View Full Version : "Religious Freedom"
I thought this was interesting in the paper today. How far do we go?
Abdul: Legislature should forget religious liberty bill
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz 10:25 p.m. EST January 17, 2015
"Imagine that my lovely wife and I decide to try a new restaurant for dinner. However, as soon as we walk in, we’re told that we have to leave because we’re black.
Naturally, I do what any red-blooded American would do and exercise my God-given right to sue.
So we file a complaint, and after winding its way through the court system, it’s determined that the owner properly denied us service because he was covered under Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Yes, he was discriminating against us because we’re minorities, but since the owner is a member of the Christian Identity movement, which believes people who look like me are “Satan-spawned mud races,” he is acting within his religious rights to deny the Lovely Mrs. Shabazz and me service.
Sound crazy? Of course it does. But it’s also plausible if lawmakers aren’t careful in drafting the state’s version of the RFRA.
State Sen. Scott Schneider has told the media the legislation is necessary because people of faith need the law to protect them from being compelled to engage in commercial practices that compromise their religious beliefs. The classic example of this is the religious baker who feels he or she should not be compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Usually the baker doesn’t unless he or she is operating in a jurisdiction that has added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination laws. And in exchange for the business license, that baker has agreed to follow the laws and rules of that municipality.
There are usually exceptions for religious employers (such as Catholic Charities), but not for employers who are religious. This is why the Christian Identity restaurateur is out of luck when my wife and I order some white fish.
Supporters of the RFRA say it’s needed to protect religious liberty. But religious freedom is tricky business.
For example, let’s say you have a devout Catholic who doesn’t want to rent hotel rooms to unmarried or divorced couples. The Muslim shopkeeper who takes Sharia customs to the extreme and says women cannot enter his store without a burka. Or the giant spaghetti monster followers who refuse to serve people who don’t believe in the giant spaghetti monster. You see where this is going.
Are some of these examples extreme? Well that’s in the eye of the beholder, or if the RFPA goes into effect, the judge or jury, because that’s where a lot of this stuff will end up.
Under the federal RFPA law, the government can’t do anything that places a “substantial burden” on someone who is exercising religious freedoms. But like most laws, there is an exception; the exception is that the government must show a compelling state interest as to why a rule that tramples religious freedom exists. This is where the judges, juries and lawyers come into play.
Someone has to make the call as to whether someone exercising religious beliefs is being genuine or simply using it as a pretext for discrimination. If you make 50 cakes a day, is making one more cake for a same-sex wedding really going to put a substantial burden on you?
I told you this was tricky business.
At the end of the day, lawmakers should leave this one alone. You never know what kind of Pandora’s box you will open. No offense to the followers of the Greek Pantheon."
Abdul is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPolitics.Org. He can be reached at abdul@indypolitics.org.
You know, when it comes to religion, I believe that "L" should stand for "Love," not "Laws."
Frankly, I remember the big lawsuit that made it to all the news outlets about a woman whose insurance refused birth control coverage because she was employed by a Catholic institution (can't remember which one.)
I admit that there was a portion of my brain that sided with the Catholic institution--probably because of my Catholic heritage, which greatly influenced my own behavior and beliefs. But when I think rationally about it, and what it means for the general public, I think that this type of thing is part of the same slippery slope that the writer addresses. If I can protect the Catholic institution, why shouldn't I protect the Muslim business that demands burkas be worn?
The older I get the more I feel aligned with "Christian anarchism" which would basically mean the fewer laws the better.. and that definitely means fewer religious laws--either as part of the religious community, or imposed on the secular community. So I side with Abdul.
I wonder what would happen if we applied the principle of "Love your neighbor as yourself" to ALL these situations?
ApatheticNoMore
1-18-15, 2:03pm
That's not religious freedom, that's religious preferential treatment. If a secular excuse however silly wasn't an ok reason not to bake the cake, and a religious reason was.
Someone has to make the call as to whether someone exercising religious beliefs is being genuine or simply using it as a pretext for discrimination.
I'm waiting to see this get flipped on someone's head. If I identify myself as a Christian business, can I legally be held to that? For a strange example, could I be required to shut down my business on Sunday, but someone who doesn't identify their business as a Christian business be allowed to stay open?
