Civil Rights

[volinbham]

Civil rights – something to ponder:

When political issues are characterized as issues of civil rights, those claiming they’ve been denied rights often imply that changing laws to provide rights are simply a matter of expanding rights. Further, they argue that those against the change are in favor of discrimination.

However, is the expansion of rights for one group also a removal of rights for others?

A few examples:

1. Bilingual education – since children of immigrants may not have proper English language skills, many school systems use bi-lingual education so as to provide equal access to education. However, many argue that such systems remove rights from English speaking children as their educational process is slowed down by the bi-lingual approach.

2. Gay marriage – Gay and lesbian couples claim they are denied the rights and benefits of marriage. Allowing gay marriage expands these rights to gay and lesbian couples but does it remove the right of hetero-couples to engage in a social institution that stands for something different than the expanded definition.

3. “God” in the pledge of allegiance and other religious displays – Atheists claim this violates their rights and the separation clause but would removing God from the pledge, money, etc. remove rights from those who either are religious or support certain traditions.

4. Employment laws – all sorts of laws exist regarding hiring, paying and firing employees but do these laws limit the rights of employers.

5. Eminent Domain - under what conditions do the rights of the community exceed the rights of the individual property owner?

While not a zero-sum issue, the expansion of rights for some groups often diminishes the rights for other groups. No doubt that the list above could be expanded greatly and we would all find situations where we fall on one side or the other.

What say you? How do we decide who’s rights are to be protected and expanded and whose are to be diminished?

 

[CSpindizzy]

From a libertarian standpoint, one should be able to pursue their own happiness as long as it does not infringe on my rights. But few think of it in this manner. Basically when your pursuit crossed into my territory and limits my pursuit there comes a time for lawsuit.....just a thought.

The views above do not represent the views of the holder of the screen name. They are merely food for thought.

 

[milohimself]

Civil rights – something to ponder:

When political issues are characterized as issues of civil rights, those claiming they’ve been denied rights often imply that changing laws to provide rights are simply a matter of expanding rights. Further, they argue that those against the change are in favor of discrimination.

However, is the expansion of rights for one group also a removal of rights for others?

A few examples:

1. Bilingual education – since children of immigrants may not have proper English language skills, many school systems use bi-lingual education so as to provide equal access to education. However, many argue that such systems remove rights from English speaking children as their educational process is slowed down by the bi-lingual approach.

Coming from a town that is vastly Hispanic (50% -- They outnumber whites), I can say without doubt that it doesn't change my education process. They take a completely seperate set of classes taught by teachers who teach only spanish-speaking subjects. And they learn how to speak basic English in these classes. Creates new jobs, gets more money to the schools. I'm all for it.

2. Gay marriage – Gay and lesbian couples claim they are denied the rights and benefits of marriage. Allowing gay marriage expands these rights to gay and lesbian couples but does it remove the right of hetero-couples to engage in a social institution that stands for something different than the expanded definition.

A lot of people can be fenced by this issue. Not me. And I think my solution to this is completely rational. Marriage is an institution of the church. Period. If a certain church wants to marry gays, leave it up to them. Not for the government to decide on whatsoever. However, I am for civil unions, under the circumstances that a homosexual couple gets all the same rights as any other person. In my opinion, discrimination against gays is just the next step for civil rights in this country. I don't necesarily want more or less, I just want it so that all people have the same rights, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. "Your rights end where my nose begins." I always liked this quote. Gays should not be stopped from living a chosen, LEGAL lifestyle just because people don't want it in public. Gay life styles are not allowed in public? But Christian ones are? And who is to decide what is and isn't decent? It's a double-standard.

Sum it up: If your lifestyle is within the bounds of the law, you ought to be able to live your life same as everybody else.

3. “God” in the pledge of allegiance and other religious displays – Atheists claim this violates their rights and the separation clause but would removing God from the pledge, money, etc. remove rights from those who either are religious or support certain traditions.

Seems petty to me...

4. Employment laws – all sorts of laws exist regarding hiring, paying and firing employees but do these laws limit the rights of employers.

Most employers figure out ways to circumvent the laws, if they want to. I think things are great the way they are.

5. Eminent Domain - under what conditions do the rights of the community exceed the rights of the individual property owner?

Part of a neighborhood association? If you pay dues to them, and they want you to change something about your house that would be otherwise reasonable, then make them pay to fix it.

While not a zero-sum issue, the expansion of rights for some groups often diminishes the rights for other groups. No doubt that the list above could be expanded greatly and we would all find situations where we fall on one side or the other.

What say you? How do we decide who’s rights are to be protected and expanded and whose are to be diminished?

Once again, "Your rights end where my nose begins." I think people can live in harmony. It's just some people get so damned defensive and territorial.

 

[Volunteer Rebel]

Part of a neighborhood association? If you pay dues to them, and they want you to change something about your house that would be otherwise reasonable, then make them pay to fix it.

That's not eminent domain. What you're refering to is usually neighborhoods or associations that have charters that stipulate certain requirements to live in the vicinity such as not putting up chain link fences, or not having a car up on blocks in the frontyard. Also, if you live in a historical district any changes you make to a house usually has to be approved by a committee. When you buy a house in one of these areas you basically sign the charter so it is a binding document.

