“The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are TYRANTS. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves…..”
HEY, PEOPLE! Please don’t just read what I post here (or anywhere), and nod your head sagely or approvingly and then move on to other things. I don’t post in order to affirm your sense of things. I post in order to equip you with perspectives and arguments with which to educate others, and in the expectation that you will forward my posts to other people (or direct them to those posts). PLEASE do those things.
We won’t win by YOU knowing what I present. We will win by LOTS OF OTHERS knowing what I present.
Ideological Discrimination Is ILLEGAL
No one can be fired or denied a service or otherwise punished for his beliefs, or be subject to any such extortive pressure to change or suppress those beliefs. Victims of this kind of offensive behavior by the “woke” should queue up with lawsuits, asap.
THERE IS A CALCULATED EFFORT UNDERWAY to suppress election fraud evidence until sufficient new-paradigm-momentum has gathered to render it harmless to the Biden/Harris/Establishment Democrat agenda. Similar efforts are being directed at C19 challengers and indeed, at anyone expressing general disagreement with any part of the agenda or its pretenses and pretexts– especially those doing so by way of showing abiding support for Donald Trump.
The effort has involved vigorous censorship and sinister threats directed at opposition voices. These attacks are certain to escalate as characterization of challengers to the preferred narrative as seditionists, insurrectionists and “domestic terrorists” is increasingly rolled-out, but so far the assaults are mostly by way of partisan non-governmental actors imposing denials-of-service of various kinds, with some attacks extending all the way to firings from jobs and cancellations of contracts.
Some of the private suppression and intimidation efforts are doubtless motivated by fears of those responsible that should they fail to act against an accused target of a two-minute hate, they will be targeted in turn for the same treatment (or even by the sort of “Lord of the Flies” mob violence we were all very carefully and deliberately shown during last summer’s “peaceful protests”). Some may actually be motivated by the perpetrator’s genuine personal investment in the “woke” nonsense.
Either way, all these private-actor suppression and intimidation efforts are committed in the belief that those responsible are immune from legal consequences, because it is only the government that is legally-constrained against such ideologically-motivated acts. However, this belief is incorrect.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes such ideological-motivated suppressions and other denials of service illegal.
BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE DETAILS, let’s remember that the CRA of 1964 is a real enactment, 57 years ago, by an overwhelmingly white majority of Americans for the benefit of minority populations now pretended to be threatened by those who doubt the validity of the Biden/Harrison election and lack enthusiasm for their agenda. “Jim Crow” has been dead for generations now, and the only “threat” offered by non-Biden/Harris enthusiasts to minorities is what some see as an insufficient solicitude toward the wish-lists of race-hustlers and public-schooled socialists. Nonetheless, those non-Biden/Harris voters are being provocatively labeled “white supremacists”.
The storyline is that the Biden/Harris ticket and their Democrat party are the manifest (and only) champions of minorities (they’ve said so loudly, after all, and they are VERY solicitous toward the wish-lists of race-hustlers and socialists). Therefore, any who oppose their coming to power (whether illegally seized or not)– and the pandering to race-hustlers and socialists on which their campaign rested– must be anti-minority, and hence, white supremacists.
Hard to argue with THAT…
BUT HERE’S A HAPPY IRONY– the minority-benefit CRA stands as a concrete rebuke to the “systemic racism” hustle under which the de-platforming and other denial-of-service offenses are being committed against challengers to the validity of the Biden/Harris election (and/or the virtues of their programs). But the same act offers the mostly non-minority victims of these assaults their remedy.
The fact is, by its plain terms, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against anyone for his or her beliefs. Follow along, now, and you’ll see what I mean.
Here is a relevant provision of the CRA, for example (as codified in Title 42 of the USC),
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 USC § 2000a
Although the express words of the “public accommodations” provision in the CRA, particularly, confine themselves to physical facilities offering only certain services (i.e., hotels, lunchrooms, theaters…), over the years, federal courts have found elasticity in the application of the law based on legislative intent.
Further, state versions of the same provisions are more expressly expansive. Here, for instance, is Michigan’s broader language in its Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976:
(a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.
MCL § 37.2301
Other provisions of the state and federal laws prohibit discrimination in all governmental and government-related or facilitated accommodations, and in hiring and firing practices, both public and private.