Wouldn't it be simpler to *allow* people to discriminate, no matter how vile and hateful you find their behavior, so long as they are not using force against one another or engaging in fraud?
Yes, many forms of discrimination are unpleasant and cause grief, but is it really the proper business of the government to step in and use force to limit the voluntary associations and contractual arrangements private citizens engage in?
I'm waiting to see this get flipped on someone's head. If I identify myself as a Christian business, can I legally be held to that? For a strange example, could I be required to shut down my business on Sunday, but someone who doesn't identify their business as a Christian business be allowed to stay open?
I can't think of any example where business hours are mandated. If the CVS near me wanted to be open only from 1-1:30pm isn't that legal? (They might not be in business very long, however). I think the Catholic birth control insurance ban is a great example of a religious business trying to dictate values on their non-Catholic employees. I still feel they have a right to do that.
Wouldn't it be simpler to *allow* people to discriminate, no matter how vile and hateful you find their behavior, so long as they are not using force against one another or engaging in fraud?
Yes, many forms of discrimination are unpleasant and cause grief, but is it really the proper business of the government to step in and use force to limit the voluntary associations and contractual arrangements private citizens engage in?
It wouldn't be simpler for the people being discriminated against. Working, shopping, banking, trying to find a place to live. Wondering if the people coming to pull you from your wrecked car are going to approve of your color, religion, sexual orientation, etc., as well as the hospital they take you to.
Not very simple for the folks who find it distasteful as well. There is an attraction to libertarianism (allow people to do anything so long as they are not using force against one another or engaging in fraud), but it has it's own ugly edge to it as well. I think it may be worse.
I thought this was interesting in the paper today. How far do we go?
Abdul: Legislature should forget religious liberty bill
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz 10:25 p.m. EST January 17, 2015
"Imagine that my lovely wife and I decide to try a new restaurant for dinner. However, as soon as we walk in, we’re told that we have to leave because we’re black.
Naturally, I do what any red-blooded American would do and exercise my God-given right to sue.
So we file a complaint, and after winding its way through the court system, it’s determined that the owner properly denied us service because he was covered under Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Yes, he was discriminating against us because we’re minorities, but since the owner is a member of the Christian Identity movement, which believes people who look like me are “Satan-spawned mud races,” he is acting within his religious rights to deny the Lovely Mrs. Shabazz and me service.
Sound crazy? Of course it does. But it’s also plausible if lawmakers aren’t careful in drafting the state’s version of the RFRA.
State Sen. Scott Schneider has told the media the legislation is necessary because people of faith need the law to protect them from being compelled to engage in commercial practices that compromise their religious beliefs. The classic example of this is the religious baker who feels he or she should not be compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Usually the baker doesn’t unless he or she is operating in a jurisdiction that has added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination laws. And in exchange for the business license, that baker has agreed to follow the laws and rules of that municipality.
There are usually exceptions for religious employers (such as Catholic Charities), but not for employers who are religious. This is why the Christian Identity restaurateur is out of luck when my wife and I order some white fish.
Supporters of the RFRA say it’s needed to protect religious liberty. But religious freedom is tricky business.
For example, let’s say you have a devout Catholic who doesn’t want to rent hotel rooms to unmarried or divorced couples. The Muslim shopkeeper who takes Sharia customs to the extreme and says women cannot enter his store without a burka. Or the giant spaghetti monster followers who refuse to serve people who don’t believe in the giant spaghetti monster. You see where this is going.
Are some of these examples extreme? Well that’s in the eye of the beholder, or if the RFPA goes into effect, the judge or jury, because that’s where a lot of this stuff will end up.
Under the federal RFPA law, the government can’t do anything that places a “substantial burden” on someone who is exercising religious freedoms. But like most laws, there is an exception; the exception is that the government must show a compelling state interest as to why a rule that tramples religious freedom exists. This is where the judges, juries and lawyers come into play.
Someone has to make the call as to whether someone exercising religious beliefs is being genuine or simply using it as a pretext for discrimination. If you make 50 cakes a day, is making one more cake for a same-sex wedding really going to put a substantial burden on you?
