segregation. In the abstract, "states rights" COULD mean a lot of things, but in the reality of American history, "states rights" meant the "right" of the white majority to democratically impose laws to screw the blacks. That's what it meant, and the way it was overcome was by the concentration of federal power to cut down those states rights. Heart of Atlanta was decided specifically because white owners prohibited blacks from staying in their hotels. The government said "nope" and predicated the decision on the Commerce Clause, specifically because everything is involved in commerce, and therefore the federal government has plenary power to legislate against anything, anywhere, that discriminates in any way against blacks. The South was very stubborn in the Civil War and afterwards. But the North was just as stubborn. Those who were determined to keep the blacks down met their match in those who were just as determined to cut ANY such restrictions to pieces. So, while some play an intellectual game of "general rights" and "business owners have the right", others - like me - reply - yes, plenty of rights, but SPECIFICALLY not the right to EVER discriminate against BLACKS in ANYTHING. Because people like me know our history, and we know that that's always where it goes. Always has, still does. America cannot have a completely neutral "Do as you please in commerce" law, because too many people "pleased" for too long to crush down the blacks. And some still will, if they can. Well, they can't, and the rules are written now to remove the ability to even start the argument. Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not. And the reason they're not is because blacks were not free. Because blacks lost their freedom and were held down, to end that, business owners had to lose some of their freedom. They have. And that will stand.
Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation.
Wow. That sure sounds like we should do everything we can to keep them in business, huh? Yet the law you want to enforce is resulting in these businesses choosing to close rather than serve certain customers. Oops.
So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights. Pure gobbledygook.
Enslaving blacks was bad, but enslaving businesses is good? Well I'm here to say, "Let my business go!"
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I was going to bring this up to give the troll something to chew on but you beat me to it.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Yes they certainly do. Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?
You can't lose a right. It is a right.
Pure gobbledygook. Pure power.
In general yes. If it's asking people to leave because they are black, no. Because blacks were deprived of their rights for over two centuries, they are a special case. Whites lost their rights to discriminate against them.
Does a black church have a right to ask someone to leave because they are white?
No. But if they did it, there would be no effective prosecution. The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way. It will be a couple of generations before this ceases to be the case.
The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way. It will be a couple of generations before this ceases to be the case. You are inconsistent. Any person has a right to not associate with any person for any reason they decide, be it reasonable or unreasonable. To say A black church can tell a white not to come because of race but not vice versa. That shows hypocrisy on your part. There is no other way to put it.
Affirmative action violates the right of White people and Asians. Probably others too. So to correct that. If you were consistent. There should be set asides for whites to get jobs because they are white.
I didn't say that the Black church SHOULD exclude whites (and in fact, they DON'T - I've been to a few). What I said was the truth: they COULD, and the authorities would look the other way. This is not hypocrisy on my part. When it comes to Black civil rights in general, and SPECIFIC allowances that are made for Blacks - the SPECIFIC limitations on States Rights, and landlords' rights (they cannot refuse to rent to them), and business operators' rights (they cannot refuse to serve them), and employers' rights (they cannot have a policy of refusing to hire them), the "special rules carve-outs" for Blacks, that I generally support, are not really a case of hypocrisy either. It would be hypocrisy if I stood up all the time and crowed about the Rule of Law as the be all and end all. But I don't do that, because I think the Law is an ass. What concerns ME is the line in the Declaration that says "All men are created equal", when placed alongside of the screaming evil of American slavery until 1865, and then enforced segregation until 1964, followed by subtle but real redlining and other efforts to privately enforce discrimination. I do not respect the notion of private rights to the point that I think that the white slavers/segregationists who imposed so much misery on Blacks (and on everybody else - a million people died in the war that ended slavery, and most of those dead were not black) get to hide behind them. They did just exactly that: "States' Rights" was SYNONYMOUS with "the right to segregate" and to extend slavery, for much of the country's history. "Private Rights of association" were wielded to redline, impose restrictive covenants, and keep the Blacks