Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dominique Ludvigson: Marriage debate: Reason to worry about free speech and religious freedom
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 10/29/12 | Dominique Ludvigson

Posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:12 AM PDT by rhema

Proponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to reassure citizens that changing the meaning of marriage won't restrict the free-speech rights and religious freedom of those who oppose doing so.

However, that's not the message sent by Gallaudet University's suspension of a top administrator simply for signing a petition to put the contentious social question directly to the people of Maryland, one of four states where marriage is on the ballot in November.

The persecution of Angela McCaskill is just the latest telling indicator of the hostile climate surrounding those perceived as resisting efforts to redefine marriage.

McCaskill, Gallaudet's chief diversity officer, also is the first black, deaf woman to have received a doctorate from the federally chartered private university in Washington for the deaf and hard of hearing. The well-regarded McCaskill had worked at Gallaudet for more than 20 years as of 2011, when she took the job. Her formal title: deputy to the president and associate provost for diversity and inclusion.

McCaskill championed the opening of a resource center for gay and lesbian students at Gallaudet, and her work has been described as "LGBT-supportive." Gallaudet President T. Alan Hurwitz praised her last year as "a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes."

But McCaskill's status as a model "diversity and inclusion" officer changed when the university discovered she had joined 200,000 other Marylanders in

signing a petition to put to a referendum the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage. Her mere participation in the political process would come at the cost of her job and reputation. She would be excluded, not included, by the intolerant forces of "tolerance."

On too many college campuses, "diversity" long has excluded diversity of thought. McCaskill's case reveals the repercussions individuals increasingly face for even the slightest deviation from the politically correct norm.

Her signature on the petition signifies nothing more than her belief that this was an appropriate issue to put before voters -- that questions regarding the foundational institution of marriage are best reserved for the people of the state, not its legislature or courts.

In this sense she and her fellow Marylanders are no different from the citizens of Maine, Minnesota and Washington, who supported similar ballot actions this year.

"I thought it was important that as a citizen of the state of Maryland, I could exercise my right to participate in the political process," McCaskill explained through a sign-language interpreter at a recent news conference. She signed the petition after a church service in which her pastor addressed the ballot initiative, she said, but has not publicly taken a position regarding same-sex marriage.

What followed was a chain of events eerily reminiscent of the intimidation and coercion faced by many supporters of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

McCaskill's action as a private citizen was made public when the Washington Blade, "the newspaper of record for the LGBT community," posted online the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the Maryland petition. A Gallaudet colleague saw McCaskill's name and reported her to the university, asking for disciplinary action.

Hurwitz, Gallaudet's president, rushed head-long to comply. McCaskill was first asked to apologize for having signed the petition. When she refused, she was notified by email that she would be put on administrative leave with pay until the university decided her fate.

"It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer," Hurwitz wrote in a statement posted to the university's website announcing her suspension.

The forces of tolerance, campus edition, felt the need to make an example of her. By its actions, Gallaudet has signaled that administrators, faculty and students with politically incorrect views are not welcome.

Most likely to feel the sting of the thought police are those whose views of marriage are informed by their faith commitments. Will bringing traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith to bear in the public square be treated as a "thought crime" on university campuses, in workplaces, by government officials?

The consequences of altering the definition of marriage are only dimly understood. Angela McCaskill's experience sheds light on that prospective future. In the words of an adage: Actions speak louder than words.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Maryland; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; marriageamendment; md2012; mn2012; moralabsolutes

1 posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:22 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema

Diversity is good — just so long as you share all of the official views, vote in the proper fashion, and do not say anything which deviates from the official party line. As long as you follow those rules, you can be as diverse as you want to be.


2 posted on 10/30/2012 4:07:21 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Signing a petition to put a referendum on the ballot? Silly person, the State knows so much better than the People! The People are too stupid to decide on their own. /sarcasm


3 posted on 10/30/2012 4:15:20 AM PDT by Fred Hayek (The Democratic Party is the operational wing of CPUSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Now people don’t often tie things together and thus we end up with unintended consequences.

Let’s hit the wayback machine to the 1960s. The country decides that racism must be stomped out, and that pretty much all means, constitutional or otherwise are justified. Hence we get laws and SC decisions which pretty much toss the concept of freedom of assembly out the window. Let me be clear that I have no objection to government functions and regulations being fully colorblind. It is when the law gets applied in a broad swath across private individuals that I have a beef.

Can there be a black students organization? Yes. Can there be a white students organization? No.

