Re: Lowe's Manager Bows to Request after Racist Customer Refuses Black Delivery Drive
A) That is certainly the bedrock on which bigotry always stands, though, usually the bigot will not admit to the fact and will choose things he believes redeem his opinion and talk about "the n****r, fag, Jew" to underline the difference between himself and the bigots.
There just is a difference between being intolerant of racist dirtbags, for example, and racist dirtbags. Some people would all the former and the latter 'bigots' which is fine, but there is no equivalency between them.
B) Nope. I am only pointing out that in such cases commercial law breaks the constitutional law forbidding Congress to pass laws that infringe on religious practice.
The Constitution doesn't forbid Congress to "infringe on religious practice." You appear to be a lawyer, so you know that if that was the case, then we each become a law unto ourselves because what is a "religious practice" is unique to each individual. Perhaps my religion requires me to beat my wife if she disobeys, or to stone adulterers. Etc.
Though, I have an opinion, I am only really worried about the fact, that so many seem not well enough educated in logic to see the problem and therefore think is okay to allow the state to break the constitution and the courts to redefine the meaning of the Constitution as well as to apply laws selectively.
The problem may be the example you're using here. There was no denial of service to this woman. The truck was in the process of delivering her goods. She has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to demand that she be served only by whites. I doubt she even has a contractual claim here, even if Lowes made some kind of oral agreement to have her stuff delivered by white guys only, since that kind of agreement is contrary to public policy. Even if not, she had an enforceable agreement to have her stuff delivered and Lowes substantially complies with that whether or she gets her two WHITE drivers or one white and one black. What possible damages did she suffer? None.
This is a real danger to society as a whole, showing as it does that rule of law is not secure and the individual citizen is unprotected from government power. This is much worse than private prejudice, as the state has much more power to deliver. It is an idiot that does not watch closely and guard strictly, where it concerns the power she must grant the persons she employs to do the work of governing.
Government's power in this case is being exercised in protecting the rights of all its citizens in the marketplace. If you prefer, the government is making the kind of trade offs it does with every law. The "right" of the baker and anyone else in any line of business to discriminate against anyone she pleases versus the right of disfavored minorities to participate in commerce.
So in simple terms, it is fine to punish the baker, if you force every business to service any that come. But if you want to go that route, you must alter the Constitution. You might have a situationally stupid law, but it would have come about constitutionally. What is not okay, is to allow the Constitution to say that Congress will not interfere in religious practice and then allow Congress to enact a law that does exactly that in certain circumstances.
I'll just say that I'm very unimpressed with the idea that uttering "religious views!!" carries magical powers. If we are going to allow the baker to discriminate against gays because of "religion," then why should we not permit the Klansman to hang a "Whites Only! No Muslims! No Jews!" sign in his business? Obviously, in my view, if we allow the first we should allow the second.
And, again, Congress can obviously enact a law that interferes with a religious practice or there are no actual laws, just voluntary suggestions.
