Ross Kaminsky:
On July 2, 1964, the United States enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination in “places of public accommodation” on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” It also barred practices aimed at keeping blacks from voting and required the desegregation of public facilities and public education.
Conservative radio talk-show host Paul Harvey, already well known for his The Rest of the Story segments on ABC radio, offered his own commentary on the law, at one point noting that “this so-called civil-rights legislation has divided the Democratic party.”
In his commentary the following Monday, Walter Cronkite, who less than a year earlier, in his first broadcast as anchor of the newly named “CBS Evening News,” reported on Alabama governor George Wallace’s effort to block black students from registering at the University of Alabama, reacted angrily to Harvey:
That such a highly regarded figure as Mr. Harvey should denigrate the most important progress in America since the Civil War toward freedom and equality by referring to it as “so-called civil rights legislation” demonstrates an intolerable cynicism about what every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows is at the heart of this nation’s mission and purpose.
Neither Harvey’s statement nor Cronkite’s response happened; I invented them. But if the exchange had been true, most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans, would have joined Cronkite in objecting to the word “so-called” to describe a law guaranteeing the protection of constitutional rights. (Harvey, who died in 2009 at age 90, was in fact a published scholar of Southern history, including that of the civil-rights era.)
Yet such is the weak historical memory and strong cognitive dissonance of oh-so-tolerant American liberals that Chuck Todd, the current host of NBC’s Meet the Press, promoted last Sunday’s show by announcing that there would be discussion of “the fight over those so-called religious liberty laws that are splitting the Republican party.”
If you think that the demeaning characterization of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws was just a slip, note that this is how Todd introduced the RFRA-related segment of the program: “This week, the debate over so-called religious liberty, or freedom, legislation in Indiana and Arkansas . . . ”
Todd may not value the free exercise of religion — a right explicitly protected, along with freedom of speech, assembly, and the press in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution — but that does not justify his suggestion that it is not a true, indeed a fundamental, right.
Like most Washington correspondents desperate to be invited to all the right cocktail parties, Todd missed the fact that a recent AP-GfK poll found that 57 percent of Americans, most of whom live outside his Beltway bubble, support the right of “wedding-related businesses with religious objections . . . to refuse service to same-sex couples.”
But even if most Americans object to a true right, they may not extinguish it — not through a vote of the people, and not through their elected representatives. As John Adams warned, “that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world.”
Whether or not they are currently, or are on any given issue, a majority, who should more instinctively recognize the dangers of a tyranny of the majority than civil-rights and gay-rights activists who have spent years fighting on behalf of “oppressed minorities”?
Much like the “guards” in the famous Stanford prison experiment, giving the Left a hint of power and the scent of victory has brought out a viciousness and a deplorable willingness, demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, to use force to achieve their wishes.
Of course religious freedom also allows muslim cab drivers to refuse customers if there deeply held religious views tell them to do so
Or for me to refuse paying taxes that go towards government spending I do not approve of
@John:
It apparently does. A recent video has been released that shows a gay-impersonator trying to order cakes and flowers in various Muslim-owned businesses. He gets, of course, no service. One wonders why these gay activists out to make a name for themselves (as with Memories Pizza) don’t attack this low-hanging fruit (so to speak)? OOOHHH… that’s right; Muslims might just KILL them if they push the issue and liberals are all about ISSUING the threats, not receiving them.
Right again, as the Right Reverend Al (Capone) Sharpton has proven. Of course, the prerequisites for that civil disobedience is a) be black, b) be a lying loud-mouth and c) be liberal. Of course, any two out of three will probably get you a pass.
It makes you shake your head when a DEMOCRAT president signed the federal RFRA – which received SCOTUS approval over the right of a specific indian tribe demanding the right to consume peyote as a religious act – that the left is standing athwart the 1st Amendment AND the federal RFRA by demanding Christians be forced to violate their religious principles in participating in an act definitively characterized as sinful by said religious faith.
A former food critic – now ersatz opinion columnist for the NYT named Bruni, I believe – just had a column published in which he states that Christians must be forced to change their religious beliefs regarding homosexual “marriage”. Remember that the next time so.e leftist makes the false claim that the pro-gay movement is only about equality.
@Pete #3:
Unless and until the Equal Rights Act of 1964 is amended to include sexual orientation with the other classes that are guaranteed equal access to “public accommodations, there is no real case against the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, and certainly no case against Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.
Strictly speaking, the Constitution (and its amendments) is not in and of itself Law. It is a statement of the principles that guide the legislature in its enactment of laws – the “constitutionality” of which is attended by the judiciary branch and the “enforcement” of which is attended to by the executive branch.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts variously enacted hold a position of superior legitimacy over the claims of gay rights advocates who must reach all the way back to the principles of equality vaguely elaborated in the Constitution for support of their demands. They are at least equally hampered by the absence of any federal recognition of their belonging to a “protected class” which, even if gained, would not likely trump the importance of First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom.
The courts know this. They deal with the subject constantly. Who DOESN’T know this is the American public, approximately 80% of which believes at this point that gays are ALREADY protected by law from discrimination. They are not.
