Sundown Towns

Sundown Towns are defined as "a form of segregation, in which a town, city, or neighborhood in the United States was purposely all-white, excluding people of other races. These restrictions were enforced by some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence". As imagined, these towns were prominent starting in the 1890's all the way to the 70's. These towns usually had signs posted at the city limits like the one below or even the famous black mule painting  on a mountain by a main road in Tennessee, which held the same meaning. 

Photo Credit

With the end of slavery, town as a whole wanted a new way to keep colored people out of their towns so they gathered together and posted these signs in order to keep the colored people away. They also emphasized violence if a colored person was to be caught after sunset in those towns, saying that they would be killed, and many of them were in fact. These towns were not few and far but actually frequent. They were not just in the South either, sundown towns were spread equally across the country. These towns are not just a thing of the past, many people today grow up or willing still reside in sundown towns that are still prominent today. Sadly these sundown towns still do exist, signs and all. 

To see what towns are still possibly sundown towns click here

and to read more about sundown towns, click 

Chick-Fil-A Protests

Photo Credit

It is not a little known secret that the head of the moreover southern fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, is against marriage equality and homosexuals in general. In fact, Cathy has openly proclaimed his opposition to the subject proudly.
Obviously the proclamation caught criticism and resulted in multiple politicians (mostly north) putting up a fight about letting the closed-on-sunday's food chain from opening up shop in their cities.   Some took the protest about opening the chain as a violation of Cathy's First Amendment rights to free speech over religion. However, as stated in the CNN article, " The First Amendment protects you from government action suppressing your right to free speech. It does not protect you from private individuals' negative reaction to your speech." Meaning, if the government had actually gotten involved in the protesting of opening Chick-Fil-A's because of Dan Cathy's proclamation, he could argue that his First Amendment rights were being violated. However, there has been no government involvement, therefore no claim can be made.
Though politicians cannot simply stop a business from opening up in their towns or city's just because they don't like their ideals they do have ways to make the process more difficult by using zoning laws and claiming that the business would create "adverse secondary effects". Boston's mayor Thomas Menino, who is one of the many politicians against Chick-Fil-A opening up in their city put up a fight about the restaurant opening in the city. Along with Menino, a municipal council member, Joe Moreno is holding a strong stance on the subject and planning on making it extremely difficult for any Chick-Fil-A's to open in the city. Moreno defended his view by saying "You have the right to say whatever you want. but zoning is not a right" and has come up with many reasons including increased traffic as to why the chain should not open.
Though both Menino and Moreno both do not have the rights or power to stop Chick-Fil-A from opening a store, they do have the right to speak their opinions on why they would oppose such a place from restaurant from open in their cities. Menino said his reasoning for being opposed to Chick-Fil-A opening was due to the fact that because he welcomed equal rights marriage in his city with open arms and it would be insulting to those who are in same sex marriages to open a food chain that was openly anti-gay in a city that is so supportive of same sex marriages.

If you want to read more about the topic of Chick-Fil-A and their First Amendment controversy read here

Plessy v. Ferguson- The Dissenting Opinion

Photo Credit 

Justice Harlan's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson was not one of the majority opinion. Otherwise known as a "dissenting opinion" he actually believed the opposite of the majority opinion, meaning that he believed that the ruling of the case was inaccurate, that the idea of separate but equal WAS in fact, a violation of the 14th Amendment; despite what the Court might have said. I believe Harlan wrote the argument to put his opinion out there; even though he was the only one in court that felt that way, there were probably others out there that felt the same way he did and maybe he wanted to show others that not everyone in the court room held the same opinions. Keeping his opinion to himself would've just covered his true feelings about the case and maybe he was thinking that by him not being afraid to show his true opinions on the case, other people would also get the courage to speak their minds about the situation as well.
Being from the era that I am from I believe he made a good argument and I believe that other people in the year 2016 would react the same as I did, the times have changed drastically since that era and I feel that if this verdict were to happen now there would be a massive outrage and that more people would side with Justice Harlan's opinion instead of the one that the majority originally chose. However in the year 1896, due to the fact that slavery had ended not too long before, I'm sure the public opinion would be different; especially if you were in the south.
As a country we have obviously come a long way from these days and I believe occurrences like this did nothing but help everyday people to see how wrong slavery and discrimination actually were and still are. Had Judge Harlan and others been too afraid to speak their minds, who knows how long it would've taken our country to get where it is today. I believe his opinion shed light on the path of the law because it brought up the fact that separate but equal was not in fact what it pertained to be- equal.