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: 28942
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 Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could.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 (1-87) not displayed.
.
.
.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#87)
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
Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s. Who gives a shit. They are all daed. Here in the world of the living. My father didn't get a job because he was white. The black man got the job. My fathers side of the family didn't even arrive here until after the civil war. So people who support special privelagers for blacks can stick them up their asses. If I don't want to hire a black I wont. It is my right. If I don't want to work with a faggot. I wont.
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.
With Filburn, Congress was already regulating the nationwide production and interstate commerce of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act in order to drive up the price. In return, Congress was promising to pay above-market price for the wheat that was produced. Enter Roscoe Filburn who wanted it both ways. He grew twice his allotment, sold half at the higher price, and consumed the remainder. That wasn't the deal, and had every wheat farmer done this, the Agricultural Adjustment Act would have failed. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed to encourage interstate commerce. To say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot stay at a particular motel is ridiculous. Might as well say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot afford to stay at a particular motel and they should be offered a lower rate. If Congress wants to pass the Civil Rights Act and say the federal government will not discriminate, that's fine. If a state wants to pass similar legislation and say the state government will not discriminate, that's fine. But for thje federal government in Washington, D.C. to pass a law saying that private businesses nationwide may not discriminate, they've gone too far. This phony-baloney court decision was as contrived as the "penumbra of an emanation" in Roe v Wade.
Louis Farrakhan is still giving speeches. Oh, excuse me. You were referring to white segregationists. My bad.
The KKK couldn't have come up with a better program. With affirmative action, every job, promotion, position, enrollment, etc. awarded to a black is looked upon as being issued solely because of skin color, not qualifications. How else do you explain that every company in America now has racially diversified employees in almost the exact percentages as the population? Pure chance? Does the government think that people wouldn't notice? And heaven forbid if the black fails at the task. It simply affirms what people thought all along. Worst program ever.
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 9 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. The way I read that, it means that a religious person can bring a claim before a judge that his civil rights to free practice of his religion are being burdened by a public or private action. What's wrong with that? The judge decides, just like any other claim. Seems to me that the old adage "No remedy, no right" applies. If people have an alleged "right" to religious freedom, but it can be violated by public and private actors and the individual has no recourse, then the "right" only exists on paper as an ideal. Without something like Section 9, there's no teeth in the First Amendment's religious protection clauses other than hoping to find a sympathetic judge. With Section 9, a judge at least has to hear the case. Makes sense to me.
It has been only 50 years since the end of legal segregation, and only 35-40 years since enforcement really ended the practice. Almost half of Americans lived in a country that had segregation. Almost all black people either themselves lived under segregation, or had a living grandparent or parent who did. And virtually all live under the nasty overhang. You're "tired of hearing it"? Be tired then. The history was evil, the overhang of segregation and redlining and color bar hiring exists in the present living memory of people. You say business owners rights to do as they please should trump these other rights. They don't. And they're not going to for another two or three generations. Everybody who lived under segregation has to be long gone, and everybody who grew up with them. Segregation and redlining and color-bar hiring have to pass from living memory before that is going to happen. BECAUSE businesses practiced segregation, they lost the right to hire or not hire, or serve or not serve, whomever they please. Now, they MUST serve blacks (and anybody else), and they have to hire them too. Small businesses can avoid doing it if they stay small, but large businesses must do so. Any business that won't SERVE blacks will be swiftly put out of business. That's the law. That's the way it is. It is this way BECAUSE OF American racism. And the effects of American racism within our lifetimes - segregation, redlining and color-bar hiring - are still very present and fresh. And therefore these rules will remain in place for the rest of our lives. The white racists gave the rest of us no choice. They would not back down. They would not stop. So they had to be forced to do it at the point of a gun. So they're going to be, probably for the next 100 years, probably until the Hispanics are a majority who then change the law.
Segregation ended in America in 1964. I was born before that. You were too, probably. Not only are "they all dead", segregation is within LIVING MEMORY of all Blacks. All of them. A little less than half of the black population lived DURING the era of segregation and redlining. And every Black American has parents or grandparents who did. This is all within LIVING memory. People who had the dogs turned on them are STILL ALIVE to talk about it. And the economic overhang is here. This is not ancient history. It happened during our lifetimes. All blacks give a shit, and them plus the rest of the country that does form a victorious majority that will keep these laws in place for the rest of our lives. Affirmative action and specific supervision of racial issues surrounding blacks will not be removed until the black population has risen to the same economic status as the whites, or the Hispanics become the political majority and change the law.
If you announce that publicly, you won't have a business. You won't.
