"Now, let me get this straight (no pun intended). If I ask about sexual orientation when I hire an employee I'm a criminal, but if I don't know his sexual orientation when I fire or lay him off I could be liable," deadpans our heartland correspondent, Peter Ferry, re a Human Rights Campaign email he received the other day "urging me to vote for John Kerry because he is one of the sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that supposedly ends discrimination agains homosexuals in the workplace":
Gee, maybe I should ship my job overseas where the laws (or lack thereof) make more sense. (Remember that ENDA's co-sponsor criticizes his opponent for giving corporations incentives to export jobs.)
Bishop Bush routinely combines church and state, while Commissar Kerry backs anything that gives the state more power. Both are WRONG, but one of them has stumbled into the correct position: our Constitution guarantees us the freedom to associate, or not to associate, with whomever we choose, free from state coercion or interference.
The correct law is no law.
Without knowing any of the details, that sounds about right to us. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously put it in another context in 1890:
Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.
Mr. Kerry, get off my back!
Kerry is going to win the election because he's so much smarter than bush. It's obvious.
Posted by: John Johnson | October 21, 2004 at 11:34 PM
We'll see.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | October 22, 2004 at 07:23 AM