Is Discrimination Constitutional?

“Nowhere does the Constitution allow businesses to discriminate against others for religious reasons” ~ The Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie

Today being Constitution Day means that any educational institution receiving federal funds must hold an educational program about the Constitution on this day. As a libertarian, I see it as the perfect day, not to pledge to, swear allegiance to, or honor the Constitution, but to point out some of the latest nonsense that is being said about the Constitution.

September 17th has been designated Constitution Day because it is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The Constitution was written by delegates from twelve states to a convention held in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787. On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution. The ninth state needed for ratification was obtained on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified. After Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York (July 26, 1788) ratified the Constitution, the Confederation Congress passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into effect on March 4, 1789.

I have previously pointed out (here and here) how the Constitution was flawed from the very beginning, that conservatives don’t follow the Constitution, that being a constitutionalist is not enough, that constitutionalists don’t even follow the Constitution, what the worst part of the Constitution is, that a new constitutional convention is unnecessary, how the Constitution is against the executive branch departments, that a constitutionalist shouldn’t support the drug war, that it is better to be a libertarian than a constitutional conservative, that Democrats and Republicans are enemies of the Constitution, and that our current government is about as far removed from the Constitution as it could ever be.

The Constitution is not a libertarian document. However, if the government would just follow its own Constitution, we would certainly be much better off than we are now. There would be no welfare, no drug war, no TSA, no ATF, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no federal laboratories, no farm subsidies, no foreign aid, no Pell grants, no federal restrictions on home brewing of beer, and no Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people and groups who claim that the Constitution provides the right to engage in some activity or use a product or service—like the supposed constitutional rights to abortion, birth control, pornography, sodomy, welfare, health care, and same-sex marriage—or proscribes, by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t provide it, the right to undertake some action, like discrimination.

That the Constitution doesn’t allow businesses to discriminate is the latest nonsense that is being said about the Constitution.

What prompted someone to utter such nonsense was a recent development in the case of the well-known refusal of an Oregon bakery to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Back in 2013, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in the Portland area—owned by Aaron and Melissa Klein—refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple—Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer—because doing so would violate the religious convictions of the bakery’s owners. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), which enforces some of Oregon’s civil rights laws, recently ruled that because “businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion,” Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 in damages to the lesbian couple “for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.”

Writing in the Huffington Post, the Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie, a United Church of Christ minister, and the Director of the Center for Peace and Spirituality and University Chaplain at Pacific University, says “the decision was, in fact, perfectly appropriate.” The civil rights of the lesbian couple were “violated”; and therefore, they were “entitled to appropriate compensation after being denied service at the bakery because of their sexual orientation.” Currie finds “discrimination against gays and lesbians intolerable.” He applauds a recent resolution adopted by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ that “called on our local churches to fight new discriminatory laws that target the LGBTQ community with the intent of robbing any ‘persons of any sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the security that they will not be denied services, employment or even a place to live on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or marital relationship.’” Curry maintains that “no business owners have any right to use faith as a legal excuse for discrimination.” Why? Because “nowhere does the Constitution allow businesses to discriminate against others for religious reasons.”

Baloney. Nonsense. Gibberish. Gobbledygook.

Like the typical Republican and conservative, Currie (the quintessential liberal Democrat), is about as ignorant of the Constitution as the typical public high school student (or teacher). Not only does the Constitution not prohibit businesses from discriminating against others for religious reasons, it doesn’t prohibit businesses from discriminating against others for sex, race, color, gender identify, sexual orientation, national origin, age, pregnancy, martial status, disability, birthplace, ancestry, culture, political affiliation, physical appearance, or any other reason. One can search the Constitution morning, noon, and night with an electron microscope, x-ray vision, and night-vision goggles and not even find the word “discrimination.” How does the Constitution prohibit businesses from discriminating if it doesn’t even contain the word? Not to mention that there is nothing the Constitution allows or doesn’t allow businesses to do. That is the role of federal, state, and local regulations–all of which shouldn’t exist, of course, but that is the subject of another article. The Constitution provides a framework for the federal government to operate and sets limits (mostly ignored) on its power. The Constitution does not provide a framework for Sweet Cakes by Melissa or any other business to operate, and neither does it set limits on what a business can or cannot do.

The Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie is a stark, raving lunatic.

And so is former Pennsylvania senator and bottom-of-the-pack Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. After the Colorado Court of Appeals recently ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburbs could not refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, Santorum explained to CBS’s “Face the Nation” that there has to be a distinction between “discrimination of the person because of who they are” and “unwillingness to participate in actions that are inconsistent with your religious beliefs.”