Do I have to be careful of the race(later expanded to sex, disability status, and nowadays sexual preference) of the person I hire or fire? Yes.

Now I’ll be honest, I don’t really care what the light in the loafer crowd does on their own time. I do, however strongly object to the concept that everyone has to accept, nay, like it and have that enforced by law. If I were Catholic and ran a bed and breakfast, I should be able to deny business to a gay wedding reception. It’s my damned property. However that won’t fly anymore.

In the eternal (and extremely misguided) quest for fairness any rights which get in the way are stomped. Freedom religion? Bah. Freedom of speech? Bah. Freedom of Assembly? Bah. Mere obstacles to be overcome and disregarded.

People don’t bother to weigh the rights of people affected by changed. Sure, an alleged right to marriage is denied gays (find me that right in the constitution while we’re at it), so to ‘restore’ that right we stomp the rights of a whole lot of other people for the sake of fairness. Bollocks.

Last survey I saw said gays were around 3% of the population. Catholics and Evangelicals are close to 50% (very rough estimate). Assume even that we take out the smorgasbord Catholics, we still have over 10x as many people getting their right to assembly, religion, and speech stomped on as the people we’re supposed to be helping. That’s not particularly ‘fair’ now it is?


4 posted on 10/30/2012 4:54:23 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Well said. Gays, contrary their assertions, don’t just get married and sit in their little houses and never bother anybody.


5 posted on 10/30/2012 5:06:26 AM PDT by heye2monn (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Fascists in academia at work.


6 posted on 10/30/2012 5:09:17 AM PDT by Adder (No Mo BO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I never realised the deaf were so fond of Homosexuals.

Maybe many really are deaf-———and dumb.

yeah I know I will get burned for that one .


7 posted on 10/30/2012 5:30:22 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I hope this opened McCaskill’s eyes to the true nature of homosexuality and the Leftists who support it. Maybe she’ll become a conservative as a result?


8 posted on 10/30/2012 5:44:52 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Drbuzzard,

I agree with your post, but don't think that it's even as innocuous as you are perceiving it. This is not a quest for “fairness”. These people are mentally ill, and this is an expression of it. They are “going after” marriage because attacking others is their only joy in life. They are not “gay”. They are miserable and driven to force their misery on others.

Democrats join in this “quest” precisely to achieve the loss of liberty you have observed.

9 posted on 10/30/2012 5:45:13 AM PDT by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Hint: look at conditions in the state-run boarding schools for deaf children.


10 posted on 10/30/2012 5:45:45 AM PDT by I Shall Endure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhema

There have been some strange doings at Gallaudet. One year the students learned that their new president, though he knew sign language, was not deaf. There were mass protests that could be seen but barely heard as the protesting students furiously signed their outrage accompanied by sobs, moans, & facial histrionics. The administration caved and nominated a deaf-correct president.


11 posted on 10/30/2012 6:02:03 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Free speech is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Empire_of_Liberty

You may well be right for a lot of people, but I know quite a few otherwise rational people who fall for the fairness argument. They don’t understand the costs involved to impose that ‘fairness’.

Fairness, for no reason that I understand, is a very compelling argument for a lot of people. They don’t get that life isn’t fair, and that trying to modify reality to change that will cause more damage than they can understand.


12 posted on 10/30/2012 7:08:47 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

EXCELLENT response.


13 posted on 10/30/2012 7:18:51 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

I work at a community college with a big sign language program. I thus work with more deaf people than Joe average.

I have to say, they really are a strange lot. They have an insular community and really don’t have much use for outsiders. They are also extremely entitled. They simply have an awful attitude out of the box. When you work with a new deaf person, they start with a massive chip on their shoulder, and expect to be able to get away with anything. Some eventually come around, but I don’t find the education enjoyable.

There are some odd things about their educational experience that aren’t common knowledge. For example ASL and English are not the same thing by any means. They work completely differently. Deaf people are taught in ASL and English is a second language and to be blunt, doesn’t seem to be considered of much importance. Professional deaf people that I have worked with are almost illiterate in English. Grammar, spelling, and syntax are all extremely shabby.

I imagine the students at Gallaudet didn’t want an outsider because they might get exposed to real world standards.


14 posted on 10/30/2012 7:39:23 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

The deaf are allied with the homosexuals as part of a broad pan-leftist “minority” coalition.


15 posted on 10/30/2012 7:42:20 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.


16 posted on 10/30/2012 7:58:38 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.


