Ammo For Sale

« « Knoxville for out of towners | Home | Stopping terrorists » »

It’s like the opposite of the civil rights act

The governor has signed a law that prohibits cities from enacting nondiscrimination policies different from the state’s. This would mean it’s ok to discriminate against homosexuals for people who are scared of gay cooties. It’s a dumb law. But that seems to be what our legislature is about these days, passing some stupid laws. Not so much on the stuff I thought we elected them to do.

10 Responses to “It’s like the opposite of the civil rights act”

  1. armed_partisan Says:

    Preemption laws are important at protecting essential civil rights, and I find that odd that some people would be of two minds about things like this. Either it’s a good thing that different cities, municipalities, and counties can outlaw or very strictly regulate firearms or it’s not. Likewise, it’s either a good thing that the will of the majority is upheld, or it’s not. I’m a will-of-the-majority kinda guy, even when the majority it wrong. This can be demonstrated on a number of issues, such as taxes, which most (or many) people don’t pay, so they don’t, mind it when they’re raised. If I thought my fellow citizens were beyond hope, I’d find a new place to live.

    I’ll agree that the politics of “Gay-Cooties” is a silly one, and should be considered largely outside the realm of good governance since it’s none of government’s business, but good governance has not been the interest of the various levels of government in the US for a very long time. The idea that religious and cultural institutions like marriage of any kind can be REGULATED by government should have us all in the streets setting fires to police cars and government buildings, but it doesn’t.

    “Homonogamy” is a personal moral and cultural issue that society is eventually gonna have to evolve enough to handle maturely, and no amount of government enforcement in either direction will soften people’s view on the issue. It wasn’t laws that made Whites see Blacks as inferiors and then as equals, it was Blacks. Society is changed by individuals, not by law, but law must represent the will of the people, and not the will of individuals.

  2. 1 With A Bullet Says:

    However, state preemption laws preventing cities from establishing additional restrictions on concealed carry are OK, right?

  3. SayUncle Says:

    not a fan of a lot of preemption.

  4. 1 With A Bullet Says:

    Dang. Armed Partisan got in the preemption comment first.

  5. SPQR Says:

    Unconstitutional under current Supreme Court precedent, Romer v. Evans decision.

  6. Susan Evan Says:

    how gov do that? i have sister who lesbian. so my sister will be discriminated ?

  7. Stormy Dragon Says:

    So how exactly would someone get standing to challenge a decision under this law?

    “Your honor, the city clearly chose to hire Mr. Smith on the basis of him being far more qualified than my client. Yet as we have demonstrated, Mr. Smith is gay. Clearly the city is failing to comply with the state policy of not not dicriminating against homosexuals.”

  8. John Smith. Says:

    So basically you guys are whining because it makes laws that are locally passed to circumvent the inactivity of the state congress illegal?? Try this. Go and advocate to your elected officials that they vote for the laws you want passed just like the gunnies have been doing it all these years and are just now being rewarded for their diligence. I detest people who try to end run the system then piss and moan when their game is discovered….

  9. Ryan Says:

    I thought you were libertarian. Libertarians oppose the application of antidiscrimination laws to private parties. Employment is at will and no person should be forced by the government to contract with someone against his will. If you are against using government to force morals on people, you should support this law restricing government power. Regardles of ones view re: homosexuality, people who disagree with your view shouldn’t be coerced by the state when they are not violating anyone else’s rights. No one has a right to force someone else to give them a job. It should be consensual. At least that is the libertarian position.

    As to Romer V. Evans, the commenter is wrong. The case was specifically about the colorado constitutional amendment, not laws preempting antidiscrimination laws. The us court of appeals for the sixth circuit (which covers Tennessee ) upheld a similar cincinnati law on sexual orientation after Romer. Its good to go.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    Yes but making a dumb law dumber is still dumb