I told you this was tricky business.
At the end of the day, lawmakers should leave this one alone. You never know what kind of Pandora’s box you will open. No offense to the followers of the Greek Pantheon."
Abdul is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPolitics.Org. He can be reached at abdul@indypolitics.org.
Absurd laws like this will last only until they get used against Christians. It's not much of a stretch to see a Muslim restaurant owner turning away customers who aren't following his religion's practices. Or a landlord evicting a tenant. I can just imagine the howls of indignation by Christians when some woman and her children get kicked out by their Muslim landlord because she let a man she wasn't married to spend the night.
I'm waiting to see this get flipped on someone's head. If I identify myself as a Christian business, can I legally be held to that? For a strange example, could I be required to shut down my business on Sunday, but someone who doesn't identify their business as a Christian business be allowed to stay open?
I doubt that would happen, but if I were suing a business for discrimination and they claimed to be a "Christian business" or whatever religion, yet were operating on that religion's sabbath day it would be logical for me to use that as part of my case showing that they were not following the basics of their claimed religion.
I'm not sure what to think. I think we've gone too far in making rules for certain things. ....Like the issue with the bakery that wouldn't make a cake for a gay couple. I mean why didn't they just go somewhere else? Why would you want to even give that bakery your business, if they thought your lifestyle was a "sin"?
But then..........with Hobby Lobby not wanting to insure their employees to cover abortion, because they think that is wrong........I can understand that. DH thinks they should have cared more about taking care of their employees, but if you believe abortion is wrong, it would feel very wrong to offer coverage for that.
I guess this is the problem/dilemma with freedom for all. Not everyone's idea of freedom/rights is the same as someone else's.
I think some have lost their sense of balance. If someone insults them or denies something they want, they make a federal case out of it. Yes, there are instances of discrimination that just aren't right and something should be done about it.........but there are also cases where you should just go somewhere else with your business. Pretty soon everything will have a law and it will be sort of hard to even make a move without doing something unlawful.
And I think finding a decent balance is getting harder and harder when there are so many people with so many differing feelings about how things should be. And everyone thinks they should get everything exactly the way they want it.
I guess this is the problem/dilemma with freedom for all.
Only because there is not freedom for all. The baker is not free to choose which customers they serve. The religious are not free to live their values in their public endeavors.
It seems kind of strange to see a nation founded upon the idea of religious and personal liberty come to this, preventing the citizens from engaging in discrimination by denying them their liberties.
I think the perceived cure is much worse than the symptoms.
ApatheticNoMore
1-18-15, 6:02pm
Everybody compromises their values to make a living, it's just a question of what lines one draws (and I do). Of course these people's values are silly and laughable, but I guess they are their values.
Only because there is not freedom for all. The baker is not free to choose which customers they serve. The religious are not free to live their values in their public endeavors.
It seems kind of strange to see a nation founded upon the idea of religious and personal liberty come to this, preventing the citizens from engaging in discrimination by denying them their liberties.
I think the perceived cure is much worse than the symptoms.
But how can there be freedom for all, if everyone, no matter what their wants/beliefs are, can't have what they want? The baker isn't free, nor is his customer...... The religious aren't free to live out their values, nor are their workers who believe differently. Who's right? Who's wrong? I know what you're saying Alan, but what about the freedoms of the people who just want a cake for their wedding, or the people who just want a job at Hobby Lobby, etc. Everybody in this country thinks they should get exactly what they want all the time, 'cause that's what being an American is all about, right? I'm having a hard time saying what I'm thinking.
I think we've taken being fair too far in this country. People in this country have been raised to think that they deserve everything all the time, and when this doesn't happen, they scream discrimination.
I think this has merit with some things, but not others. So how do we sort out what we should have laws against and what we shouldn't?
I hope I'm making sense.
But how can there be freedom for all, if everyone, no matter what their wants/beliefs are, can't have what they want?
Freedom doesn't mean you can have anything you want.
It just means other people can't make you do something against your will by force.
In your baker example, the baker isn't free, as he is being forced to offer his labor and services to another against his will. The customer is free though - nobody is forcing him to buy a cake from a particular vendor, or to buy a cake at all.
