[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: 29065
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 # 91.

#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  


#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:07:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Yes they certainly do.

Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-30   21:09:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: A K A Stone (#83)

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.

Because blacks were deprived of their rights for over two centuries, they are a special case. Whites lost their rights to discriminate against them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   8:47:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Does a black church have a right to ask someone to leave because they are white?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-31   9:30:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: A K A Stone (#87)

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   9:33:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-31   9:37:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   10:27:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 91.

#100. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

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.

You want to gas the democrats. All of them. 90 plus percent of blacks vote for democrats. So you want to gas blacks at a higher ration then whites.

So they can be gassed. But you also have to allow them in your store. Got ya.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-01 08:01:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

"Segregationists in America are a defeated, hated enemy."

Louis Farrakhan is still giving speeches.

Oh, excuse me. You were referring to white segregationists. My bad.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-01 09:46:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 91.

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