SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[Notre Dame Joe]

What are you trying to argue? That giving some groups "legislative protection" is not special treatment?

 

It is a special privilige by definition. Some groups get to sue, others do not.

 

"Your honor it is clear that man is gay, his dick tastes like sh#t"

 

But the thread is arguing about burden of proof in these cases. You are implicitly accepting that these cases should be allowed at all. By walling off protected classes, you are saying that some people are special {race, religious, gay, women} and other people are not {fat, ugly, tattoos, shy, strippers}.

 

The dream scenario is freedom for everyone, no special classes.

 

Um, no. We're not talking about giving anyone "special" status. Civil rights laws exist because certain classes have been historically discriminated against in this country and therefore need legislative protection.

 

Are you trying to argue that civil rights laws give some sort of special treatment to minorities and women and are unnecessary? Rand Paul, is that you?

[Ulty]

What are you trying to argue? That giving some groups "legislative protection" is not special treatment?

 

It is a special privilige by definition. Some groups get to sue, others do not.

No, it is not special treatment. And it is certainly not a privilege. Do you honestly think the disabled are given privileged treatment in our society? Blacks? Hispanic immigrants? Women? Gays?

 

You yourself belong to several protected classes as well, did you know that? I assume you are white, Catholic, and male? Those are three different bases that someone cannot legally use to discriminate against you. That doesn't make you special. But unfortunately, race, religion, and gender have historically been issues of inequality in this country, because large numbers of morons have never allowed your "dream scenario" above to exist.

 

So now answer my question: do you believe civil rights laws are unneeded? Are you equating tattoos, shyness, and being a stripper to race, religion, gender when it comes to equality and discrimination? Your post above makes it sound like you are.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Discriminate means to choose between. Everyone discriminates every day using what they know. An anti-discrimination law says that some kinds of choices are illegal and others are fine. Seems clearly a privilige for the people who will benefit from forbidding the choice.

 

Are the laws needed? There hasn't been a time in history when they've been more unnecessary in a society obsessesed with equality.

 

But I'm really trying to show the illogicity of doing it by naming special classes of people when there ae so many. Note how it is NEVER ENOUGH. Whomever go gets special this year, someone else will. Need it next year.

[BigRedBuster]

Equal rights laws are needed and have been needed ever since the first one was put in place (actually much longer). Unfortunately, I don't see a time when they won't be needed. Theoretically, the law is needed less as time goes on though. My grandparents and parents generation were/are much more racist than people my age or younger. They are MUCH more homophobic than people my age or younger. As time goes on, the need becomes less. However, there will always be jackasses in the world.

 

Now, if you think the law pertains to white men the same as it does a black woman, then you are delusional. The law is written to include white men but in practice it doesn't. Try having a White Congressional Caucus. Try having a White Entertainment Network on TV. Try having a only mens exercise business. Organizations like that have been challenged in court over the years and time and time again have been forced to change. However, we still have the Black Congressional Caucus, Black entertainment Network and women only exercise businesses.

[carlfense]

The law is written to include white men but in practice it doesn't. Try having a White Congressional Caucus. Try having a White Entertainment Network on TV. Try having a only mens exercise business.

. . . . yes . . . the poor white men.

 

I think that you're probably joking.

[BigRedBuster]

The law is written to include white men but in practice it doesn't. Try having a White Congressional Caucus. Try having a White Entertainment Network on TV. Try having a only mens exercise business.

. . . . yes . . . the poor white men.

 

I think that you're probably joking.

I'm not saying anything about "poor white men". There is no reason to have pity for white men. But, my statement holds true.

[BigRedBuster]

And, as far as "special treatment". Ever wonder why a lot of construction companies are legally owned by the wife of the couple that own the company? Again, I'm not complaining and I don't have a problem with it. But, to say certain groups don't get special treatment because they are minorities is ignoring reality.

[Landlord]

What are you trying to argue? That giving some groups "legislative protection" is not special treatment?

 

It is a special privilige by definition. Some groups get to sue, others do not.

 

It's only 'special' privilege because those groups are denied privilege.

 

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

What are you trying to argue? That giving some groups "legislative protection" is not special treatment?

 

It is a special privilige by definition. Some groups get to sue, others do not.

 

It's only 'special' privilege because those groups are denied privilege.

 

 

 

You can be a smart motherfu&*#r sometimes

[knapplc]

Discriminate means to choose between. Everyone discriminates every day using what they know. An anti-discrimination law says that some kinds of choices are illegal and others are fine. Seems clearly a privilige for the people who will benefit from forbidding the choice.