Babykillers are murderers, yes. But white racists still have to serve them in their stores if they want to stay in business. That's exactly right. Abortionists are bad, but if they're black, white racists STILL have to serve them - and hire them - or be put out of business, because white racists are fucks who need to have their defeat jammed in their face every second, so that their children and grandchildren and the rest of the society decide that holding onto THAT particular stupidity is not worth the ostracism and constant defeat that it brings. The segregationists keep saying they will rise again. Let them. Every time they do, they will be put down again. Lather, rinse, repeat until they surrender for good, or have all died out.
If Congress wants to pass the Civil Rights Act and say the federal government will not discriminate, that's fine. If a state wants to pass similar legislation and say the state government will not discriminate, that's fine. But for thje federal government in Washington, D.C. to pass a law saying that private businesses nationwide may not discriminate, they've gone too far. Nope. The Civil Rights Act was passed to try to force Americans to treat black Americans as equals. Racists were determined not to. Pass acts that are limited to government, and you don't uproot the problem. Tie it to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force racists out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't treat blacks as equal in the marketplace. THAT is why the Commerce Clause was invoked by the Court - because once you go to commerce, you are talking about people's ability to make a living. The point was: if you're going to be a racist and refuse to serve blacks, you're not going to be in business at all, anywhere in America. Leaving it to the states was not workable, because the usual suspects, the Old Confederacy, were never going to force equal treatment in the marketplace. The only way to do it was federal power, backed by the threat of federal guns. That did it. The hard attitudes remained, but they could no longer be EXPRESSED in business. In dark little corners, ugly little bars still had "no blacks" rules, and those rules stood until somebody noticed and decided to disembark there with federal powers behind him. Then the bar owner either submitted, publicly in front of the cameras - OR he refused, and was put out of business. Remember how blacks used to have to get off the sidewalk for whites under segregation? This was an important symbolism as to who was boss and who was subservient. And THAT is the purpose of the public prosecutions, of never letting it stand ANYWHERE. To humiliate the racists by making them do, in public, specifically what they took a stand they would never do. The PURPOSE is to make them get off the sidewalk - to enforce their defeat and inferiority. Attaching it to the Commerce Clause was DESIGNED to force immediate desegregation on pain of instant economic death to whoever resisted, and then to single out and destroy businesses and individuals who DID resist. It worked too. Blacks can rent hotel rooms and eat in restaurants anywhere in America now, and nobody says a word. Most don't care, but there are still a few who DO care, who think "I have the RIGHT to say no to you if I want to because it's MY business." To which the answer is: NO YOU DON'T. And you NEVER WILL AGAIN. There was nothing accidental about this, and nothing hidden about it either. The segregationists were always In-Your-Face, and the desegregationists are, likewise, In-Your-Face in response. It becomes a question of firepower, and the egalitarians have the biggest guns, so we won. That's the truth. It never was an abstract argument with unexpected side effects. The PURPOSE always was to manipulate the laws to give the racists nowhere to hide, to strip away their ability to retreat into private business, and to force them, in public, to do what they said they would never do. To force the public defeat and humiliation, and make them back down on TV in front of everybody - in short, to humiliate THEM and beat THEM down and make THEM step off the sidewalk in full, intentional retaliation to what they did to the Blacks, and HOW They did it - the PUBLIC aspect of the destruction of the racists has been the answer to the public lynchings of the past. It is as I said yesterday: Victor's Justice. Some people PRETEND that it was all mechanical and blind and stupid. Neither side was blind. The white segregationists knew EXACTLY what they were doing and how they were trying to manipulate the legal system. And the white desegregationists also knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and chose legal thermonuclear weapons and very, VERY public and symbolic acts, in order to not just ease in desegregation, but to publicly kick the segregationists in the groin, and publicly humiliate and destroy them in order to intimidate them into not resisting. It worked. It still works. And it's not going to change as long as we live.
Oh, excuse me. You were referring to white segregationists. My bad. Of course. Because BLACK segregationists are idiot poverty pimps living in slums without money. But WHITE segregationists were the majority in many states, and had great political power and a lot of money to enforce their will. So Black segregationists could be, and have been, and still are, ignored as nobody nutjobs on the fringes, poverty pimps. But WHITE segregationists are like Nazis in Germany - the old hated, defeated enemy who must be beaten down whenever he tries to stick his head up, so that the next generation and the next, of whites, who might be attracted to that culture, see the defeat, lack of opportunity, degredation, loss and humiliation as being too high a price to pay to continue the tradition, and leave it behind. This has largely been successful. It has come at a terrible price, but there was no other way to do it. White Segregationists were proud unto death. So some had to be killed, and the others have had to literally be held down by the law, until death, which means a long, long, long period of surveillance and repression of that element. Victor's Justice: the South - the segregationist part of it - NEVER gets to rise again. And when those elements appear in some corner, they get strangled in the crib. This is not accidental. The Civil War was fought by two sides. The segregation/desegregation war was fought by two sides. Black segregationists were always marginal idiots and still are. They don't control anything that anybody but welfare recipients WANTS anyway. But White segregationists - THEY are the old enemy, the old threat - THEY are the Bedford Forrests, looking to Night Ride again. And their opposite numbers are the Shermans and Sheridans in Blue, still ready to ride them down at the whiff of resistance. Too much blood was shed over the issues. The argument was settled by force, and was tried to be reopened by politics. It was settled again by force and politics, and the victors are never going to give the defeated side the chance to mount a third challenge. It's over.
