Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
Really? Now we are all enlightenedd by this latest gem from you (extreme sarcasm). So you are telling me that the Constitution allows a White landlord from not renting to a Black person just because he or she is Black?
I'll ask you the same question I asked Howlin earlier.
If the 14th Amendment prohibits "discrimination" against classes of people, why didn't it give women the vote? Why did it take another amendment (the 19th) more than sixty years after the 14th was adopted to end discrimination against women in voting? And that's GOVERNMENT discrimination, not private.
And look how many have taken the bait and "fished" with it.
I think his brain got ahead of his common sense. Even if it was doing something as mundane as mimicking Scalia.
And I repeat....the Constitution absolutely, positively, definitely allows a private landlord to refuse to rent to blacks.
And, of course, the Boy Scouts ought not be required to hire and retain scoutmasters who have a sexual preference for males.
Far from being sacrosanct, sexual deviancy ought to be a basis for discrmination in a great many hiring decisions.
This thread is getting kind of ridiculous, but you hit the nail on the head with your post #177
Well, which part of the conservative party is discriminating against anybody who defends the druggies?
What I mean is that I don't know any who do -- so what am I missing?
Just because you don't recognize or know any who do doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps you should get out more or associate with different folks.
You're missing a lot and seem unaware of it.
This is similar to the issue of slavery, the Constitution never allowed slavery and it took 80 years after writing the Constitution to totally abolish it and make it unconstitutional.
Actually I don't think anyone should be forced to to rent or provide any other service with their private property without their consent.
If they want to discriminate against people they should suffer economic consequences, not legal ones.
If you want to fornicate on someone else's private property they have every right to tell you to leave. It is their property after all.
Private property is sacred. Unfortunately government has lost its way regarding private property and right of free association.
As often happens with government, when trying to fix a problem, racism in this case, they create a much larger problem trampling on everyones rights.
When it comes to publicly held businesses/properties I think it is wholly different matter. There a corporate entity is seeking special protections provided by government, there the government can demand things in return.
And where is that so absolutely clear in the Constitution? Show me one landlord who will do it and I will show how is going to lose a discrimination law suit brought against him in every court in the land except if the KKK or Stormfront setup a Kangaroo court, then he "may" win.
More in-depth investigation, followed by overwhelming pressure to dump the nomination and start over if he starts to smell like Souter.
It's not that hard, really. It's called having clear principles and sticking to them.
But these are Republicans, so that is not to be expected.
P.S. You really need to work on your English skills. They're pretty poor. Mine may not be the best, but at least I try.
How about you show us in the constitution where it is required that a private individual rent his/her property to people he/she doesn't want to for whatever reason.
It ain't there.
Since you aren't then by your silent assent you're agreeing that some part of the conservative party is doing just that and you're simply not going to recognize it.
Ah, if this is the type of discussion that goes on on the WOD threads, I can see why you all are having a problem over there.
Perhaps you should get out more or associate with different folks
Perhaps you should try associating with some people who aren't so damn paranoid.
That's right, just like the Constitution "allows" government to confiscate a private citizen's land and home and hand it over to another private citizen if it will mean more tax revenues from the hotels and fitness spas that the new owner will build.
You appear to be a big fan of judicial activism. Well, congratulations. Your side is winning.
Against my better judgment I'm going to give you a civics lesson here.
The 14th Amendment was one of three constitutional Amendments adopted at the end of the Civil War. The first one was the 13th, which abolished slavery. It took a constitutional amendment to do that because the Constitution did indeed allow slavery up until that point. It didn't mandate it, but it did allow it.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give the newly freed slaves full citizenship status (as slaves they didn't have that) and to guarantee that they would have access to the courts. Slaves, not being full citizens, often lacked the ability to sue, for example. The phrase "equal protection of the laws" meant states couldn't restrict anyone's access to the court system. It didn't mean what liberal judges have now interpreted it to mean. It didn't mean there can be no discriminatory laws. It absolutely didn't mean that states had to be aggressive in "ending discrimination against gays". It certainly didn't apply to private individuals.
The third and final of the post-Civil War amendments was the 15th. And what did the 15th do? It banned racial discrimination in voting. Now, you may be asking, why did they need this amendment? Didn't the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" passage mean that states couldn't discriminate against blacks in voting? Nope. It took another amendment to do that because all the "equal protection" clause was ever intended to mean was that all citizens have the right to sue. Not to win, but to sue.
It didn't give women the vote, either, and that's why it took another constitutional amendment six decades later to do that.
Now, of course, we're told by liberals that the 14th Amendment does all kinds of things. It means women have to be let into the Citadel. It means women have to be drafted. It means the Boy Scouts have to be booted from a city park unless they agree to have gay scoutmasters. It means Colorado voters can't throw up a barrier to the gay agenda being imposed on them. It means gay marriage.
But it was never intended for any of those purposes, or even to give blacks or women the vote.
You have the number one problem conservatives have. You are trusting. Bush is not a conservative. How many blows do conservatives have to get over the head before they understand that? Souter and Kennedy were not mistakes, but intentions. Just because someone calls himself a conservative and the media plays along does not mean he's a conservative.
How to recognize when a real conservative is nominated for the court: Look for Chuckie to be literally shaking with rage, not just acting enraged. Look for statements from one of the ex-Presidents Bush that this doesn't look like a prudent nomination, etc.
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.