But no such distinction is necessary. As I have pointed out in my many articles on discrimination:

  • Discrimination is neither a dirty word nor an evil deed.
  • There is no right to service.
  • Discriminating against someone is not aggressing against him.
  • To outlaw discrimination is to outlaw freedom of thought and freedom of association.
  • A free society is not free of discrimination, but a free society is free of discrimination laws.
  • A free society must include the freedom to discriminate against any individual or group, on any basis, for any reason.

The Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie is not only an enemy of a free society, he is also an enemy of the Constitution.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism and War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest book is The Making of the King James Bible—New Testament. Visit his website.

This article originally appeared at LewRockwell.com and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license. 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

These Presidential Candidates Just Did Something Unbelievable For The Families Of Charleston Shooting Victims

Several Republican presidential candidates will be returning campaign contributions made by a man who runs an organization that allegedly inspired the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Charleston, S.C.

Earl Holt, president of the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens (CoCC), has donated $65,000 to Republican campaigns in recent years, The Guardian reported. The New York Times reveals the connection between Holt and Dylann Roof, who has been charged with the murder of nine people at Emanuel AME and could face the death penalty.

A manifesto that appeared on a website registered to Mr. Roof said that the manifesto’s author had first learned of ‘brutal black-on-white murders’ from the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website.

Donations made by Holt include $8,500 to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; $1,750 to RandPAC, the political action committee of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and $1,500 to former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Bloomberg reported $3,000 was donated by Holt to the nascent campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

All of the above candidates, declared or otherwise, plan on returning money they received from Holt.

“RandPAC is donating the funds to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund to assist the victims’ families,” said Paul spokesman Doug Stafford, according to Bloomberg. Santorum spokesman Matthew Beynon told The Guardian Monday that his boss would be doing the same. “Senator Santorum does not condone or respect racist or hateful comments of any kind. Period. The views the Senator campaigns on are his own and he is focused on uniting America, not dividing he,” Beynon said.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Cruz, told Bloomberg that her boss “believes that there is no place for racism in society.”

“Upon learning about Mr. Holt’s background and his contributions to the campaign, he immediately instructed that all of those donations be returned.”

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Walker, said the governor would be donating the funds to charity, according to Bloomberg.

h/t: Youth for Rand Paul

Do you applaud these candidates? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here Are Liberal Media’s Top 10 Worst Attacks On This 2016 Presidential Candidate

Rick Santorum has once again thrown his hat into the presidential ring. One might agree that the former senator from Pennsylvania will have his work cut out for him, especially if the liberal media has anything to say about it.

In 2012, after a surprising win in the Iowa Caucus and some other primaries, Santorum went on to come in a distant second to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.

A Real Clear Average of polls currently has him running twelfth among the announced and likely candidates that make up the 2016 Republican field, polling at 1.7 percent.

Santorum’s numbers will probably rise now that he has announced; however, if he gains any traction, he is sure to face harsh, even outlandish attacks, from the media, if history is a guide.

Here are some of the attacks the candidate faced in the past, many of which were chronicled by the conservative Media Research Center.

1. In 2012, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller likened Santorum’s Catholic faith to sharia law, saying: “Remember earlier in the campaign when Newt Gingrich was worrying everybody about Sharia law: the Muslims were going to impose Sharia law in America? Sometimes Santorum sounds like he’s creeping up on a Christian version of Sharia law.”

2. In 2008, then-chief Newsweek Washington correspondent Evan Thomas said: “[Sen. Rick] Santorum’s theatrics make me gag. He may be sincere, but the show that he just put on, the clip we just saw of him wringing his hands about babies, make me think that it is theater.

3. This week, Rolling Stone went after Santorum for pointing out one of the unintended consequences of the tens of millions of abortions over the last four decades: a major imbalance in funding Social Security. He stated: “The social security system in my opinion is a flawed design, period. But, having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends….The reason social security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.”

4. Also, Rolling Stone called Santorum’s view that Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding “vile.” “I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind. This is an organization that was founded on the eugenics movement, founded on racism. It’s origins are horrific. You can say well, it’s not that anymore. It’s not far from where it was in my opinion in its activities and its motivations,” Santorum said.

5. This week, the Washington Post, in an article entitled Seven Reasons Why Santorum Will Lose, listed number 1 as “Satan” and linked to a Huffington Post article from 2012. In it, the candidate defended remarks he’d made in 2008 regarding America being in a spiritual war. “Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” he said. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition…This is a spiritual war…If you were Satan, who would you go after in this day an age” other than the United States? When questioned about it in 2012, he said, “I‘m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil.”

6. In 2011, Matt Lauer, while interviewing Santorum on NBC’s The Today Show, said “some” are calling him ultra-conservative on the social issues, to which the candidate took exception. He responded: “I believe life begins at conception, and I believe marriage is between a man and woman. And I think the law should reflect that…if that makes me ultra conservative, so be it.”