So how do we sort out what we should have laws against and what we shouldn't?
I hope I'm making sense.
I think you need to begin by looking at very basic definitions and assumptions.
"Freedom"
http://www.umbc.edu/cadvc/foralltheworld/images/exhibit/section1/segregation2.jpg
"Freedom"
Yup. Distasteful, offensive, vile. That's how freedom sometimes works.
Yup. Distasteful, offensive, vile. That's how freedom sometimes works.
Agreed. The hard choice is deciding whether to go down that road again. "Sometimes" can easily turn into "the way things are".
The hard choice is deciding whether to go down that road again. Not if you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association. Is it more offensive to allow it or to deny it?
I don't know.......seems like both ways can lead to lots of strife/anger.
So Alan and Bae, are you saying that everyone should just do want they want........like refuse certain "types" into their business, etc.?
I don't know.......seems like both ways can lead to lots of strife/anger.
So Alan and Bae, are you saying that everyone should just do want they want........like refuse certain "types" into their business, etc.?Yes, I think if a business doesn't want my patronage it's their loss, another business will. To me, the bigger issue is a society where the force of law is used to punish those who exercise their freedom of speech, expression and association.
So you think it was better when there were whites only drinking fountains and the woolworths lunch counter wouldn't serve blacks?
The thing is, Alan, it's never been your patronage that businesses didn't want.
Miss Cellane
1-18-15, 10:06pm
Well, if each business made it crystal clear who they would and wouldn't serve, it would be easy on the rest of us to choose which business to patronize.
The store that won't serve certain religions and ethnicities? I won't be shopping there--not because I'm in their excluded groups necessarily, but because I don't agree with their business practices.
And that's what it will come down to--a hyper-conservative business will attract customers who believe in the same things, but will repel the majority of shoppers who believe otherwise.
You don't succeed long in business if you alienate the customers who drive that business.
So you think it was better when there were whites only drinking fountains and the woolworths lunch counter wouldn't serve blacks? No, you're making assumptions not based on evidence. I think it's terribly offensive to banish someone based upon something as trivial as race. What I do think is that none of us have the right not to be offended, especially if others have their freedoms curtailed in the advancement of that goal.
The thing is, Alan, it's never been your patronage that businesses didn't want.Really? Discrimination encompasses much more than race, think religion, nationality, gender and sexual orientation just to name a few. Are you sure I don't fit in there somewhere?
No, you're making assumptions not based on evidence. I think it's terribly offensive to banish someone based upon something as trivial as race. What I do think is that none of us have the right not to be offended, especially if others have their freedoms curtailed in the advancement of that goal.
So you're saying that you're not in favor of woolworths refusing to serve blacks but if the alternative is forcing woolworths, by law, to serve blacks you'd prefer the former?
Really? Discrimination encompasses much more than race, think religion, nationality, gender and sexual orientation just to name a few. Are you sure I don't fit in there somewhere?
True enough. Feel free to share with us how you're likely a potential victim of discrimination.
So you're saying that you're not in favor of woolworths refusing to serve blacks but if the alternative is forcing woolworths, by law, to serve blacks you'd prefer the former?
If you insist, I'm saying that market forces are preferable to the law. Our governments are designed to protect our freedoms, not infringe upon them, they either respect our freedoms of speech, expression, religion, association, etc., or they're not doing their job. In short, if I want to forbid anyone the services of my business I should be legally able to do so. If society decides not to patronize my business as a result, well I got what I deserved but at least I maintained my right to be stupid.
True enough. Feel free to share with us how you're likely a potential victim of discrimination.
Your Woolworth's examples are past tense and limited to one specific race. I was pointing out that there were many other victims of discrimination, for example:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608021044308479053&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608052011018619932&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
I say we ban organized religion. Problem solved. After all, it's been a major cause of strife and bloody mayhem (not to mention unnecessary guilt :)) for thousands of years. Wishful thinking, of course.
What's the difference between my deeply-held conviction and your religious belief? Some ancient manual? I'm not buying it. And neither should the citizenry at large.
Your Woolworth's examples are past tense and limited to one specific race.