17 posted on 10/30/2012 7:58:55 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.


18 posted on 10/30/2012 7:59:03 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

It’s like “Children of a Lesser God” with the message of “we have our world, you have yours, so leave us alone”. It seems that the deaf are more separated from the larger world than those who are blind.


19 posted on 10/30/2012 8:37:36 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Free speech is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

“Professional deaf people that I have worked with are almost illiterate in English. Grammar, spelling, and syntax are all extremely shabby.”

Deaf here. No chip. Lost my hearing slowly over years. I am a hiring manager for a big Silicon Valley company.

In my experience, people in general have shabby grammer, spelling and syntax, not just the deaf.

If you work for a community college, you people already know that too many of your graduates come out of your system virtually illiterate and not prepared for a working life.


20 posted on 10/30/2012 10:29:36 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

I’m not talking my graduates here. I’m talking the staff they hire. I’m also not talking people who went deaf over time, but those who were born that way. There is a drastic difference between the two in my experience. The born deaf are those I’m citing and I’ve heard others with even more interaction than me echo the opinion.

I would assume that as you went deaf over time, you were educated in the normal system.


21 posted on 10/30/2012 10:48:04 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

True enough, but the popularity of said arguments means that you need an effective counter. “Grow Up” isn’t going to get a lot of traction. Explaining that the quest for fairness leads to even more unfairness is what you need to do.


22 posted on 10/30/2012 10:58:56 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

I had occasion to experience this insularity early upon losing my hearing. I visited a support group for the deaf without knowing ASL and felt very left out. Nobody really talked to me. If what you say is correct, maybe they were unable to do so.

Anyway, with medical advances these days, the “deaf community” is an ever-shrinking group.


23 posted on 10/30/2012 11:27:09 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Hit the waywayback machine and Frederick Douglass was obliged to sit in the baggage car of a train (despite paying the same for his ticket) because all the passenger cars were for whites only, and Booker T. Washington was obliged to sleep under porches because no Hotel would allow a black man to take a room.

Where do you draw the line?

24 posted on 10/30/2012 11:36:18 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I think people should be obliged to keep their sexual habits secret and none of it would really matter politically or legally.


25 posted on 10/30/2012 11:40:42 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Sort of a “don't ask don't tell” policy? Don't you think such a law/obligation would run afoul of the 1st Amendment?

Two men staying together in the same hotel room? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now my brother and I have to rent different rooms when traveling together?

A man and woman living together unmarried? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now a brother and sister cannot live under the same roof.

26 posted on 10/30/2012 11:51:27 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I never said a law.

How we just shun people as a society and change our culture for the better?


27 posted on 10/30/2012 11:59:57 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The fact that you think this is about what 2 adults do behind closed doors shows you are way off base.

This is about what happens in schools, in the streets (Folsom Street Festival?), in peoples faces, agencies that want to punish people for not approving their lifestyle, trying to make others act as if its normal.

Those things are not okay.

You have no right to force acceptance of your unnatural behavior.


28 posted on 10/30/2012 12:02:16 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

I believe I read that many deaf advocates oppose the hearing restoration technologies because they believe it will lead to the shrinking of their community.

That’s pretty scary really.


29 posted on 10/30/2012 12:08:53 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I would say I was pretty clear about my line- private property and private association. I don’t see it being any more moral to force people to associate than to force them not to associate.

Would I like all men to be angels? Yes, it would be nice. we don’t live in such a world however, and giving the government power to ignore rights for whatever the cause isn’t a really good idea. The one’s running the government aren’t angels either.


30 posted on 10/30/2012 12:20:38 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

So then it would be OK to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?


31 posted on 10/30/2012 1:19:50 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.


32 posted on 10/30/2012 1:29:01 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.


33 posted on 10/30/2012 1:29:05 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.


34 posted on 10/30/2012 1:29:08 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Is it OK to force the Boy Scouts to have gay scoutmasters?


35 posted on 10/30/2012 1:35:41 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Perhaps those arguments might work. I may well try them in the future. however I think logical judo of turning their fairness on its head works better.


36 posted on 10/30/2012 1:39:07 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Not at all. No more than it would be OK to force a Christian Club to have Satanists as members.

The Boy Scouts are a private club and have a right to determine membership. They are not offering something for sale to the public, or determining that they can only offer a product or service to select members of the public, they are a club for private association.

So would it be OK under your philosophy for the train company to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?

37 posted on 10/30/2012 1:45:36 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Now there are really two different issues here.
A) It is good for the company to do such a thing, and would I offer them my business if they did so- no.