Eminent domain refers to public expropriation of private land. Traditionally, only a public need such as a school, interstate, hospital etc. would prompt the government to enact eminent domain. Recently, the supreme court in a 5-4 decision basically said it was constitutional to use eminent domain to get private property for another private use. So some communities now will force you to sell your land at a price they set, and turn around and sell it to Wal-Mart because they can get a lot more taxes from a walmart than from your property taxes. It's this practice that I think inherently violates the rights of Americans, regardless of Supreme Court interpretation. If walmart wants my land, then they can suck it up and pay what I want. If I don't want to sell no matter the cost, then WalMart as a private entity needs to look elsewhere. Property rights are one of the foundations of our freedoms, and is a safeguard against expanded tyranny of government. After all, to use a cliche, it is a very slippery slope. I'm not paranoid, but it is impossible to predict the future changes our country might undergo that would prompt the government to openly violate the right to property, and our founders had a reason for wanting that to be a part of this country's heritage.

BTW, who really cares about Gay marriage. I don't agree with it, and i'm conservative, but this is just a cheap trick by the republicans to try and rally their base. I for one am not buying it. The original intent of the constitution was to explicitly limit the rights and scope of government, not place limits on citizens for social norms.

 

[CSpindizzy]

5-4 decision was not to just allow seizure of public lands for private use. It was to solidify that the state constitution of Rhode Island defined eminent domain and the SC upheld what the state constitution defined. The decision ultimately upheld what the state constitution said...plain and simple. If you don't like the decision, change your state constitutions.

 

[volinbham]

Once again, "Your rights end where my nose begins." I think people can live in harmony. It's just some people get so damned defensive and territorial.

Ah, but here's the rub. Rights clearly overlap more than suggested in the libertarian view. As CSpindizzy noted, the line is very blurry. For example, the "God in the pledge" may seem very petty to some but it is crucially important to others.

Here's a different educational one. Some school districts mainline children with special needs of all types (mental and physical). This is done primarily for the benefit of the special needs child. However, teachers often spend an inordinate amount of time attending to them and other students are neglected.

Or another: Hate speech on campus'. Several schools have explicit or implicit rules against what is deemed "hate" speech. On the other hand, these rules frequently run square into first amendment issues. The ACLU has frequently sided against these universities.

In short, my premise is that the expansion of rights for some frequently involves a diminishing of rights for others. If those losing rights don't think its a big deal then its really no problem (eventhough they've still lost some rights).

Finally, while we are a majority rule country it is often the rights of the minority that get heavier weight than those of the majority -- a huge factor behind the PC movement.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If you need some good bathroom reading, check the Federalist Papers. Those three guys hit hard and heavy on 'minority rights'. They preached that tyranny of the majority was an evil in our society. Pure democracy means that a majority can decide the fate of all. The Constitution is the only safeguard that ALL rights both minorities and majorities will be protected. Frankly mob rule scares the you-know-what out of me. After Columbine, a majority of Americans wanted very strict gun controls. Screw the 2nd Amendment. And right now here in GA, we're arguing over the ban on gay marriage amendment that 75% of the voters went for. But according to the state constitution this amendment was improper and "the will of the people" was overturned. Disregard the fact that the politicians knew the wording makes the amendment unconstitutional and they knew about it. All I hear is that activist judges are protecting a minority and fighting the will of the people. Mob rule!

 

[volinbham]

I completely agree that minority rights must be protected.

The two points I offer are:

1. Often times protecting minority rights reduces majority rights (my original premise).

2. We've been in a period where ANY minority rights seem more important than majority rights (the PC phenomenon).


I certainly not advocating majority rules above all. Rather trying to point out that the "addition" of rights to some is not neutral in its impact on others. Further, the often used argument that someone against a particular proposed set of minority rights is in favor of discrimination is a false argument. It could be turned around and said the minority is in favor of discrimination since in some way their fight will reduce the rights (or different rights) of the majority. Both arguments have a grain of truth but are built upon a false premise.

The issue is not minority rights but rather which minority rights?

I really not advocating any solution here either; just bringing up what I find to be an interesting and often misunderstood (IMHO) tension in our system. eace2:

 

[therealUT]

Read "White Guilt," by Shelby Steele.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

2. Gay marriage – Gay and lesbian couples claim they are denied the rights and benefits of marriage. Allowing gay marriage expands these rights to gay and lesbian couples but does it remove the right of hetero-couples to engage in a social institution that stands for something different than the expanded definition.

How does expanding the right to marry to GLBT couples in any way diminish the rights of hetro couples? I mean, the parameters of my marriage would not be changed one bit because those rights are expanded to include GLBT.

3. “God” in the pledge of allegiance and other religious displays – Atheists claim this violates their rights and the separation clause but would removing God from the pledge, money, etc. remove rights from those who either are religious or support certain traditions.

First of all, I don't advocate removing God from the pledge or money, but again, how would that action remove rights from anyone? I mean, everyone would still have the right to worship God as they see fit. Do the words "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill somehow enhance that experience? I can see how the religious community would consider it a huge slap in the face, but I just don't see it as a rights issue.

4. Employment laws – all sorts of laws exist regarding hiring, paying and firing employees but do these laws limit the rights of employers.

Maybe to a certain extent they do, but they are still better than the alternative.

5. Eminent Domain - under what conditions do the rights of the community exceed the rights of the individual property owner?

I think eminent domain should be severly limited. The government should never be allowed to take a person's property to give it to a corporation.

 

[volinbham]

How does expanding the right to marry to GLBT couples in any way diminish the rights of hetro couples? I mean, the parameters of my marriage would not be changed one bit because those rights are expanded to include GLBT.
First of all, I don't advocate removing God from the pledge or money, but again, how would that action remove rights from anyone? I mean, everyone would still have the right to worship God as they see fit. Do the words "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill somehow enhance that experience? I can see how the religious community would consider it a huge slap in the face, but I just don't see it as a rights issue.

Maybe to a certain extent they do, but they are still better than the alternative.
I think eminent domain should be severly limited. The government should never be allowed to take a person's property to give it to a corporation.

I'll give you some of the arguments and you can decide. Also, I'm not arguing for or against any of these particular positions but rather trying to demonstrate the nature of give and take in "rights".

1. With regard to gay marriage; the "right" forfeited is that of hetero couples to join in a social institution that defines their relationship as man and woman. If the notion of marriage is forced to expand; it is argued that hetero couples can no longer join in an institution that is based on just their type of relationship. It may not seem like (or even be) a big deal but it the expansion of the definition removes the "right" to be joined in an "exclusive" institution.

I'll use a ridiculous example just to illustrate the point. A male is excluded from being homecoming queen by definition of the word "queen". However, some males (or females wanting to be H. King) have sued. If the definition is changed to "homecoming person", then those that wanted the traditional way (queen=female; king=male) are denied the ability to protect that tradition. Again, it may not be an issue to many but in order for the offended male to gain the "right" to be queen; many others lost the right to define "queen" as female in this context.

2. As for God in the pledge; it gets at the rights of the majority to say things a certain way. It also represents a change because those in the minority are "offended" by the language. Again it may or may not be a big deal to any individual but it is a case where one groups "rights" to express themselves a certain way is lessened so another groups "rights" are not violated.

On issues 3 and 4; you've stated what you think is right but that gets at the heart of the issue. Others may see it differently (perhaps not all employee "rights" rules are good or maybe their are times when eminent domain does the greater good...) hence the root of the issue.

Any of us may rightly choose any position on these issues but our "rights" to live the way we want are always in a constant conflict since we don't all share the same values, beliefs, etc.

When some argue that their rights are being violated, the remedy often in turn "violates the rights" of others.

Ultimately, laws and the constitution should be the guide but as we have seen different well-meaning people interpret the law and constitution in different ways.

It's just the wonderful world we live in :hi:

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I'll give you some of the arguments and you can decide. Also, I'm not arguing for or against any of these particular positions but rather trying to demonstrate the nature of give and take in "rights".

You do make a very valid point. I can see what you are saying. A couple of points:

1. With regard to gay marriage; the "right" forfeited is that of hetero couples to join in a social institution that defines their relationship as man and woman. If the notion of marriage is forced to expand; it is argued that hetero couples can no longer join in an institution that is based on just their type of relationship. It may not seem like (or even be) a big deal but it the expansion of the definition removes the "right" to be joined in an "exclusive" institution.

I guess I've never looked at marriage as belonging to a social institution. To me it's just a matter of choosing to spend the rest of my life with the woman of my choice, with the perks that go along with it. If you look at it from the point of view you are making I can see that. I've heard several in the religious community who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with civil unions. I personally see no difference, but if one is to look at it from the position you are describing it makes sense I guess.

2. As for God in the pledge; it gets at the rights of the majority to say things a certain way. It also represents a change because those in the minority are "offended" by the language. Again it may or may not be a big deal to any individual but it is a case where one groups "rights" to express themselves a certain way is lessened so another groups "rights" are not violated.

Good point. This is a sticky issue. No matter which way the courts go somebody is going to feel their rights are violated.

On issues 3 and 4; you've stated what you think is right but that gets at the heart of the issue. Others may see it differently (perhaps not all employee "rights" rules are good or maybe their are times when eminent domain does the greater good...) hence the root of the issue.

On eminent domain I think the constitution is clear that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. I know that it allows for eminent domain for the greater good, but I don't see that it was ever intended for the government to take property to give it to another private entity, nor do I see that any private entity has any right to claim another's personal property.

Any of us may rightly choose any position on these issues but our "rights" to live the way we want are always in a constant conflict since we don't all share the same values, beliefs, etc.

When some argue that their rights are being violated, the remedy often in turn "violates the rights" of others.

Ultimately, laws and the constitution should be the guide but as we have seen different well-meaning people interpret the law and constitution in different ways.

It's just the wonderful world we live in :hi:

Very true. There will always be some who have different interpretations. Great discussion!! :thumbsup: