1
   

Gulfport’s “human rights” [sex] ordinance

 
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:56 pm
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:

Quote:


“As Hillsborough County again made international headlines for its gay-hating policies last week, the small and funky city of Gulfport in Pinellas County took a different route.

Gulfport became just the fourth government in Florida - and the first in Tampa Bay - to adopt a human rights ordinance that protects gays, lesbians and the transgendered.”


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:

Quote:

'The liberty mentioned in that Amendment [the Fourteenth] means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.'


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:
Quote:

.“The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”


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“?

Quote:

A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "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." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons. Amendment 2, however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”



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
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 556 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 09:00 pm
Ah. ACRS

impressive.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 09:58 pm
Them again?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 10:02 pm
I think it has a membership of one.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 10:03 pm
I seem to remember another username, but maybe not. You know my memory..
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 08:23 am
Re: Gulfport’s “human rights”
john w k wrote:
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.

And that's because, as we all know, the constitution was only designed to protect heterosexuals. Indeed, in the Federalist Papers, James Madison routinely referred to gays as "icky."

john w k wrote:
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., ?

Because those people are poopyheads.

john w k wrote:
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?

Yes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gulfport’s “human rights” [sex] ordinance
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:17:55