... Worst program ever. And this is even true in Atlanta, Georgia and Montgomery, Alabama. Most effective program ever.
The Civil Rights Act -- though noble and necessarily in many respect at the time -- has turned into a Godzilla of bureaucratic tyranny and fascism It is openly selectively violating the letter of the 14th Amendment. "Equal application of the law"?? NOT in practice and yet unchallenged in several cases. At NO time is one citizen's rights intended to be compromised as judicial reparations for the past.
Tie it to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force racists out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't ----- Not only racists... Tie legislation to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force your conservative/constitutionalist opponents out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't dance to the progressive egalitarian tune. You ain't won yet, 'comte'.....
Now wait. To be fair I'm sure you have some white segregationist who recently did the same thing. So go ahead.
We are not equal. We should not be "forced" to treat anyone "equal". People only deserve to be treated FAIRLY based on their atributes.
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
In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress, dictating to Filburn how many acres of his land he could sow with wheat and harvest, even for wheat he intended for his own use. The expansion of jurisdiction continues to have nothing to do with discrimination law other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce. Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product.
I was thinking about interstate commerce. Did you know that the air that we breathe has traveled across state lines?
We are created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I don't believe that our nation was founded on a lie.
Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers, promising to pay more than the going rate for wheat if they limited their production. Let's be clear -- Filburn gladly took their money when he sold his allotment on the market. But then he violated his part of the deal by growing more than his allotment. Even then, that was allowed if he paid a small penalty. He refused. "other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce." So the FAA can regulate interstate flights but not intrastate flights. I guess a few mid-air collisions are the price we pay for freedom, huh? "Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product." That has nothing to do with the commerce clause. Why do you bring it up? And, yes they can, though that is an odd way to put it. Others would say you pay less in taxes if you buy a commercial product. Examples abound -- donating to charity, buying a house, buying municipal bonds, having children, etc. Or would you say the federal government "regulates and taxes" you if you don't have children?
Protests? Nah. I've noticed the disproportionate police violence against and incarceration of blacks, though. And in light of the increasing police savagery against whites also, I have come to realize that the problem lies in intolerable police savagery that isn't justified. And the fact that it has long fallen more heavily on blacks is no longer evidence that the blacks are particularly a problem, but rather, that the cops treat blacks more savagely because they're black. As long as cops were just doing that to blacks, it was colorably plausible that the problem was the blacks. But now that they are so regularly doing it unjustly to whites, it has come into focus that the problem lies in the savagery of the police force, in their attitudes. And the disprorportionate rates of incarceration and other problems are prima facie evidence of police racism, not inherent black criminality. And blacks have the right to be angry about that, and to march.
Cops treat blacks more savagely because blacks are more savage. You see whites playing the knockout game? Mobbing stores and stealing? Wilding? Shooting each other in their own neighborhoods? Driving out local businesses (then complaining they have to walk a mile for a loaf of bread)? Look at any of the videos posted here and you see blacks harassing, insulting, disrespecting, and resisting any and all police officers. Do I have to post Chris Rock's video again?
If we arm wrestled... a guarantee you we aren't equal. If we were to fight, hand to hand combat... we won't be equal. We aren't equal... and if you believe our country was founded on that concept, then you are sadly mistaken. We are all individuals... and we are different. Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today.
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
Liberals need you to believe that we are all equal. That's how they justify quotas -- if we're equal, then there should be equal outcomes. Well, sorry to say that equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes -- unless you force it. And forcing it is what causes problems.
So the central claim for the right to kill soldiers in the quest for American independence was a lie, and the Declaration of Independence is a piece of toilet paper that means nothing. Got it.