Of course they're past tense. Would they be past tense without the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Maybe. Maybe not.
Since you like current examples I'm surprised you didn't mention this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/feds-tell-tenn-officials-_n_769031.html
Similar to bae's investment group having to post their trades in order to have any credibility among the group, I'll go first. I'm a gay athiest. As a white male with a Christian family history I can pass for majority, at least on first inspection. I also happen to live in a liberal city where I doubt it's necessary to have laws in place to protect me. However, I'd frankly be somewhat nervous to move to certain parts of the country where my two minority statuses would be less accepted and where there are no anti-discrimination laws to protect me.
Don't we have laws because a lot people weren't happy with individuals expressing their own wishes and excluding others?
Seems like we might all have different notions of "freedom".
Bae and Alan........you seem to have a lot of faith in people making things work (and being "civilized") without any help/direction from the government.
Wouldn't that be like having a room full of young kids and letting them do whatever they wanted, without any input from parents?
I say we ban organized religion. Problem solved. After all, it's been a major cause of strife and bloody mayhem (not to mention unnecessary guilt :)) for thousands of years. Wishful thinking, of course.
What's the difference between my deeply-held conviction and your religious belief? Some ancient manual? I'm not buying it. And neither should the citizenry at large.
To invoke the great Martin Luther King, whose day we are celebrating today, far too many religious congregations are what he called "social clubs with a thin veneer of religiosity." BUT, MLK used his religiosity and deep spirituality to dissolve discrimination non-violently, as Gandhi had done in India. MLK based his life on the New Testament; Gandhi lived his life by the Bhagavad Gita. So, Jane, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. :) A lot of evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion, but a lot of good has, too.
And Krishnamurti said, “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”
If we didn't have religion to pick on, we'd still get to pick on gender, nationality and race. Then we'd pick on short people. If religion did its job, it would facilitate the removal of labels separating us, not the construction of them.
Bae and Alan........you seem to have a lot of faith in people making things work (and being "civilized") without any help/direction from the government.
Wouldn't that be like having a room full of young kids and letting them do whatever they wanted, without any input from parents?
Perhaps, but the government is not my parent and I hold adults to a higher standard than children.
goldensmom
1-19-15, 9:14am
I say we ban organized religion. Problem solved. After all, it's been a major cause of strife and bloody mayhem (not to mention unnecessary guilt :)) for thousands of years. Wishful thinking, of course.
Unorganized religion is allowed?
Not if you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association. Is it more offensive to allow it or to deny it?
That is really a hard question - people can be pretty offensive, I think more so than things like the 14th amendment.
How much freedom do I want to give those who would make my world an ugly, nasty place I would not choose to live in limited to only the choices they would want me to have? I'm not sure.
Would those people also use government and laws and force to make the world the way they think it should be? History says yes.
I think a distinction should be made between public accommodation and being forced to perform personal services.
I say we ban organized religion. Problem solved.
Ah yes, totalitarianism in the service of freedom.
I think a distinction should be made between public accommodation and being forced to perform personal services.
What is the difference between public accommodation and personal services? Can you give an example?
How much freedom do I want to give those who would make my world an ugly, nasty place I would not choose to live in limited to only the choices they would want me to have?
In reality you can't give someone freedom, you can only deny it. So, in my mind, the question is how far will you go to deny others their freedom to be offensive?
catherine
1-19-15, 10:24am
I hold adults to a higher standard than children.
I don't. By that I mean, I might expect adults to act like adults, but in reality, there is always tension between allowing citizens to act out their own self-interest vs. "others"-interest (i.e. "maturely"). The conflict between those two factors is the problem. In this case, the discussion about religious freedom, I might be even more inclined to trust a child over an adult because those layers of belief that get crusty and hardened over time can be detrimental to society as a while.
On the whole, I do not trust adults to act in the best interest of the society they live in. Historically, they haven't proven they deserve that trust.
ETA another quote in honor of Martin Luther King Day:
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
In reality you can't give someone freedom, you can only deny it. So, in my mind, the question is how far will you go to deny others their freedom to be offensive?
