4 Comments
User's avatar
Joshua Marquis's avatar

Constitutional rights are only enforced when someone litigates them. Nobody would dare claim that they were excluded from one of these “safe rest“ areas because they weren’t queer or BIPOC or whatever other unconstitutional exclusion was created.

Think of the appropriate outrage if Multnomah County, Oregon established a “safe space” for white men only. Constitutionally, there is no difference.

Expand full comment
Theresa Griffin Kennedy's avatar

It's all so complicated to me. I'm not very good at understanding the law but it just seems so... weird. This country seems to be going to Hell in a hand-basket. Oh, I can imagine if there was a safe place for white men created. The Ragers would be in the city in minutes, with their lit torches, screaming for their pound of flesh.

Expand full comment
Joshua Marquis's avatar

The law clearly forbids using public funds that exclude participation or eligibility based on race, religion, ethnic origin, or other constitutionally protected classification. It should do that because just as most people would recoil if told that "Program A" is only available to "white men," in theory it SHOULD be just as improper to set aside public funds that only allow certain races or ethnicities to participate. It is true that some programs might be more effective in some sub-communities than others, but until the woke realize that "separate but equal" was never equal, they will continue to create division, even hatred in the community.

Expand full comment
Theresa Griffin Kennedy's avatar

Well said!! This makes sense to me.

Expand full comment