Get back to me when you want to discuss the same topic. Not only are people not equal... but neither is your topic compared to mine. lol
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
[misterwhite #119] Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers, No, the farmers made no deal. Congress dictated terms and decreed “obey.” Farmer Filburn challenged the constitutionality of the law based on a lack of Federal jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a single state. The Federal government expansively defined its own authority to include anything that affects commerce among the states, directly or indirectly. Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, SCOTUS, 1 Pet. 328, 340 (1828) If the government has jurisdiction, it has the power to act. If it does not have jurisdiction, it does not have the power to act. Almost all Federal law is now based on the expanded definition of interstate commerce. It is good to see that Federal regulation makes you feel safe. You should hold your national discussion on how unlimited federal jurisdiction to regulate everything and anything makes you feel safe from the basket to the casket, indeed, from the womb to the tomb, nay more, from the erection to the resurrection. You can stress how expanded federal jurisdiction and regulation keeps us safe from too much freedom. As to flights, the friendly skies are exclusively federal territory. However, I trust you to convene your national discussion of Federal jurisdiction and talk the government to death until it voluntarily concedes the expanded jurisdiction it has taken two centuries to consolidate. May the Force be with you. 322 U. S. 303 (1944) Students of our legal evolution know how this Court interpreted the commerce clause of the Constitution to lift navigable waters of the United States out of local controls and into the domain of federal control. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, to United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377. Air as an element in which to navigate is even more inevitably federalized by the commerce clause than is navigable water. Local exactions and barriers to free transit in the air would neutralize its indifference to space and its conquest of time. Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive, and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxies onto a runway, it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone, and not to any state government. 336 U.S. 728 (1949)
No, the farmers made no deal. Congress dictated terms and decreed “obey.” -- nolu chan Well put, Chan.... But misterwhite is convinced that under his 'majority rule' theory, we are all, in effect, 'dealing' with ourselves in some sort of a great socialistic sense... In other words, congress is only following the dictates of the majority, -- who must be obeyed..
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.
#99. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
Not happening.
#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.
#101. To: nolu chan (#96)
"Justice Scalia has written that, with Filburn, the Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason.”
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#91)
"Segregationists in America are a defeated, hated enemy."
#103. To: GrandIsland (#98)
"Affirmative action is like welfare."
#104. To: nolu chan (#93)
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.
#105. To: GrandIsland (#98)
It's been 150 years since slavery...
#106. To: A K A Stone (#99)
Who gives a shit. They are all daed.
#107. To: A K A Stone (#99)
If I don't want to hire a black I wont. It is my right. If I don't want to work with a faggot. I wont.
#108. To: A K A Stone (#100)
So they can be gassed. But you also have to allow them in your store. Got ya.
#109. To: misterwhite (#101)
The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed to encourage interstate commerce. To say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot stay at a particular motel is ridiculous. Might as well say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot afford to stay at a particular motel and they should be offered a lower rate.
#110. To: misterwhite (#102)
Louis Farrakhan is still giving speeches.
#111. To: misterwhite (#103)
How else do you explain that every company in America now has racially diversified employees in almost the exact percentages as the population? Pure chance?
#112. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
(Edited)
#113. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
Pass acts that are limited to government, and you don't uproot the problem.
There was nothing accidental about this, and nothing hidden about it either. -- --- It becomes a question of firepower, and the egalitarians have the biggest guns, so we won.
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
The Million Man March, Washington, D.C., 1995. Organized by .... Louis Farrakhan, that idiot poverty pimp living in slums without money.
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
Nope. The Civil Rights Act was passed to try to force Americans to treat black Americans as equals.
#116. To: misterwhite (#101)
Enter Roscoe Filburn who wanted it both ways. He grew twice his allotment, sold half at the higher price, and consumed the remainder. That wasn't the deal, and had every wheat farmer done this, the Agricultural Adjustment Act would have failed.
#117. To: nolu chan (#116)
The expansion of jurisdiction continues to have nothing to do with discrimination law other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce. Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product.
#118. To: GrandIsland (#115)
We are not equal. We should not be "forced" to treat anyone "equal". People only deserve to be treated FAIRLY based on their atributes.
#119. To: nolu chan (#116)
"In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress"
#120. To: misterwhite (#114)
Now wait. To be fair I'm sure you have some white segregationist who recently did the same thing. So go ahead.
#121. To: Vicomte13 (#120)
"but rather, that the cops treat blacks more savagely because they're black."
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#118)
We are created equal
#123. To: GrandIsland (#122)
"Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today."
#124. To: GrandIsland (#122)
Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today.
#125. To: Vicomte13 (#124)
#126. To: misterwhite (#119)
[nc #116] "In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress"
Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court.
[misterwhite #119] So the FAA can regulate interstate flights but not intrastate flights. I guess a few mid-air collisions are the price we pay for freedom, huh?
Today, the landowner no more possesses a vertical control of all the air above him than a shore owner possesses horizontal control of all the sea before him. The air is too precious as an open highway to permit it to be "owned" to the exclusion or embarrassment of air navigation by surface landlords who could put it to little real use.
Absent congressional action, the familiar test is that of uniformity versus locality: if a case falls within an area in commerce thought to demand a uniform national rule, State action is struck down. If the activity is one of predominantly local interest, State action is sustained. More accurately, the question is whether the State interest is outweighed by a national interest in the unhampered operation of interstate commerce.
#127. To: nolu chan (#126)
[misterwhite #119] Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers,
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]