Well if we're going to go down that road, there is no such thing as freedom - only force. You can do whatever you're capable of doing - and the government can do whatever it's capable of doing. The only difference is the level of force you can bring to bear on the government and the level of force the government can bring to bear on you.
And I did answer the question, I'm not sure. It's a really difficult issue. I know I would not want to live in a country where that sign I posted previously is the norm.
What is the difference between public accommodation and personal services? Can you give an example?
Public accommodation would include things like restaurants, airlines or selling off-the-shelf goods. Personal services might be taking photographs at a wedding, or tattoo art.
I think there's a difference between serving all comers with an identical service and being forced to take part in something on a personal level. Should someone be coerced, for instance to participate in an event they regard as an obscene parody of a sacrament, or to tattoo offensive words or images on a member of say, the Aryan Brotherhood?
Unorganized religion is allowed?
Sure. You could believe in--and practice privately--any form of spirituality you prefer. Just don't expect government accommodations, tax exemptions, or a place in the public square...See Matthew 6:6. Really, it's a pipe dream.
And Libertarianism as proposed is, as well. It might work beautifully for a tiny minority of rich white males--basically, the one percent--while the rest of us would be consigned to a hellish existence reminiscent of Lord of the Flies or Somalia. Rank pollution and apartheid (just sue me!), for starters.
ApatheticNoMore
1-19-15, 1:14pm
The thing is most people will have no choice to act on such extremes of liberty anyway. So maybe the person that owns the bakery decides not to bake cakes for gays and if that's the dominant belief system where they live they can get away with it. But does the person working at a bakery that DOES bake cakes for gays, have a choice to refuse to work on this particular cake as it's for gays? Not if they wish to keep their job! So even the dubious "liberty not to bake cakes for gays" is in actual practice very limited (limited to those that have the wealth and dominant position in society to practice it). Should the employee have a right to sue the company: "they fired me for refusing to work on cakes for gays" and if so how far are those protections for an employees "freedom of conscience" going to apply? Because surely any protection that applies to employers should apply to employees, that's merely fairness, both have just as much right to their consciences. Maybe everyone should be able to sue companies if they require one to work weekends, because it may be against one's religion not to keep the sabbath. Hey, I'm beginning to like this law! ;) Imagine a world where employees could sue employers for being terminated for anything that violated their conscience (and assuming they didn't abuse it even). But to argue instead that everyone should own a cake bakery is all rather, uh speaking of cake, Marie Antoinette at that point (she may or may not have actually said it, but that isn't relevant to this conversation).
Alternately, the restaurant decides not to serve black people, but what if you hate segregation and believe it is immoral (and I would hope most everyone does now, but bear with this hypothetical) do you have a choice not to be a waiter at a restaurant that refuses to serve black people? It depends. Are almost all restaurants like this? They certainly were at one time in certain places, so you may not have had much choice. Are jobs scarce? Well then so much for liberty!!! Hahaha. Work at the evil place refusing to serve people based on the color of their skin!
I don't have much use of a liberty that only in practice applies to business owners who happen to be in the majority, but not their employees when push comes to shove, and not to minorities in the society whom it will be used to discriminate against.
I don't actually favor banning any religion (that's quite apart and a separate matter from whether businesses can get religion) but if a religions main thing is to discriminate against gays I can certainly denounce such religious beliefs. Like one would denounce religious beliefs whose main result were (admittedly racist) cartoonists getting shot, right? (not all of Islam btw).
Religion took a bad turn in the U.S.. Religious leaders did back much of the civil rights movement etc. - mainline protestantism. Sure their was often Jewish support, not sure about Catholicism etc. - but leaving minority religions in this country aside for a moment. But mainline protestantism has declined in the U.S. (I have no idea if those people became fundamentalists, or agnostics, or non practicing christians or what) and fundamentalism etc. are much more dominant.
Are jobs scarce? Well then so much for liberty!!!
Yes, that does muddy the waters, doesn't it?
Sure their was often Jewish support, not sure about Catholicism
There are tons of Catholic activists out there. Here's my favorite:
http://rosemarieberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DDay-film.jpg
We will see more issues like these as government covers more of the details of our daily affairs like mold growing in a leaky basement. At the start of our republic, the only federal crimes were counterfeiting, treason and piracy. Our constitution was geared mainly toward limiting the power of the central government to interfere in our lives.
Now look at us. A burgeoning culture of victimhood creates an expanding set of wrongs that can only be righted by imposing new mandates and obligations. Dissenting institutions or individuals must be humbled and broken to the yoke. We have to take threats to the statist monoculture like the Little Sisters of the Poor seriously, less the masses become confused. The constitution is an obstacle that must be overcome so that all-fathering government can nurture us more comprehensively.
An interesting article in the local newspaper looking back 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964:
- 51% in a 1964 survey said, "Restaurant owners should not have to serve Negroes."
- 53% in the survey said, "There should be laws against marriages between Negroes and whites."
- 84% in the survey said, "Property owners should not have to sell to Negroes."
So yes, if federal law and federal marshalls and federal judges are forcing people to treat everyone equally per our Declaration of Independence - "All men are created equal" - then I say more power to them.
So yes, if federal law and federal marshalls and federal judges are forcing people to treat everyone equally per our Constitution - "All men are created equal" - then I say more power to them.
I think that is a mis-reading of the Constitution considering that the phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence. What the Constitution actually guarantees is equal treatment under the law, not equal treatment by other individuals.
yes, I just edited my post as you were responding.
But another interesting fact is that the Civil Rights law was ahead of public sentiment, for a change. These days the judges sit back until most people have already changed their minds, e.g., gay marriage, before they actually rule in their favor. Given those 1964 survey results, I wonder how many more years these judges of today would have waited for the public to finally change? or does the law itself beget changes in public opinion?
Equal treatment under the law is meaningless as indicated by another poster when every response to a charge of discrimination is, "so what, sue me." Should African-Americans be forced to buy in segregated neighborhoods or else bear the cost of individual lawsuits? Should individual mixed-race couples be forced to individually sue a Justice of the peace who refuses to marry them? At some point society decides, no, enough is enough.
Also, let's not forget that the Supreme Court, in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States unanimously upheld the right of congress to make laws banning discrimination because of the commerce clause in the constitution which gives congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Welcome to Indiana where laws don't make sense. This state is bizarre!
Also, let's not forget that the Supreme Court, in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States unanimously upheld the right of congress to make laws banning discrimination because of the commerce clause in the constitution which gives congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Yup. Seems to me the commerce clause is a bit of a bug, the way it is interpreted. Leads to wonderful cases like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The Obamacare putsch originally invoked the commerce clause until the Supreme Court called a tax a tax.
Yup. Seems to me the commerce clause is a bit of a bug, the way it is interpreted. Leads to wonderful cases like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Still remember studying the line of cases starting with Wickard back in law school all those decades ago. The conclusion that I (and all the other law students I knew) came to, was that no matter what your political leanings Wickard stood for the proposition that the federal government could legally regulate (and thus control) everything and anything if they so choose.
Yup. Seems to me the commerce clause is a bit of a bug, the way it is interpreted. Leads to wonderful cases like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
True enough, and even moreso in the case from the 90's where the supremes agreed that the commerce clause could be used to regulate people growing marijuana for personal medical use. At least in the Heart of Atlanta case, though, there was actual commerce involved and 3/4 of their customers were from out of state so it could even arguably be considered to be interstate commerce.
True enough, and even moreso in the case from the 90's where the supremes agreed that the commerce clause could be used to regulate people growing marijuana for personal medical use. At least in the Heart of Atlanta case, though, there was actual commerce involved and 3/4 of their customers were from out of state so it could even arguably be considered to be interstate commerce.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original intent of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to moderate any dispute between the States? If so, I wonder how it ended up allowing them to regulate all commerce?
That's the problem with words, they are very rarely exact. If they were we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to interpret them in the first place. Just as one can argue the importance of 'a well regulated militia...' In terms of understanding the fourth amendment, One can surely argue whether commerce among the states meant specifically commerce between the states or commerce that goes across state lines.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original intent of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to moderate any dispute between the States? If so, I wonder how it ended up allowing them to regulate all commerce?
I thought the original intent was to prevent States from imposing tariffs on goods crossing their borders.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.