“A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.”
“Some claim that the Arizona law will bring about racial discrimination profiling. First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that profiling has always been an important component of legitimate law enforcement. If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying that are violating the law.”
Rep. Steve King
video and more… huffpo
Ok, I’ve read that twice. I am fearful that if I read it again my head will explode.
Civil rights beyond race:
Rachel Maddow explains the political context of the civil rights movement and points out that on the fringe of American politics there is still debate about the whole role of the government in assuring equal rights for all Americans.
- Can the federal government set the private sector’s minimum wage?
- Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants?
- Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform?
- Can it tell toy companies to test for lead?
- Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors?
These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not “area politician believes kooky but harmless thing.” It’s “area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly.” - Ezra Klein
Rand Paul with Wolf Blitzer today
Last week (July 3, 2004), Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement:
Mr. Speaker, I [Rep. Ron Paul, MD] rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
continue reading… lewrockwell
Rand Paul asked by Wolf Blitzer
I guess you have to check your racism at the Situation Room door.
When the crazy gets this crazy people like Megyn Kelly of Fox News seem rational. John Stossel, who should, just for drill, get slapped by a wrestler on a daily basis, takes up for Rand Paul.
Frontline: A Class Divided
This is one of the most requested programs in FRONTLINE’s history. It is about an Iowa schoolteacher who, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in 1968, gave her third-grade students a first-hand experience in the meaning of discrimination. This is the story of what she taught the children, and the impact that lesson had on their lives.
The 1985 National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Emmy Award for Outstanding Informational, Cultural, or Historical Programming
Sidney Hillman Prize Award (1985)
Justifying Discrimination in the Name of Religious Freedom is Not a Good Idea
Evangelicals like Chuck Colson, Roman Catholics like Archbishop Donald Wuerl, and the other religious leaders who signed the “Manhattan Declaration” don’t seem to understand that justifying discrimination in the name of religious freedom is not a good idea.
continue reading… Firedoglake