Despite trend for gay marriage, federal discrimination laws must be amended

[heirtothewind]

The recent court victories for gay marriage is not the end of the struggle for gay rights. There is still private discrimination in employment and housing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, must be amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Contrary to popular belief, the regulation of interstate commerce reaches wholly intrastate activity if the intrastate activity uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce [eg, communications or transportation] or has a real or potentially-substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v Raich [DEA could seize 6 marijuana plants used solely for valid medical purposes by an individual with medical marijuana card].

Thoughts, opinions,, and experiences are invited for discussion..

 

[JoeB131]

My own thoughts.

You can govern the law, you can't govern men's hearts.

regardless of what laws you pass, there will always be people who won't do business with gays or blacks or Jews.

 

[heirtothewind]

My own thoughts.

You can govern the law, you can't govern men's hearts.

regardless of what laws you pass, there will always be people who won't do business with gays or blacks or Jews.

You are correct; but we need not do business with those bigots either. Ostracism cuts both ways. And attitudes change with time. The law gives impetus to the changing of attitudes. Even the South has changed, for the most part, since the desegregation decision in 1954.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

ALL public accommodation laws should be repealed henceforth, they are themselves discriminatory, picking and choosing among groups to give EXTRA rights to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The recent court victories for gay marriage is not the end of the struggle for gay rights. There is still private discrimination in employment and housing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, must be amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Contrary to popular belief, the regulation of interstate commerce reaches wholly intrastate activity if the intrastate activity uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce [eg, communications or transportation] or has a real or potentially-substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v Raich [DEA could seize 6 marijuana plants used solely for valid medical purposes by an individual with medical marijuana card].

Thoughts, opinions,, and experiences are invited for discussion..

True and correct.

However, this can be accomplished only by repealing the RFRA, which is highly unlikely. Absent repeal any Federal legislation seeking to protect gay Americans from discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations will be invalidated by the courts when challenged on religious grounds.

The states remain at liberty to enact such measures as they are not subject to the RFRA, of course, but this would prove slow and protracted likely taking decades to implement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ALL public accommodation laws should be repealed henceforth, they are themselves discriminatory, picking and choosing among groups to give EXTRA rights to.

Incorrect.

Public Accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Such laws afford no one 'extra rights,' the notion is ignorant idiocy, as states and local jurisdictions have a legitimate interest in regulating local markets to ensure their viability and integrity, where to allow businesses serving the general public to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to local markets and jeopardize all other interrelated markets.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

ALL public accommodation laws should be repealed henceforth, they are themselves discriminatory, picking and choosing among groups to give EXTRA rights to.

Incorrect.

Public Accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Such laws afford no one 'extra rights,' the notion is ignorant idiocy, as states and local jurisdictions have a legitimate interest in regulating local markets to ensure their viability and integrity, where to allow businesses serving the general public to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to local markets and jeopardize all other interrelated markets.

Of course they provide certain groups "extra rights"

For instance, I own a restaurant. I can hang a sign outside that says "no fat people" , perfectly legal to discriminate against fat people. I can't hang a sign outside that says "no blacks" that's illegal. Thus blacks get extra rights , that fat people don't get.

Just as one example.