out. I've seen the history and its bitter fruit, and I'm sick of the resistance, and I do not forgive the slavers and segregationists all of the lives they took to defend their damned practices, and all of the lives they destroyed to extract advantages for themselves. So, I agree with the direction the country took: unable to persuade by argument and reason, violent force was applied, and had to be applied again and again and again. And because of that bitter experience, Blacks have to have PARTICULAR rights over and against those whites who want to exclude them. Which means that the perfect symmetry of states rights had to be significantly reduced, and the perfect freedom of association and contract had to be destroyed. Because those rights had to be altered to no longer permit whites to do THAT. Had there not been a Civil War with all the bloodshed, and then 100 years of aggressive resistance to black rights afterwards, I would be more philosophical. But fact is, oceans of blood were shed, it was all unjust. And given the inveterate injustice of the white segregationist side, and the bloodshed, I have taken a battlefield position: better the injustice be inflicted on white segregationists, who DO deserve to have their rights reduced and the freedom of their states curtailed so they cannot do THAT any more, than to allow the symmetry of the law to continue and the segregationists to be able to manipulate it to continue to oppress the blacks. Even today, look where the argument goes. You want a concession that whites have the right to exclude blacks. No, that right has SPECIFICALLY been taken away from them, and from their states, forever, BECAUSE the whites DID IT in the past, so egregiously, and killed so many people to maintain their "right to oppress". That right to oppress was destroyed in war, and the defeated side STILL clings to its desire to fight. And as long as they do, so do I. My side won, and we are going to hold the other side down, by force, forever. Is it unjust? I don't care if it is. Black slavery and segregation was MORE unjust, and given the intransigence of the segregationist whites, if injustice is going to have to be inflicted on somebody - and apparently it has to be - then I am of a mind to continue to inflict it on THEM, in favor of the Blacks, instead of ever letting the white segregationists get a foothold in rights and law again. Call it victor's justice. The white segregationists are, to me, like the German civilians living in those cities down below. I'm an Allied bomber pilot, the Germans started the war. They may not be PERSONALLY guilty, but I don't care: they're the enemy, and I'm going to bomb them until they either get down on their knees and surrender or they're all dead. And then once they surrender, they never get to get back up completely as equals. In particular, freedom of speech is fine, except that you Germans no longer have the right to be Nazis, or to proclaim your hatred of Jews or Gypsies or other groups. You lost the right to be treated completely equally BECAUSE you went on a murderous tear and we had to lose a lot of our own to put you Germans back in a box. We did, and now there are rules. You do not have the same complete sovereignty you did before, and you specifically do not have the freedom to organize along those anti-Semitic lines, or even to discuss it neutrally. Your evil was too great, so now you will be silent about it forever, and if you decide to stand up for the Nazis, you're going to be put down. Forever. THAT form of expression lost its rights. Fair? Victor's justice. Effective. Same thing with slavers and segregationists. They inflicted more bloodshed and suffering on America than the Nazis did. There is no right to be a segregationists. You do not have the right to operate a business that excludes Blacks. If you try, we will send armed forces to shut you down, and we will make an example of you so that others are dissuaded from trying. Break the segregationists, impoverish them and hold them down, and eventually it will be so unattractive that only knuckle-draggers will hold on. In two or three generations, we'll be able to drop the PARTICULAR vigilance about black issues, the PARTICULAR sensitivity. But we're not there yet. Hypocrisy? No more than it is hypocrisy to prohibit the Germans from being Nazis. Segregationists in America are a defeated, hated enemy. They do not have rights to be segregationists, and whenever they stick up their heads they will be persecuted and destroyed. Freedom of speech does not include THAT speech. Try to go down that track, and you'll end up at Gettysburg again. Lather, rinse, repeat until it stops. Whites don't have the right to exclude blacks from their churches. If they do, then the Church is not a church, is not tax exempt. Whites don't have the right to refuse to serve blacks in their businesses, or to refuse to sell to blacks, or to refuse to hire blacks. If they do, their businesses will be taken, and further financial punishments will be put upon them - to make an example out of them. It is not enough to simply stop the behavior. People who try to engage in it need to be publicly destroyed, to frighten everybody else so that people are not tempted to go back down that tired old route. Nazis are destroyed in Germany. And white segregationists are destroyed in America. It has to be that way, in both cases, because of history. This is not hypocrisy. It's Victor's justice.