Not by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – which apparently will never be voted on, one way or the other – and not in the majority of states and localities across the land.
If gays WERE a lawfully designated “protected class,” lawyers would love it. There would exist an intrinsic conflict between non-discrimination legislation and religious freedom legislation, they representing two fairly basic and approximately equal constitutional principles, and it would take the wisdom of Solomon to craft a fair accommodation to both.
All of this ignores the fact that the “public” IS a mob, and that politicians are the mob’s whores. See what happened in Indiana and Arkansas when the whores angered the mob? Tyranny. Or was it? Did the people’s representatives not respond to the pressures of their constituencies, as is the proper course of governance in our republic? Perhaps.
Either way, it was a stain on our national dignity. Both sides of this “culture war” would be well-served to employ a measure of compassion and grace when dealing with this issue, but PARTICULARLY the side advocating the expansion of gay rights. It is THEIR position that is currently winning, and as in Maritime Law, where a faster and more maneuverable vessel must yield right-of-way to a slower one, the greater responsibility falls on them.
@George Wells:
You must have been consulting with that constitutional scholar, Barack Obama. There are several “laws’ within the constitution and it’s amendments. Amendment XXII in the National Archives
For example: Are you saying this is just an allowance for congress to ‘pass a law’?
Are you saying this one ‘didn’t really repeal the 18th amendment, that congress had to “pass a law” to repeal it?
I could easily find you at least 100 other similar items.
So, are you wrong, again? As usual?
@Redteam:
Of course. You notice how he abandoned the other thread when I showed how he lied about what I had said. Of course, that was after he had called you names and me a liar.
@Redteam #5:
You missed the point, Red.
There’s a big picture in #4, and here you are playing with your boogers.
Read it again.
Or don’t – suit yourself.
But don’t come whining to me because I didn’t answer you when you squandered your post chasing willies in a blind fog.
@retire05 #6:
So you agreed with my #4. Good.
@George Wells:
So you’re not man enough(LOL) to admit you’re wrong?
okay, so what do queers play with?
You said the constitution is ‘not law within itself’ and I showed two clear examples where it does, and could easily show at least 100 other examples. Have you ever read the constitution?
@retire05:
George’s mis-wired brain is mis-firing again. He can’t keep up.
@George Wells:
Obviously you’re hearing voices again. No. And you’re still a coward who ran from a thread when proven you lied about what I said. Want me to cut and paste that for you so everyone can read how you lied?
@retire05 #11:
“no.”
Is my #4 analysis flawed?
How?
@retire05: You don’t have to cut and paste it, George knows we all read it and laughed at him, that’s why he tucked his tail and ran.
@George Wells:
That’s not Maritime Law. Yes, Maritime Law attempts to make it clear which vessel has the right of way, but the determining factors is not ‘which is faster and more maneuverable’.
If two ships are headed straght head on toward each other, ‘both’ are required to change course to the right. It’s not a ‘cut and dried’ set of rules. Yes, I was in the Navy and I was a Radarman and yes, I know the rules of the road. You apparently do not. And it’s certainly clear you don’t understand what the Constitution is.
@Redteam #9:
No you did not.
The passages you noted provide for powers, as does much of the Constitution. But Powers are not Laws.
Section 7 of the Constitution describes the enactment of LAWS:
This is how LAWS are made.
The Constitution is not LAW. It is the BASIS of our laws.
If you have difficulty telling the difference between LAWS and POWERS, laws often specify punishment for failure to comply, while powers do not deal with that aspect of governance.
“Have you ever read the constitution?”
Yes, many times.
@George Wells:
Your ignorance is showing. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. as is spelled out in Article VI
@Ditto #16:
What Article VI says.
See where it says “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof”?
Ever hear of anyone being prosecuted for breaking the 1st Amendment?
Federal and state laws all have code numbers that are referred to in prosecution cases – you are “charged” with breaking U.S. Code da-de-da-point da-da-da. The federal and state laws are (hopefully) based upon constitutional principles, but citizens don’t get charged with breaking constitutional amendments any more than they get charged with breaking any of the Ten Commandments.
@George Wells: Sorry George,didn’t see where you had responded earlier. But:
That is just one example, and as I said I could quote many others, but that one proves you are wrong. There is ‘no other law’ that was passed under the 22 amendment that governs how many terms a president may serve. That “law” is 100% within the 22nd amendment. No other place.
No reason to post any other examples, this one proves the point. I accept your apology.
@George Wells:
Again, George you are showing your ignorance bears no bounds. Government officials and yes private citizens have been often charged most specifically with violating another person’s Constitutional rights, which of course also refers to the Bill of Rights, of which their First Amendment right is just one example of. But please, do keep picking up that shovel and dig away deeper at that hole you are burying yourself in.
@Ditto #19:
Happy to oblige.
George, I’m leaving this question for you to ponder while either in NH or after your return but in the Supreme Court arguments about homo marriage, this was said: ” JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I’m sorry. Nobody is
20 taking that away from anybody. Every single individual
21 in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual
22 orientation or who to marry or not marry. ”
My question is: Do you think justice Sotomayor really thinks that in this society every single individual chooses their sexual orientation? She said it.