We Will Have To Hit The Gutter Before It Gets Better


In Coker v. Whittington, two sheriff’s deputies in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, and their wives agreed to swap spouses, and each deputy began living with the opposite deputy’s wife. Invoking his office’s code of conduct, which prohibited employees from engaging “in any illegal, immoral, or indecent conduct,” the sheriff suspended them both and ordered them to cease living with married women who were not their wives. The deputies sued but lost in both federal district court and the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The deputies argued that the established precedents standing for the principle that public employees give up some of their constitutional rights as a condition of public employment should not apply to their case because of their rights of “marital and sexual privacy.” They contended that their equal-protection and due-process rights had been violated and cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the case in which the Supreme Court overturned a state law requiring that husbands be informed before their wives received abortions. But the primary foundation of their case was Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the case that established a constitutional right for homosexual acts.

Relative Morality still has a long way to run… I just don’t know if society can still function much less recover once we have finally found our entire moral foundation in tatters in the gutter…


I have mixed feelings on this one. If these two degenerates want to swap wives then who am I to say that they can’t. I don’t agree with it and I don’t agree with their jobs being put on the line over it. It’s between them and their wives.


Of course you are right. At the end of the day, the court should have nothing to say about morality but I do believe it is time for business to have the right to express its moral code in every aspect of its hiring and selling. Where we as a nation have lost our moral bearing it that private business has for far to long been prevented from hiring and firing according to its criteria and not the government. The unfortunate thing, as with a lot of laws that never should have been, the court will render yet another decision for these people based on precedent and not on the Constitution.

The left, as aways uses the Constitution when they find it advantageous. The right has done so in the past but most of the rights most egregious behavior in government was settled in the 60’s and 70’s. The left stopped the right of private business to express its moral conscience right up to making a cake for the ‘protected status’ of being gay but now they want to use business to press all manner of social issue.


Yeah, that’s the kind of degenerates that the alt right wants “keeping the peace”.


We would save ourselves a whole lot of trouble if we remove morality completely from the government and from private business. Individuals should be free to do as they please. Feelings shouldn’t be legislated.


By and large, business should not have a stake in what people do on their own time however if a business owner feels that behavior reflects badly on its business model then it should be able to screen and hire people based on that criteria. If you later violate that original agreement… your gone.

The second point I would make is that government (the ONLY entity in under the US Constitution that MUST provide equal justice under the law) used personal off duty litmus tests all the time as they say it reflects badly on this department or that agency…


Why not, it’s very subjective anyway.


If we moved morality our country would be a much more stable society than it is but alas the government some how pulls from the constitution that it can decide the definition for a whole host of activities. Business on the other hand, unless it is publicly traded, is a different story. From small business to midsized companies, the government with Articles II and VII of the 1964 civil rights act took away the right of a private business owner to 1) create a product and offer it for sale without some agency’s approval. 2) Hire people based on the owners business plan, morality, and personal preference. 3)Discriminate against people that they choose to sell THEIR personal property too.

By removing this right of business which is an extension of the persons right to pursue happiness we remove the ability of the private individual to really affect the mores and values of the society.


I like the way you edited the sentence to say what your Relative Moralist attitude desires… everyone discriminates a 100 times a day and while it is indeed subjective, all moral values cannot exit in the same space… its just not possible within nature in general and human nature in specific.

I mean, it took a lot of western tourists going to China to get locals to quite spitting on the restaurant floors… and yes, in 1990 it was pervasive and disgusting but they didn’t seem to mind until it hit them in the pocketbook.


Sorry, but not all individuals possess the discipline to be allowed so.


I thought the right was all about “morality”?




I am personally but I also know that I live in a constitutional republic and my morality stops at the edge of my property…


Apparently the deputies do too. :joy::joy::joy: