johnwk
09-27-2014, 01:57 PM
SEE: Transgender woman suing former employer for discrimination (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2014/9/26/branson_transgender_.html)
”LAKELAND --
The transgender woman at the heart of a historic lawsuit says she is suing for accountability and to restore a part of her life.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Committee has filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the Lakeland Eye Clinic on behalf of Brandi Branson.”
Here we go again with an attack by a sick and disgruntled individual against others who prefer to not associate with that individual. Of course, the attack by the EEOC is really upon the right of people being free to associate with whom they please, and to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which just happen to be two fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.
Unfortunately, in all likelihood, if Lakeland Eye Clinic hires a lawyer to fight this absurd charge, the lawyer will fall into the EEOC’s trap by arguing case law, rather than arguing for the preservation of inalienable rights, intentionally sought to be protected by constitutional provisions!
For example, we have been lied to for many, many years that the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid almost every imaginable kind of “discrimination”, as if people being free to “discriminate” in their daily doings is something evil and to be forbidden. But the truth is, the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent was specifically directed at State Legislation which made distinctions in a very narrow area __ discrimination based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. The Amendment was never intended to be used as a bar to every imaginable kind of discrimination. And certainly was not adopted to interfere with a citizens actions in their daily lives or their relationships with other citizens. And this is summed up in the following words by Rep. Shellabarger, a supporter of the 14th Amendment:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to forbid a new kind of discrimination, distinctions at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“. Note that such protection was still not afforded based upon gender, and in particularly not to females.
The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination, but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”
If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as we have been told by Justice Ginsburg in the VMI Case, then why were the above mentioned amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex and/or gender?
The bottom line is, Brandi Branson wants to use the force of government to impinge upon the inalienable rights of others citizens to be free to mutually agree in their contacts and associations with him, and to this extent the EEOC’s suit is an outright attack upon one of mankind’s most fundamental rights __ the right to be free to mutually agree in contracts and associations.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
”LAKELAND --
The transgender woman at the heart of a historic lawsuit says she is suing for accountability and to restore a part of her life.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Committee has filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the Lakeland Eye Clinic on behalf of Brandi Branson.”
Here we go again with an attack by a sick and disgruntled individual against others who prefer to not associate with that individual. Of course, the attack by the EEOC is really upon the right of people being free to associate with whom they please, and to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which just happen to be two fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.
Unfortunately, in all likelihood, if Lakeland Eye Clinic hires a lawyer to fight this absurd charge, the lawyer will fall into the EEOC’s trap by arguing case law, rather than arguing for the preservation of inalienable rights, intentionally sought to be protected by constitutional provisions!
For example, we have been lied to for many, many years that the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid almost every imaginable kind of “discrimination”, as if people being free to “discriminate” in their daily doings is something evil and to be forbidden. But the truth is, the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent was specifically directed at State Legislation which made distinctions in a very narrow area __ discrimination based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. The Amendment was never intended to be used as a bar to every imaginable kind of discrimination. And certainly was not adopted to interfere with a citizens actions in their daily lives or their relationships with other citizens. And this is summed up in the following words by Rep. Shellabarger, a supporter of the 14th Amendment:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to forbid a new kind of discrimination, distinctions at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“. Note that such protection was still not afforded based upon gender, and in particularly not to females.
The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination, but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”
If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as we have been told by Justice Ginsburg in the VMI Case, then why were the above mentioned amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex and/or gender?
The bottom line is, Brandi Branson wants to use the force of government to impinge upon the inalienable rights of others citizens to be free to mutually agree in their contacts and associations with him, and to this extent the EEOC’s suit is an outright attack upon one of mankind’s most fundamental rights __ the right to be free to mutually agree in contracts and associations.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.