← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · john w k

Thread 9226

Thread ID: 9226 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2003-08-23

Wayback Archive

john w k [OP]

2003-08-23 03:03 | User Profile

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Gay ordinance nixed in Florida!

What was touted as a “human rights” ordinance has been defeated in Largo, Florida, see: [url=http://saintpetersburgtimes.com/2003/08/10/Northpinellas/Human_rights_vote_lea.shtml]Human rights vote leaves few satisfied…[/url]

Also see: [url=http://www.largocitizenwatch.org/loader.php]Homosexual rights ordinance fails in Largo as Halvorsen casts key vote killing it[/url]

But what “human rights” did the ordinance really seek to protect?

In support of the proposed ordinance it was suggested that it is a human right to not be discriminated against because of a sexual orientation [transgender]. But is this really a human right, and if so, is it then morally and constitutionally justified to use the force of government to compel a property owner to hire, rent to or do business with another individual who the property and/or businesses owner finds to be morally offensive because of that person’s sexual orientation?

Perhaps part of the answer to this question is found in a self evident fact, that all people have an unalienable right to be left free to willingly and mutually agree in their associations with each other. If this is so, then government force is justified and limited to protecting this fundamental right ___ a right which precludes government force to be used to compel unwanted relationships and contracts between individuals!

Surely, in a freedom loving nation, people must be left free to make their own choices: a choice of one individual to offer labor or services for hire as one sees fit, and a choice for another to hire the services and labor of another as one sees fit; a choice to allow others onto one’s property as one sees fit, and a choice for others to refuse to enter upon the property of another as one sees fit. And so, when a mutual agreement is freely made in each of the above situations as to contract or association, which is not intended to violate a third parties unalienable rights, [life , liberty, rights associated with property ownership, etc.], this in essence is the sum of one of mankind’s most fundamental human rights___ an unalienable and natural right which preceded the creation of government!

Could it be that those who promoted what they called a “human rights” cause, were really promoting an intolerance and denial of a human right? It was asserted by Commissioner Pat Burke, a supporter of the ordinance, that individuals need protection against the ‘hatred’ of others.

Indeed, hatred does not injure another unless that hate is followed by a physical action, and, in our system of government and resort to its ‘common law’, there are countless acts considered criminal in nature and prosecutable such as assault, battery, theft, harassment, and, there are various tort remedies for defamation of character, liable, slander etc.

So, as it turns out, there is protection provided to all, from the injurious effects of hatred, regardless of one’s personal sexual orientation, and thus, it is difficult to fathom what Commissioner Pat Burke really meant when indicating, the hate mail and phone calls [harassment] are why such an ordinance is needed. It is also difficult to fully understand what she meant when stating Individuals need protection from the ‘intolerance’ of others. Intolerance, just as hatred of one, does not injure another, unless force is applied to forbid that which is asserted to be intolerant.

Many of those who promoted the “human rights” ordinance do not appear to endorse the concept of individuals being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and to this degree seem to be quite ‘intolerant’ in their demand to use government force to compel relationships and contracts which may not be mutually wanted.

If Commissioner Burke truly believes in protection against “intolerance”, then why did she support using government force to appease a group which is intolerant toward individuals being free to mutually agree in contract and association___ one of mankind’s most fundamental unalienable rights?

Just as the smoking ban control crowd has chosen to use the force of government to gain control over the property of others [privately owned businesses and real estate] for their personal comfort and enjoyment to the exclusion of an identifiable group [those who smoke], those who promoted the Largo “human rights” ordinance appear to also want to control the property of others for their personal benefit, and were willing to deny the owners of property [privately owned businesses and real property] their rights associated with property ownership and freedom to reject unwanted relationships.

Let us not loose site of what the real fight is about. There was a time in our country when the force of government was used to deny and impair the unalienable rights of a identifiable class, and was done so by “Black Code Laws’’ which invoked government force in such a manner as to interfere with individuals being free to make their own choices and exercise their individual liberty and unalienable rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to what Commissioner Gay Gentry suggested during a public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance, was intentionally adopted, not as a restraint upon individual citizens being free in their day-to-day relationships with each other, but as a restraint upon folks in government, forbidding folks in government to use government force to interfere with the liberty and unalienable rights of individuals in their freedom of association and right to contract.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads in part:

“Section 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.”

In her zeal to have the sexual orientation of an identifiable group accepted by others in her community, or at the very least forbid individuals in her community to base their relationships with others upon sexual preferences, Commissioner Gay Gentry was willing to, under color of law, forbid property owners their liberty to reject unwanted relationships and contracts and deprive them of their rights associated with property ownership…two of mankind’s most fundamental rights. In so doing, she would have be engaging in a [url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=242]Deprivation of rights under color of law[/url], exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to forbid state sponsored discrimination discrimination against those who wish to exercise their liberty to agree or disagree in contracts and relationships!

For Commissioners comments see: [url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/29/Northpinellas/Time_has_come_for_Lar.shtml]Time has come for Largo human rights ordinance[/url]

From [url=http://www.amend2002.com/amd6fulltext.htm]smoke free[/url],to [url=http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,409670,00.html]fat free[/url],to [url=http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=7&topic=26]obese free[/url], and now, [url=http://www.shutesbury.org/ada_committee/project_underway.htm]Fragrance free is a civil rights issue![/url]

John William Kurowski, Founder American Constitutional Research Service

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]