I’m surrounded by crazies! Get me out of here!
It’s about time a fellow legislator pointed out the pointless and harmful legislation being proposed in Pierre;
“The media picks up on these bills and people think about moving to South Dakota and they say, ‘Oh, crazies are out there,” Hajek said.
“I think there is legislation brought with the purpose of having a lot of discussion and having people spent a lot of time on it. It’s frivolous, but it will keep us from doing the work we’re supposed to be doing,” Hajek said.
I have often wondered where these clowns come from. I have been reading a book called ‘The Authoritarians’, (available online for free) which explains a lot about the Olsons, Wicks and Steele’s of the world.
SB 128 is a flawed and an unnecessary law beyond the obvious reasons, which many of us on the Left have already reiterated. Because if SB 128 were enacted with its authors believing it to be constitutional, but if it was then constitutionally challenged none the less without the authors fear and their forefront assumption that it would be challenged unsuccessfully, then such an assumed potential test itself proves that the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation already exists in the absence of SB 128 in the minds of the authors, so why would you need the law?
Well, I think the reason the Right wants this law is because they actually welcome this law being tested constitutionally down the road. Which itself is a disingenuous motive given the fact that the right claims SB 128 is an attempt to protect anti-gay businesses from lawsuits as well as a protection of their religious rights, which could actually be placed in question and potentially quantified in a lawsuit court decision on this matter, however.
Because, if this law was upheld constitutionally then it would open a whole can of worms concerning the 14th Amendment and the application of the Bill of Rights to our daily lives. If one’s religious rights are always allowed to trump individual rights, when the act in question is not a genuine practice of a religious belief, then why can a future court not also claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects one from racial discrimination, cannot be applied as a form of protection for an individual based on race if a defendant business owner’s religious beliefs are one of racial purity and promote the doctrine of separate but equal accommodation?
Courts are often asked to decide constitutional questions involving the collision of two claimed competing constitutional rights. But when one alleged right is not intentionally performed in the course of daily life and the intended application of that right, like the irrational political concept that people open businesses to practice a religious belief, then the rights of the gay individual, (who is attempting to go on with their daily life commenced in the commerce of a free society, like potentially ordering their own wedding cake from a “Rightwing” baker, which is a genuine act in the interaction of a free society), should obviously trump any religious right claimed by the defendant (baker), who in this scenario is preforming a discriminatory act and not practicing a belief, because a belief is an opinion and not a fiat societal edict of one, and the gay patron’s attempt to order a cake does not stop a baker from practicing their religious beliefs within the confines of the intended religious forum like a religious facility, a rally, or a festival, or the public expression of their beliefs like lecturing a gay patron about their lifestyle choice….. Unless we are going to start having bakery churches… Well, we all already have church bake sales… I wonder?…. Do they often discriminate?
I would also like to comment on Wick and Steeles’ “No shoe, No Shirt, No Service” analogy, which they claim gives a business the right to run a business the way they want without any government interference. Here is what is wrong with that analogy. Businesses or should we say restaurants do not have that policy because they want to discriminate against babies wearing only a diaper, or a hippie, or whoever, rather they have that policy for health reasons and public safety reasons; legitimate reasons which shall always, and should, trump individual, religious, or whatever rights claimed by a potential patron….. This is the same logic, which is applied to the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech, and an Amendment which does not give a patron the right to yell “fire” in a theater, where there is no fire.
What is to stop just the opposite from happening? If SB128 passes, I can start a restaurant, grocery store, bakery, Laundromat, etc. where I can serve whomever I want or don’t want. And say it is because of their sexual preference. Maybe I don’t like hetrosexuals. It gives an owner a blanket right to not service people and call it a sexual preference issue.
40 days is not enough. These people need to meet all year long in Pierre so the national news can make fun of us year around.
I can imagine a world where you have to fill-out paper work before the baker can even decide if he can make you a cake-to-order. Regardless though, make sure you go in there with your shirt and shoes on, however….
Someone told me today that Anne is considering a run for judge.
She’s right about wasted time on foolish legislation. I caught some of her speal on KELO. The state is growing. It’s urgent to embrace modern less antiquated arguments and legally relate for the benefit of the state. Wasn’t she the one who quit a post stating it ‘was no longer fun’. If so, she’s more serious now and worthy politically.
Anne Hajek as a judge, NOW, that is a scary thought.
I remember how she conducted herself as a Park Board member before and after the Drake Springs vote.
Several times at Park Board meetings AFTER citizens had voted the indoor pool down, she had to be reminded by fellow Board members that the people had spoken!!
CR – it worries me a bit also. While Hajek’s strong opinions as an elected official are appreciated, they won’t be so appreciated on the bench.
This story made TPM today. Lovely that SD gets so much publicity about being such a progressive state.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/south-dakota-lawmaker-republican-crazies-move
Winston this is just one more illustration of the tendency among “conservatives” to erroneously interpret matters of civil SOCIETY – or broad-ranging societal mores embodied in the constitution exclusively in terms of their personal impacts. “The whole world revolves around me.”