Posted on 08/16/2005 11:59:10 AM PDT by TBP
These guys are about as important as the Mystic Knights of the Sea!
Here's Eugene again!
The right of free association only gets you so far. It does not allow you to discriminate against people in employment and housing. We've got all kinds of laws on the books that prohibit that kind of discrimination. And they've been upheld as Constitutional.
This particular case was pretty much a slam dunk.
Didn't this same group make this same announcement last week as well?
I don't know. But I once represented a guy charged with vehicular homocide, so I guess that means I'm in favor of drunk driving and murder.
Says who? Why should I not be free to start a little company, and refuse to hire satanists, or neo-nazis, or left-handed redheads? You can call me anti-social--or even immoral--but what right do you have to decide my hiring policy for me?
We've got all kinds of laws on the books that prohibit that kind of discrimination. And they've been upheld as Constitutional.
More's the pity. Segregation was evil, but some of the measures taken to end it will have lasting, unfortunate consequences.
I heard this Eugene Delgaudio (through FR) was pretty fringe and his opinion really doesn't matter in the scheme of things.
Anybody who stays under the radar as Roberts has probably has an agenda. It sounds to me like the guy will do anything to "get ahead" and to be "liked".
Shakespeare would have fun with him were he still alive.
We will see, but I think he has a wet finger in the wind.
I withdraw my support of Renquist and Thomas because they promote pot smoking.
It means the "national pro-family group" is ignorant of the facts of John Roberts involvement in this case and his entire career as a CONSERVATIVE lawyer and Judge.
What about freedom of religion? Should a landlord be prohibited from exercising His God-given right to refuse to rent according to dictates of his consciensce? Those who answer in the affirmative don't have the slightest clue as to the meaning of freedom of religion(or private property rights, either).
It's not a question of "should?" It's a question of "do?" And the answer is "no."
Look at the Boy Scouts. The only reason they got out of letting gays be Scoutmasters is that they sold the Court on the notion that they were a religious organization. A commercial enterprise, though, is not a religious organization, even if the boss is religious.
As an aside, it was a pretty dang close case even with the Boy Scouts. A 5-4 decision.
TBP is just reposting every old anti-Roberts news story in order to try and stir up conservative hatred for Roberts.
The key to your post is your qualification "little company." But this law was not limited to little companies, nor do I think there is a "little company" exception in the Constitution.
The law that was overturned was actually a step more indefensible than that anyway. It was not a law that prohibited discrimination. It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.
It's kind of hard to justify that under the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause.
If you've got a Constitutional right to discriminate, then you did not need this statute to do so. You only needed this statute if you did not have a Constitutional right to discriminate.
That's right. After I get as big as Microsoft, I can still refuse to hire left-handed redheads. I gather you believe that statist intervention in my affairs becomes justified when my company exceeds X employees?
It was not a law that prohibited discrimination. It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.
I agree that such a law would be redundant: your right of free association already implies that you can hire whomever you please. I also agree that the law doesn't go nearly far enough: by singling out gays, it implies that your right of free association is curtailed in other respects. But it's the existing laws curtailing free association that make such a law seem necessary.
You only needed this statute if you did not have a Constitutional right to discriminate.
What confuses the issue is that the right of free association (what you call the "right to discriminate") has already come under attack, and been weakened in some critical ways. This leads to the absurdity of passing laws stating that you have the right to do something you already had the right to do. The same thing is happening today in Texas, where they are trying to amend the state constitution to state that you actually own your private property.
Well, in your view, then, it's OK to discriminate against blacks and Jews with respect to employment and housing. Afterall, in your view, freedom of religion and association is absolute....
Where does that leave the 14th Amendment?
You're trying an ad hominem, in which you identify me with skinheads and the KKK on the grounds that I believe in free association. It won't work. Free association means I can associate with whom I please, and not associate with whom I please. If a black man wants to hire only blacks, or a Jew wants to hire only Jews, he's free to do so. If I don't want to hire Irishmen, that's my prerogative.
You should note, however, that before the civil rights laws were passed, blacks were entering the middle class, and their wages were rising, faster than they were after those laws were passed. Endorsing freedom of association does not imply a return to Jim Crow. For that matter, Jim Crow was not about private individuals exercising their preference: they were discriminatory laws.
Where does that leave the 14th Amendment?
It has exactly nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, which forbids discriminatory laws. The amendment doesn't state who I must choose as friends, club members or employees. In fact, affirmative action laws violate the 14th amendment, as do many other "anti-discrimination" laws.
I'm not trying to impose an ad hominem on you. Just trying to figure out if you're consistent on that point.
Looks like you are, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews. Now with this case, it has done the same with gays.
Whether a single individual can discriminate is another question, of course, but we weren't dealing with a statute that governed only businesses that consisted of a single individual. Nor were we dealing with the question of who you can have in your club, or who you can be friends with.
We were dealing only with the question of whether a state can pass a special law designed to make it legal to discriminate against gays in employment practices and by landlords. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't.
You can dislike that all you want, but that's clearly the law, and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Court would rule as it did, given its prior decisions on discrimination.
Personally, I cannot see why Roberts should be considered "pro gay" because he defends that principle of law. And actually, he did not defend it. He merely played "Scalia" in a mock preparation for the argument.
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.