Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: sitetest
Thank you for the compliment. I'm a UM clergyman ... so, UM demographic distribution and politics are something with which I am familiar.

Which would further undermine any effort to cite religious discrimination in a case that overtly appears to be political discrimination.

Not at all ... it substantiates the central point: any political discrimination is predicated upon a liberal bias against religious southerners, regardless of denomination. The brand "Evangelical" is NOT so much a denominational factor as it is a theological and social-orientation one. What the arrogant Northeastern Liberals hate are us ignorant louts in the south who refuse to listen to their betters in the north; and we refuse to follow their lead because our minds are infected with a conservative/evangelical religious agenda which is locked in the "stone-age" of Biblical morality. Witness their attempt to brand us with the "Slave-State" iron. Oh, sure, they also hate those Roman Catholics who dared to oppose Kerry on religious grounds ... and there, too, it was predicated upon the "primitive" notions of traditional and biblical standards that any enlightened people would have long ago jettisoned.

Gee, I'm frightening myself ... I know their rhetoric too well.
379 posted on 11/20/2004 11:46:54 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies ]


To: TexasGreg; Steve_Seattle

Dear TexasGreg,

Well, I could go on with you about this, and get into involved explanations about whether "southern" or "conservative" would buy you anything in terms of developing a rationale for a protected class, and whether a suit for religious discrimination can even be based on disparate impact. The way you're citing "evangelical" cites real definitonal problems, and if you can't accurately define your class, you're gonna have a tough time protecting it. There are a number of weaknesses to the general idea that could be explored.

But I won't.

It is minutiae that bores even me.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe some lawyer might disagree with me, but I'm pretty comfortable that what may have been done to the Bush twins is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or other federal laws.

Steve_Seattle makes a good point that this might be covered under state or local law.

But I don't think there are any federal laws that apply.


sitetest


380 posted on 11/20/2004 12:02:08 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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