So to correct that. If you were consistent. There should be set asides for whites to get jobs because they are white. Not happening. Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s. The lack of capital to start out with was a legacy of slavery. Immigrants often lacked capital, but THEY could get jobs. Blacks were excluded from jobs, so they were not able to build up the capital either, for a century after slavery. The segregationists, using the color bar at hiring, effectively maintained an economic segregation. Also, the method of public funding has always ensured that poor areas in America have relatively crappy schools, and therefore, less opportunity. This has always meant that Blacks had less opportunity because of structural restraints imposed on them in America that were never imposed on other immigrants. A little less than half of the black population of America were born when segregation was still legal and enforced. This is not ancient history. Therefore, to overcome this legacy of enforced evil against blacks, there is an enforced favoritism towards blacks in hiring. Slavery and segregation were enforced by law, and the antidote to the persistent economic effects from slavery and segregation are enforced by law. Is it "unfair"? Sure. It's unfair to whites and Asians and others who didn't participate in segregation. So, what are the alternatives? Saying "tough luck" about the economic overhang of slavery and segregation will not cut it. I suppose that, instead of hiring quotas, we could simply go to a system of transfer payments, to give the Blacks capital directly, as opposed to having them work for at jobs like immigrants have always happy. That approach seems more radical, and is likely to raise resistance among whites and others who otherwise understand the historical evils that America imposed on Blacks. We're willing to use the power of the law, through Affirmative Action, to get the employment levels that get the cash flow, to raise up the black middle class so that it will eventually be self-sustaining. That's acceptable. Wholesale transfer payments would be too immediately expensive and is, therefore, unacceptable. You're not going to accept any of it. The opposition entrenched long ago. But it was always allied with the segregationists anyway, and offers nothing but leaving the Blacks in the squalor that America forced them down into. So the debate on this is over. Once again it is a matter of brute force political power being applied across an irreconcilable divide. That divide was cut there by whites hellbent on slavery and segregation. American slavery and segregation lasted about 350 years. It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative Action and the countermeasures to reverse the damage done by Slavery and segregation probably won't last another 300 years. But the built in systemic disadvantages of blacks are still there, still visible. Indeed, with the rise of police abuse of EVERYBODY, what is very likely to happen is that the disproportionate police abuse of blacks, which is rampant, will be the next battlefield, and it will be upon THAT battlefield that the police are finally brought to their knees and have a boot put on their neck. And that will, long term, benefit everybody. Of course the allies of the segregationists will never concede anything. So the debate is over. It's really just a matter of pure power now. My side won the Civil War. We won the segregation fight. We imposed Affirmative Action, and we're probably going to start tearing apart police departments and stripping away power from the police because they're abusing Blacks disproportionately. Some assholes don't get the message. So we're going to have to draw the sword and beat another set down. And keep on doing it. Slavery and segregation were maintained by brute force against blacks. It was unfair and the slavers and segregationists didn't give a shit. Affirmative Action and stripping away the legal right to discriminate against Blacks, in particular, may be unfair in an abstract sense, but given the history, we who have imposed these measures do not care that the segregationists think its unfair any more than they cared about their unfairness. It's Victor's Justice. It's necessary. The next target are the police. They abuse everybody now, but it is their abuse of blacks, in particular, that allows the full might of the federal government to be brought to bear to rewrite local police and prison rules. And you can bet your sweet bippy that reform in that direction is coming, and will keep on coming.
