Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mmarsh Ummm, a recent add-on? The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. That's 140 years ago.
And the USSC has cited the 14th Amendment as source in COUNTLESS cases including Brown vs Board of Education which made segregation and Discrimination illegal.
Senorjekips
I think MontyB said it best.
1. You do have the right to refuse the job, for just about any reason other than #2.
2. You don't have the right to claim to refuse a job by claiming the right to discriminate. We are not a religious theocracy like Iran (at least not yet), Religion doesn't trump law. And you do not have the right to infringe upon other peoples civil rights. |
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Judicial interpretation has twisted the meaning of "equal protection of the laws" into pretzels. The intent of the authors is clear if the phrase is not taken out of context as it has been. The entire sentence beginning with "No state" and ending with "the laws" must be parsed as a single unit. The 14th is one of a batch of Amendments passed after the civil war, which to me makes it RECENT, because it was four generations after the original craftsmanship of the founding fathers. I am sure that they would have been insulted by the notion that the FEDERAL government had a right to tell a proprietor what customers he/she must serve. If it is such a burning issue in a community, then let that LOCAL community pass laws. Then people have the option of voting with their feet by moving out of the said community to avoid the burden of unwise laws. As matters stand there is no limit to the nonsense and wrongheaded lawsuits which can be used to savage businesses and individuals who WANT to exercise judgement as to whom they will have as customers or with whom they choose to associate. You also get cases like the Moslem taxi drivers who claimed discrimination because the airport wanted them to pay for adding foot washing basins to the sanitary facilities. They felt that it was their right to exercise their beliefs by washing their feet at the airport at taxpayer expense!
So I am not justifying anything by an appeal for tolerance to kooky personal beliefs. In fact I think that the burden of exercising any such beliefs should fall upon the believer, rather than the public. Furthermore it is not the proper jurisdiction of the courts to referee conflicts of beliefs except in the case of a threat to public safety. The case of the photographers versus homosexuals should never have even been accepted by the court. The fact that it was accepted is a sad commentary upon the state of the law as interpreted by the courts. Let common sense rule rather than the law where there is a conflict!
I would say to take the case through appeals up to the Supreme Court if necessary except that they would judge based upon precedent rather than common sense judging from their past behavior. What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment to BAN loose interpretation of the law caused by taking phrases out of context.
Lonnie Courtney Clay