As a practical matter, then, short of a final judicial determination to the contrary in any particular provision of services or workplace, discrimination by any business in employment practices or in providing services to interested customers is prohibited across the board. That prohibition includes discrimination on the basis of religion.
NOW, LET’S TALK ABOUT “RELIGION” a bit, and sharpen up what I suspect might be a fuzzy notion some folks might have on that subject
Do you think “religion” is just a matter of things like what church you attend, or how you picture God, with no practical, day-to-day, interact-with-the-world aspect? Not hardly.
religion … In construing the protections under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, courts have interpreted the term religion quite broadly to include a wide variety of theistic and nontheistic beliefs.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.
Another, more precise and more illuminating word for “religion” as meant in federal law is “conscience”. “Conscience”, in turn, encompasses “opinion” and “belief”, as well as “motivation”.
There is considerable case-law now on the books in the federal courts– including the US Supreme Court– developing freedom of expression as a fundamental component of religious freedom (and broadly, well-beyond simple matters of theology, as indicated in the definition quoted from Black’s, above). For the best-known recent example, see Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).
These rulings establish expressions as among the acts against which prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of religion are directed under the CRA and related state laws. The most memorable judicial statement going to this point (and one well-worth remembering at this time of vicious snarling in Washington and elsewhere about prescribing what is “true” and can be said– and what is “false” and cannot) is as recounted and reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2013:
“[W]e cannot improve upon what Justice Jackson wrote for the Court 70 years ago: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642.”
Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013) (Emphasis added.)
ALL TOLD, UNDER THE TERMS of American civil rights laws, it is illegal for any employer or service-provider to withhold services or job opportunities, or to punish, burden or hamper anyone in either regard, due to what that person says, thinks or believes to be true. This is so however much the employer or service-provider might imagine those words, thoughts or beliefs to be incorrect, wrong-headed, hateful or even dangerous.
A business-owner can eject a patron who is directly harassing other customers in the store at the time– because of the rowdy behavior, under the terms of laws prohibiting rowdy behavior. But he can’t eject or refuse to serve a patron because that patron is wearing an “All White People Are Racists” Tee-shirt, or because he announces to the cashier while checking out, “You know, so-and-so stole that election in November…”
Just so, no social media platform owner can lawfully deny service to anyone for holding or expressing any belief no matter how noxious or agenda-threatening the belief may seem. This is as true for expressions made off the platform and those made on the platform. After all, the purpose for which the platform is offered is the making of expressions thereon. To censor or exclude someone for using the platform to make disfavored expressions is plainly to discriminate on the basis of protected behavior.
Nor can anyone be lawfully fired or have his insurance canceled, or his recording contract dropped based on what he has said or who he has associated with or supported politically. These things are not the proper business or concern of any service provider or employer.
Anyone to whom any of these things have happened should be burning rubber to the courthouse to file that civil-rights lawsuit. Every such suit should be well-fortified with righteously huge, deterrence-capable punitive and compensatory damages claims.
I understand that tens of thousands have been de-platformed from Facebook and Twitter. If everyone gets busy, perhaps these arrogant enemies of liberty can be driven out of business.
(BTW, I understand that some targeted by the offenses discussed above have even been refused service by attorneys when seeking help in fighting the abuses. That should change when these balky attorneys have been presented with this material and discover that they will be first in line to be sued.)
NOTE: We will not here address the rightness or wrongness of compelled “association” and other arguably-problematic aspects of federal and state anti-discrimination enactments, although much could be said on these matters. Instead, for the purposes of this observation and advocacy, we will be pleased to let the enthusiasts for such enactments– which surely includes the “woke” community doing all the service-denials and other offenses with which we are here addressing– be hoisted by their own petards…
NOTE II: I STRONGLY urge everyone to visit this week’s ‘Other Voices’ feature, here. Watch the film; read the commentary. There are connections to be noted.
P.S. THE LATEST ENTHUSIASM OF THE STATIST COMMUNITY is denunciation and suppression of “domestic terrorism”. This is not a new chew-toy. I wrote about the precursor push down this road to Hell here, and I recommend the article to everyone.