7. In 2011, New York Times Executive Editor Keller likened candidates, including Santorum, who profess a Christian faith to believing in space aliens: “If a candidate for President said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him?…Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.” The Times later corrected the piece, noting Santorum is a Catholic, not an evangelical.

8. In 2012, the since-disgraced MSNBC host Martin Bashir labeled Santorum Orwellian. “When we last saw the Republican front-runner Rick Santorum speaking before a crowd yesterday, all we could think of was George Orwell’s novel 1984 about a society dominated by the most extreme form of totalitarianism….In reviewing his book, It Takes a Family, one critic said, ‘Mr. Santorum has one of the finest minds of the 13th century.’ But I’m not so sure. If you listen carefully to Rick Santorum, he sounds more like Stalin than Pope Innocent III.”

9. In 2012, The Economist’s Zanny Minton Beddoes said the former senator wants to take the United States back to the 13th Century: “The fact that you say that you think he might win the nomination completely terrifies me. I mean, how many decades back, how many centuries back does he want to take us? I read a little bit of his book this week, which is terrifying — logical, but terrifying — and there was a review of it, I think it was the Philadelphia Inquirer when it first came out and it said that Santorum would be a fine mind for the 13th century. And it’s kind of right. It’s logical, it’s natural law, it’s the kind of Catholic absolutist view of the world of several centuries ago.”

10. In 2012, CNN’s Bob Franken said Santorum wants to institute an Iran-like theocracy. “You then have Rick Santorum representing the theocrats and the Republican party, which is also part of the base, theocracy, of course, like perhaps the one in Iran, they would like to see that created here. This is really an appeal to the base instincts in the Republican party, and the base instincts of the Republican base.”

Republican candidates have consistently faced biased media coverage in the past, but many may think the media noise threshold Santorum will have to cross will be greater.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A New Contender Is Jumping Into The 2016 GOP Race – And He Could Have An Advantage Over His Opponents

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Rick Santorum broke his silence regarding a 2016 presidential run in a fundraising email sent to supporters Wednesday.

“This afternoon,” he wrote, “I will formally announce my candidacy for President of the United States!”

Subsequent media reports indicate ABC’s George Stephanopoulos will interview the newly minted candidate in an exclusive presentation Wednesday afternoon.

Santorum – whose strong showing in the 2012 Republican nomination process might give him an edge over some of his fellow candidates – has been hinting at a follow-up White House bid for months.

In 2014, he pointed out that, despite a second-place primary finish just two years prior, he was not on the short list of likely 2016 nominees among many political insiders.

“America loves an underdog,” he affirmed. “We’re definitely the underdog in this race.”

His underdog status seems to have persisted into 2015. A look at recent polling data shows Santorum languishing at the bottom of the Republican list with roughly two percent of respondents expressing support for his candidacy. Furthermore, at least one prominent family that endorsed him in 2012 has switched allegiance ahead of the 2016 race.

The Duggar family, embattled stars of the TLC program 19 Kids and Counting, announced they will back Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary.

Of course, primary season is just getting started; and Santorum has heretofore not even been an official candidate. As ABC News’ Ben Gittleson pointed out, the last two Republican presidential nominees – John McCain and Mitt Romney – were only able to snag a primary win during their second attempt.

Does Rick Santorum stand a chance in the crowded Republican primary race? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Duggars Announce Their Pick For 2016

The Duggar family rose to fame after signing on to star in the hit reality series 19 Kids and Counting; however, the clan is no longer celebrated solely for its sheer size. By voicing strong biblical values and traditional beliefs, the Duggars have gained a loyal following among evangelical Christians.

As the 2016 presidential election cycle progresses, the influence of cultural figures like the Duggars could play a role in deciding the ultimate nominees. According to recent reports, parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have already picked their favorite from among the crop of Republican hopefuls.

After endorsing outspoken social conservative Rick Santorum in 2012, the couple announced they are supporting former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee – an ordained Baptist preacher – this time around.

Huckabee, who announced his candidacy earlier this week, is a “man of faith” and “very wise,” according to Michelle Duggar.

She went on to declare that he will “help get our nation back on track” in an endorsement posted to the candidate’s official website.

The family’s patriarch offered a glowing review, too, insisting that the nation “needs Governor Huckabee for president!”

In addition to having the “communication skills of Ronald Reagan,” Jim Bob Duggar touted Huckabee’s “common sense business approach to government.”

As Western Journalism has previously reported, Huckabee – who won the Iowa caucuses during his 2008 White House bid – is on pace to give his fellow Republican candidates a run for their money. The Wickers Group recently looked at the results from 11 recent polls, determining Huckabee is “extremely well-positioned to launch a winning campaign for the Republican nomination for President.”

Would you support a candidate with strong Christian values? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth