Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Discrimination Due To Political Orientation And Identity
Personal Intracranial Synaptic Impulses ^ | 28 Oct 2016 | LTC.Ret

Posted on 10/28/2016 10:30:13 AM PDT by LTC.Ret

Please, think this through with me:

There are few things that Americans are allowed to discriminate against without facing major legal challenges --- may I suggest another that needs to be added to the list.

The Constitution specifically names and protects both our Freedom of Religion and our Freedom of Association. Both are voluntary choices that we make --- well, maybe, but we will address "choice" later. Still, we know that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of anyone's choice of religion.

We also know that our Country is about 40% "right" [R], 40% "left" [L], and 20% "undecided" [U]. Despite that, our media is easily greater than 90% [L]. Hollywood is easily greater than 90% [L]. More than that, we know that both the media and Hollywood actively discriminate against anyone who is [R], and collectively encourage others through their various broadcast forms to discriminate as well --- with many confirmed instances and situations to cite.

Imagine even our current election cycle IF ALL of the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and even FOX media sources were required to have 50% [L] and 50% [R] to be in EEOC compliance!!! We might just get less "down with Donald" and more of "Hilary did what" on the nightly news.

Back to the "choice" issue mentioned above --- some research is suggesting that [R] vs [L] is partially a choice and partially wired into the biology of our brain. So if [R] or [L] is innate to us as part of our body, isn't discrimination against [R] people just as bad as discrimination on the basis of skin color or sexual orientation???

So suppose someone, anyone, the RNC, Texas, some class action movement, sued the media companies for "Discrimination Due To Political Orientation And Identity" --- and suppose some judge ruled in our favor. Can you just imagine "equal representation" in the media?!? Worst case scenario, it would be a real shot across the bow of the media who haven't chosen to hear us yet.

So, let's think this through and see --- are we finally tired enough of media discrimination to do something about it???


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: discrimination
Would love to hear thought and suggestions.
1 posted on 10/28/2016 10:30:13 AM PDT by LTC.Ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LTC.Ret

There is actually no delegated power given the federal to try to regulate how non-state actors treat each other in society.

All federal anti-discrimination laws that claim to address how private persons or how privately held entities among the several States treat each other are not lawful.

It may be that such are lawful among the Territories, in DC, or on federal properties/protectorates but NOT anywhere besides these.


2 posted on 10/28/2016 10:53:07 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

I agree with you Rurudyne.

Can someone please show me the place in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where our “Freedom of Association” is protected?

Thanks


3 posted on 10/28/2016 11:28:41 AM PDT by JT Hatter (Who is Barack Obama? And What is He Really Up To?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LTC.Ret
Imagine even our current election cycle IF ALL of the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and even FOX media sources were required to have 50% [L] and 50% [R] to be in EEOC compliance!!! We might just get less "down with Donald" and more of "Hilary did what" on the nightly news.

I believe we had that. It was called the Fairness Doctrine or some such. Reagan got rid of it resulting in the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the alternative media.

4 posted on 10/28/2016 11:32:44 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LTC.Ret
No.
Empowering any body or any entity to be in charge of fairness leads to corruption and unfairness by the ‘anybody’ and or the ‘entity’

This election has exposed the wrong and the bias and is going to confirm how free speech cannot be stopped in this country. The new media has exposed the old and the corrupt media.

A shut down of the Internet should be a big concern of this age, putting somebody in charge of truth would be disaster and war.

5 posted on 10/28/2016 11:50:18 AM PDT by right way right (May we remain sober over mere men, for God really is our one and only true hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Actually, if I remember the Fairness Doctrine right, it said that they had to give equal TIME to opposing opinions and viewpoints. My suggestion would not affect a one person show like Rush at all. Even Sean had staffers that were lefties and he appeared to have a good relationship with them both on and off air.


6 posted on 10/28/2016 11:58:39 AM PDT by LTC.Ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JT Hatter

Ah, now here we arrive at an entirely different matter than what powers are delegated to the federal government.

In Article 4:Section 2:Clause 1 we find the Constitution requiring the several States to honor the Privileges and Immunities of the citizens of the several States.

Now, arguments about natural law or English Common Law aside I can absolutely guarantee you that this body of rights that existed among all the several States when the Constitution was ratified does NOT include any privilege or immunity that was illegal in any of the several States at the time the Constitution was ratified.

So it is clear that for instance that there is no P&I for a man and woman to have sex outside of marraige, there being laws on the books among some of the States when the language was ratified forbidding such (even if not always enforced). Likewise, there is no P&I to ever engage in homosexual acts.

So it really isn’t hard to say what these P&I are NOT.

Saying what they are is trickier ... unless you recall that the legal standard common to the States when the Constitution was ratified is that all things are generally legal unless they are forbidden.

This is the opposite of the present attitude that all things are unlawful unless permitted, licensed, or regulated.

The above was not, as some may want to cast it, a great tyranny because it amounted to no more than demanding the several States to keep on doing at least what they had been doing, and didn’t amount to any move to federalize civil rights (which even the 14th Amendment did not do despite lawless claims to the contrary, but that’s another story).

As for the right to choose your associations in your private affairs, as in your personal or business life aside from being an actual State Actor doing that job (a judge, Sherriff, legislator, or administrator or things like that there), which was a feature under common and especially under natural law, this would certainly be a right the several States must respect under the Constitution.

As for the federal the comparable language to A4:S:2:C1 is the 9th Amendment which, in speaking of rights retained by the people must be speaking of rights retained by them at the time.

By simple process of elimination, there being no other body of rights common among the several States besides our P&I so the other rights retained and the P&I mentioned in A4:S2:C1 must be one and the same.

Thus the federal too should honor the right of freedom of association ... but is under no obligation under the Constitution to honor anything that was forbidden by any of the several States when they ratified the Constitution.

The proper way to address issues arising from the lack of federal common law, which is to say that judge made law in not constitutional in this nation despite the high handed lawlessness of the Courts since the early 20th, is the amendment process and only the amendment process.


7 posted on 10/28/2016 4:58:55 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JT Hatter

Ah, now here we arrive at an entirely different matter than what powers are delegated to the federal government.

In Article 4:Section 2:Clause 1 we find the Constitution requiring the several States to honor the Privileges and Immunities of the citizens of the several States.

Now, arguments about natural law or English Common Law aside I can absolutely guarantee you that this body of rights that existed among all the several States when the Constitution was ratified does NOT include any privilege or immunity that was illegal in any of the several States at the time the Constitution was ratified.

So it is clear that for instance that there is no P&I for a man and woman to have sex outside of marraige, there being laws on the books among some of the States when the language was ratified forbidding such (even if not always enforced). Likewise, there is no P&I to ever engage in homosexual acts.

So it really isn’t hard to say what these P&I are NOT.

Saying what they are is trickier ... unless you recall that the legal standard common to the States when the Constitution was ratified is that all things are generally legal unless they are forbidden.

This is the opposite of the present attitude that all things are unlawful unless permitted, licensed, or regulated.

The above was not, as some may want to cast it, a great tyranny because it amounted to no more than demanding the several States to keep on doing at least what they had been doing, and didn’t amount to any move to federalize civil rights (which even the 14th Amendment did not do despite lawless claims to the contrary, but that’s another story).

As for the right to choose your associations in your private affairs, as in your personal or business life aside from being an actual State Actor doing that job (a judge, Sherriff, legislator, or administrator or things like that there), which was a feature under common and especially under natural law, this would certainly be a right the several States must respect under the Constitution.

As for the federal the comparable language to A4:S:2:C1 is the 9th Amendment which, in speaking of rights retained by the people must be speaking of rights retained by them at the time.

By simple process of elimination, there being no other body of rights common among the several States besides our P&I so the other rights retained and the P&I mentioned in A4:S2:C1 must be one and the same.

Thus the federal too should honor the right of freedom of association ... but is under no obligation under the Constitution to honor anything that was forbidden by any of the several States when they ratified the Constitution.

The proper way to address issues arising from the lack of federal common law, which is to say that judge made law in not constitutional in this nation despite the high handed lawlessness of the Courts since the early 20th, is the amendment process and only the amendment process.


8 posted on 10/28/2016 4:58:56 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Darn double posts....


9 posted on 10/28/2016 4:59:23 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson