Gulfport’s “human rights” [sex] ordinance

Gulfport’s “human rights” ordinance: progress or height of hypocrisy?


In a recent article titled, “A Tale of Two Counties Progress in Gulfport and another step backward in Hillsborough“[/u], we are told by Wayne Garcia:



But, when one analyzes the touted “human rights ordinance” it turns out that Gulfport’s City Council, in approving the ordinance, has decided to ignore its oath to support and defend constitutionally protected rights. In essence, the ordinance creates a favored class and impinges upon freedom of choice, individual liberty, and rights associated with property ownership, and does so to pander to a favored class created by the ordinance!

What the ordinance does is allow identifiable groups characterized in the ordinance [homosexuals, lesbians, the transgendered, and even those having unique "physical characteristics"], to invoke the force of government as a favored class against owners of property and business owners who may be unwilling to enter into contractual agreements or associate with the favored class created by the ordinance.

Before continuing, make no mistake, such an ordinance in general is very much applicable, to folks in government and government operations, but is not applicable, nor should it be, to taxpaying citizens in their day to day activities and who the constitution is designed to protect.

Our Declaration of Independence states a self evident truth which freedom loving individuals ought to memorize:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There are those who may glibly equate such words with “poetry“ and not binding law, but all freedom loving people find such “poetry” an irrefutable observation of a self evident truth. Even our SCOTUS has often referred to one of those unalienable rights_____ LIBERTY!

Since the founding of our nation, inalienable rights of mankind have been repeatedly recognized which include, among other things, the right to life, liberty, rights associated with property ownership and the pursuit of happiness. And, within the meaning of “liberty” the U.S. Supreme Court has properly noted that the right to contract is within the meaning of liberty:

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 , we are reminded by the Court:



But even more important, let us not forget what Florida’s own Court has stated in the Terri Schiavo case. The Court held the view that a government act “impinging” on a fundamental right is “presumptively unconstitutional” and requires the state to carry the burden to show the act in not unconstitutional

So, as it turns out, the ordinance in question, which impinges on the fundamental right to contract, impinges upon fundamental liberty and impinges upon rights associated with property ownership, is in fact “presumptively unconstitutional”!

Fact is, those who promote and support the ordinance have pretended to take a high moral ground and denounce the immorality of discrimination. But the Court has already handily, addressed this frivolous and misleading claim:

In Lawrence vs. Texas an opinion well known by the supporters of the Gulfport ordinance, we find:


Anti-discrimination laws which have nothing to do with race, color, or previous condition of slavery, having been settled by a constitutional amendment, are not only a blatant interference by government with the unalienable rights of mankind, but, when one considers the practice of these laws by folks in government and activist judges, they turn out to be, by their very nature, an arbitrary form of discrimination in-and-of-themselves!

The Gulfport ordinance, like many other discriminatory “laws”, federal and state, are intentionally designed by political advocates to interfere with and impinge upon fundamental rights of an identifiable group, or groups, they disagree with.

These “political advocates” were elated in 1996 when ROMER V. EVANS was handed down, which struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2. So why do they not now recall what the Court stated concerning “equal protection of the law“?




With reference to the Gulfport Ordinance, we are once again faced with a law intentionally designed having “a disadvantage which is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” The class bearing the disadvantage are those who may not wish to enter into contracts and relationships with the identified groups characterized in the ordinance but are given a special advantage to impose themselves upon unwilling individuals using the force of law.

And what did the Court say in reference to this?

"f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Why is there such a fervor among homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, etc., to impinge upon the fundamental rights of a politically unpopular group who may choose to avoid any dealings with homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, etc., ? Does this unpopular group not deserve the same equal protection from the law in pursuing their happiness as those who assert a different life-style than theirs?

JWK
ACRS