 

Are the laws needed? There hasn't been a time in history when they've been more unnecessary in a society obsessesed with equality.

 

But I'm really trying to show the illogicity of doing it by naming special classes of people when there ae so many. Note how it is NEVER ENOUGH. Whomever go gets special this year, someone else will. Need it next year.

 

You're looking at it bass-ackwards. Those laws don't exist because we decided out of the blue to give some people special treatment. Those laws exist because too many people were taking away the rights of a specific group of people.

 

If people didn't discriminate against people with disabilities, the ADA(AA) wouldn't exist.

If people didn't discriminate against the elderly, the ADEA wouldn't exist.

 

In every case, these laws are reactionary to existing discrimination.

 

As Ulty mentioned before, the most-common discrimination laws cover you to a great degree. You have:

 

A Race.

A Color.

A Religion (or no religion).

A Sex (gender).

A National Origin.

A Disability (or you can be perceived as disabled).

A Marital Status (either married or unmarried).

 

That's seven of the ten most common bases. You may be able to become pregnant (if you're female), so you'd be covered by that basis at some point in your life. You may be over 40 now, or someday (if all goes well) you will be, so you'll fall into that category as well.

 

No matter which bucket(s) you fall into in those bases above, you can always, always be the victim of discriminatory retaliation. So that's another. Whistleblower retaliation covers anyone and everyone who reports illegal activity either internally or externally. So that's another flavor of retaliation that you're covered under.

 

That's a minimum nine of the ten most-common bases under discrimination law that cover you, or will cover you, at some point in your life.

 

These aren't laws providing "privileges" to "some people," they're laws protecting just about every worker in the United States.

 

The most common discrimination charges aren't filed by gays, or non-Whites - they're filed by White women over the age of 40.

 

So let's think about a scenario here - you're 54. Whatever career you've spent your life doing has ended, and you're in the market for a new job. You find one that meets your interests, you're qualified, you apply, but they hire someone fresh out of college with no experience in a field you've been an expert at for years. That happens again, and again. Suddenly your nest egg is cut in half, you're looking at defaulting on your mortgage, and you're really needing to get that next career started. You apply for yet another job, you're qualified like nobody's business, and they hire someone in their 20s again. At what point do you start to think you're not being hired because of your age? At what point do you do something about that? Before you lose your house or after?

 

This scenario is not uncommon. It is not providing "special privileges" to those over 40, it's saying you can't take away privileges that they already have.

 

And that's just one example of how discrimination laws protect you, or will protect you. There are myriad examples.

[Dbqgolfer]

What are you trying to argue? That giving some groups "legislative protection" is not special treatment?

Earlier in this thread you stated you wanted to plant an evangelical church. Would same sex wedfings be performed at this church?

 

 

It is a special privilige by definition. Some groups get to sue, others do not.

 

It's only 'special' privilege because those groups are denied privilege.

 

 

 

[Dbqgolfer]

Landlord-

Earlier in this thread you said you hoped to plant am evangelical church. Would same sex weddings be performed at this church?

[Landlord]

Landlord-

Earlier in this thread you said you hoped to plant am evangelical church. Would same sex weddings be performed at this church?

 

 

No.

[tschu]

Discriminate means to choose between. Everyone discriminates every day using what they know. An anti-discrimination law says that some kinds of choices are illegal and others are fine. Seems clearly a privilige for the people who will benefit from forbidding the choice.

 

Are the laws needed? There hasn't been a time in history when they've been more unnecessary in a society obsessesed with equality.

 

But I'm really trying to show the illogicity of doing it by naming special classes of people when there ae so many. Note how it is NEVER ENOUGH. Whomever go gets special this year, someone else will. Need it next year.

Sorry that all this silly "all people were created equal" stuff seems mentally burdensome to you. Must be rough, living the white male Catholic life, having to like read ENTIRE news articles about how people are fighting for equality. Gosh, when will it end?

 

 

Hopefully, never. Hopefully we fight for equality until we achieve 100% unquestioned equality or humanity is extinct. I'm sorry that others' bright visions for a better world are inconveniencing you.

[tschu]

This is your Republican voter base, ladies and gentlemen of the very red state of Nebraska. Actively promote discrimination and can't be bothered with working to provide people adequate health care. #ANYONEBUTHILARY2016