Posted on 07/30/2013 9:46:35 PM PDT by kingattax
Churches across San Antonio are expressing outrage over a proposed anti-discrimination law that would protect LGBT workers but would not provide a religious exemption and would effectively prohibit anyone who opposes homosexuality from holding public office or getting a city contract.
The proposed change would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the city’s discrimination ordinance. It would protect gays, lesbians, transgender, and veterans – a move that had critics accusing the council of playing politics with the military.
“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability,” the ordinance reads.
Critics argue that the ordinance could ban Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin from serving on the city council.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
What First Amendment?
And this is pushed by the mayor who the Soviet, er, Democrat Party wants to run for higher elected office.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
That's what you get, SA, when you elect a mayor whose Mommy is a LaRaza commie. Wake up, San Antonio!!
“Who am I to judge?”
I find it hard to believe that the Hispanics in San Antonio will put up with this.
Regarding the Constitution’s Clause 3 of Article VI, please consider the following. As evidenced by the wording of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, had officially clarified that 14A applies all the Constitution’s privileges and immunities to the states, not just those listed in the Bill of Rights.
So I agree with you that Clause 3 of Article VI prohibits San Antonio City Council from baring Christians from being members.
In principle, the voters can catch such junk and vote out the council members responsible for such craziness.
In practice, people just drift from one idol to the next.
Which was a mixed bag in practice... the latecomer being the 2nd amendment.
It also bans Muslims. Idiots don’t understand the implication of that one.
Hint, idiots: Christiana write letters, file law suits, etc. Islamists kill you.
The eligibility of municipal council membership, except under very enumerated conditions, is subordinate to the Texas constitution and legislature. Their non-discrimination policy can only apply to city employees (unless that too is superseded by state law).
Clearly the Marxists everywhere in the country, taking advantage of the average American's disgust with politics, are really getting over-confident, and conservatives, including too many of our pundits, are acting like deer in the headlights.
The whole movement needs to start making waves.
You should post this to the original article. :)
When leftists discriminate, they go all the way.
1st amendment is so last century.
and atheists. Well, they show disdain and bias against peoples religion.
The law itself is discrimitory. Idiots need to be recalled and council shut down.
It ensures that only the homos can attain office.
Problem is I am not sure the “privileges and immunities” are the same as the Bill of Rights.
Here is the problem.
Congress writes laws on two fronts.
First, it writes laws relating to the Union, the fifty several states that form the confederacy, if you don’t believe it, I think that as recently as 2002 the Articles of Confederation was re-affirmed as part of the organic law of the United States(plural) by Congress assembled.
The very first volume of the United States Statutes at Large published in 1849 starts with the three organic laws of the United States(plural). These are the laws that are so fundamental, they came before Congress or the Supreme Court or the Jerk-in-Chief ever took office.
They are, in order:
The Declaration of Independence
The Articles of Confederation
The Constitution of the united States of America(original spelling, look at a scan of the document)
BUT!!!
Congress also writes laws under it’s plenary power to run the district of Columbia.
Congress has EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY over areas having to do with the seat of government, the ten square miles reserved for the district, forts, dockyards, military installations, etc.
There was a series of decisions that came from the Supreme Court starting around 1900 called “the insular cases”. They had to do with whether or not Congress was limited by the Constitutional restrictions when it dealt with “territories” of the United States, ie areas not inside one of the several states.
The Supremes ruled that territories WERE NOT part of the original, organic several states (13! I wuz born in upstate NY! My gr-gr-gr-gr-gr grandfather was there before the revolution), and because territories, the district of Columbia(as it was later known, because the center of gummint around the founding was NYC, IIRC), and:
Because they were not part of the original 13 states, or any of the states established since then, the Constitution of the United States NEED NOT APPLY.
Wait!
It gets worst.
Slavery happened. Chit happens. It was actually on it’s way out. But then came the Civil war.
At the end, we get the 14th amendment.
The Feds were flummoxed. According to the original Constitution, their only power was to “establish uniform rules of naturalization”.
That would mean that they would set the rules, but the states would follow them. There was at that time NO WAY that the feds could Constitutionally order the States to make the then newly freed slaves into citizens of that state.
So they didn’t.
And as many times as I have seen the threads on naturalization, Obama, is he eligible, etc, etc, etc I could puke... he is plainly NOT ELIGIBLE as the original Constitution meant.
The 14th amendment made a NEW FORM of citizen.
A “person” SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES. (meaning Congress).
SUBJECT.
That means IN ALL WAYS.
That’s why “United States citizens” have privileges and immunities. A “privilege” is something that a court may or may not give you, they are under no obligation whatsoever to let you have it. Same with immunities.
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.