Yesterday, I heard that the allegedly awful provision is Section 9. It offers that the law may be asserted as a defense regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party of the proceeding. Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 9
It wouldn't be a religious protection measure if section 9 was missing.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Victor's Justice is wrong and a lie. i know many blacks who have become successful businessmen, even multi-millionaires.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
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 • 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.
I'm still not clear on what the ranting and raving is about. The effective date of the Act is not until July 1, 2015. It has not done a thing yet. I view the cake case as an abusive claim of discrimination that does not exist. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the Federal RFRA that applied against the States. That is why various states have enacted their own RFRA closely following the language of the Federal law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/case.html City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus: At 507-08: Held: RFRA exceeds Congress' power. pp. 512-536. [...] (c) RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress' § 5 enforcement power because it contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal-state balance. Opinion of the Court: At 536:
I'm a little tired of hearing this millennial like excuse. It's been 150 years since slavery... and the highest elected political position is held by a black man. To Wit; THEY HAVE EQUALITY... and any special considerations towards any race will only be a contributing factor towards that races ability to evolve with modern day skills to compete with other races. Affirmative action is like welfare. If used past only what's needed, the recipient starts to become dependent upon it. A business owners right to do business with whom they want should out trump anyone's feelings. That's the bottom line here. The issue needs to be solved by capitalism... not legislating laws to appeal to weak thin skinned sheeple.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Comments (99 - 127) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS - 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2012)
#60. To: redleghunter (#57)
Where's the Jim Crow claim?
#61. To: misterwhite (#6)
#62. To: hondo68 (#53)
Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is.
#63. To: jeremiad (#61)
"I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks."
#64. To: nolu chan (#59)
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#62)
#66. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#58)
Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.
#67. To: tomder55 (#66)
#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."
7. The Power of Congress Over Interstate Travel.
Wickard v. Filburn
#69. To: tomder55, redleghunter, A K A Stone, willie green (#66)
Arkansas Senate approves 'religious freedom' bill
Jurist
Monday 30 March 2015 at 8:07 AM ET
#70. To: misterwhite (#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.
#71. To: nolu chan (#68)
(Edited)
"The law uses the term affects interstate commerce."
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
"the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason."
#73. To: misterwhite (#64)
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.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
"that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people."
#75. To: misterwhite (#72)
You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his.
#76. To: misterwhite (#74)
(Edited)
I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.
#77. To: misterwhite (#71)
What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
"Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation."
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
"Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not."
#81. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, Liberator (#40)
Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.
#82. To: redleghunter (#58)
Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
and we all lost some of the rights
#85. To: misterwhite (#79)
So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights.
#86. To: A K A Stone (#83)
Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave? In general yes. If it's asking people to leave because they are black, no.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#87)
Does a black church have a right to ask someone to leave because they are white?
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
No. But if they did it, there would be no effective prosecution.
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#89)
To say A black church can tell a white not to come because of race but not vice versa. That shows hypocrisy on your part. There is no other way to put it.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#90)
Affirmative action violates the right of White people and Asians. Probably others too.
#93. To: redleghunter (#57)
Where's the Jim Crow claim?
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
#94. To: nolu chan (#93)
#95. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
#96. To: misterwhite (#71)
What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?
The New Deal Regime
#97. To: redleghunter (#94)
It wouldn't be a religious protection measure if section 9 was missing.
(b) In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, lib- [508] erty, or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5.
It is for Congress in the first instance to "determin[e] whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment," and its conclusions are entitled to much deference. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S., at 651. Congress' discretion is not unlimited, however, and the courts retain the power, as they have since Marbury v. Madison, to determine if Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution. Broad as the power of Congress is under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance. The judgment of the Court of Appeals sustaining the Act's constitutionality is reversed.
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
(Edited)
Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s. The lack of capital to start out with was a legacy of slavery.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]