B) Do I think it should be within their legal rights to do so- yes. It’s their business, their property and hence I believe it should be their decision.

Don’t confuse my personal philosophy of right and wrong with what I think the government should be playing with.

If the rail line declares themselves to be a ‘private rail line’ then how are they any different from the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts will take anyone who wants to join (within reason). A business is no more or less of a private association.

Or should I ask, so you assume companies don’t have rights? Does the freedom of association dissolve in the case of a corporation?

OK, since we’re in the realm of companies offering services to the public and what they are allowed to do. Say I’m Catholic and I own an event hall. Do I have to host a gay wedding reception against my will?


38 posted on 10/30/2012 1:58:17 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

So in your world it would be OK for a train company to force a black man to ride in the baggage car.

A train company is organized to provide a service for a fee and make a profit; not to promote an ideology or to form an ideologically aligned association of people.

Offering one form of service to people and an inferior service to other people (paying full fair and then having to ride in the baggage car), or denying them service, is not currently legal in these United States.

You seem to think this type of thing should be legal.

I disagree.


39 posted on 10/30/2012 2:10:56 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So you think that the Catholic should have to rent his hall to the gay wedding then?

You seem to have missed that question.

You also have distorted my response. I thought it was clear enough. I said it should be legal. I didn’t say it would be good. And you have decided how a private train company should be organized. If someone was dumb enough to run “Racist Rail Lines”, it should be his option. He would lose money hand over fist and well he should, but it should be his opportunity to be stupid and wrong.

Though you are correct, I do think such a thing should be legal as private citizens and corporations should have the ability to decide how to use their property. You are stepping over a line if you decide otherwise for whatever cause no matter how good. If the government can tell you how to use your property (beyond not using it to harm others), it’s really not yours.


40 posted on 10/30/2012 4:11:54 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.

What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.


41 posted on 10/30/2012 4:39:54 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.

What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.


42 posted on 10/30/2012 4:39:54 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

This is getting rather old with you only willing to ask questions, but not answer them.

My position is pretty clear by now, and if you can’t deduce the answer to identical questions from the previous iterations we’re going to be here all week.

But to address your first paragraph, because they were all racist at the time, no such law could ever have been passed or enforced so it’s pretty moot. You might want to look into Reconstruction and what a debacle it was.

I’ll just have to assume you’re OK with a Catholic having to host gay wedding receptions since you’re so focused on dodging an answer.


43 posted on 10/30/2012 6:03:57 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.

Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?


44 posted on 10/30/2012 6:33:55 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.

Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?


45 posted on 10/30/2012 6:34:00 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

As it appears that you don’t care to make this a discussion but rather a series of accusations, I think I’ll take a pass. Either you don’t get my point, or are being obtuse. I’m not going to waste any further time trying to deduce which is more likely as it is not worth my time.


46 posted on 10/30/2012 6:56:19 PM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; drbuzzard
I remind both of you that segregated seating on railways was not a choice of racist railway owners, but on enforced on all railway owners by government edict.

(See Thomas Sowell's discussion of the matter in a 2005 townhall.com column.)

For my own part in the legislation defining "public accomodations" I would draw a distinction between bed-and-breakfast accommodations in which the owners are renting parts of their own home (or its grounds for receptions) and those in which the area rented to the public is not part of their residence or its grounds, applying non-discrimination laws to the latter, and offering maximum latitude to the proprietors' freedom of association in the former. (Similarly for church owned halls -- if the hall is on the same property as the parish and used for religious purposes at all, freedom of association should apply, while if it's down the block and only used for rentals, it's a public accommodation.)

47 posted on 10/30/2012 7:03:48 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

thanks! and I agree.


48 posted on 10/30/2012 7:11:58 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

from Up From Slavery.....

“At one time Mr. (Frederick) Douglass was travelling in the state of Pennsylvania, and was forced, on account of his colour, to ride in the baggage-car, in spite of the fact that he had paid the same price for his passage that the other passengers had paid. When some of the white passengers went into the baggage-car to console Mr. Douglass, and one of them said to him: “I am sorry, Mr. Douglass, that you have been degraded in this manner,”

Mr. Douglass straightened himself up on the box upon which he was sitting and replied: “They cannot degrade Frederick Douglass. The soul that is in me no man can degrade. I am not the one that is being degraded on account of this treatment, but those who are inflicting it upon me.””


49 posted on 10/30/2012 7:17:21 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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