Thread Options 
|
#629658 - 10/30/06 06:56 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,958
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
the father/daughter scenario, a pure libertarian viewpoint would be that if they are both consenting, then it shouldn't be illegal
which would clearly indicate why so many liberterians are pumpkinheads...
there are medical reasons why direct family members should not marry. In most states, 1st cousins are also forbidden to marry. But if you head way out west, one state allows it...
I guess with the election next week, we'll see how much of the american public thinks this should be an issue. IMO, if 2 people are in love and want to get married, let them. No skin off my back if they are the same sex, same race, same religion, or anything else.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629659 - 10/30/06 06:58 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
Quote:
There's no legitimate basis for denying employment, housing, credit, a driver's license, a hunting license, or access to government services or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation.
Now who wants the government to impose their moral view on everyone else? I don't think government should deny government services (including marriage - as it is traditionally defined) on the basis of sexual orientation. As a private employer or provider of housing, I would not discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. But I also don't think the government should mandate that moral policy for private persons.
Last edited by rainman; 10/30/06 06:59 PM.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629660 - 10/30/06 05:51 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Constitution does not mention separate but equal, but the concept had been understood perfectly since the refounding of the Republic after the Civil War. Should the judicial branch left that definition ALONE?
"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But the Courts read that to mean separate, but equal does not satisfy this requirement. No legislature passed a law banning separate but equal, no vote was made by the people.
If you were okay with the Court deciding that, you would have to be okay with the Court deciding this, since they are being decided on the same grounds.
You may not be okay with the Court extending equal protection to sexual orientation, but that is not what you seem to be arguing.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629662 - 10/30/06 07:08 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
Can you provide a basis for what you're advocating other than a moral one?
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629664 - 10/30/06 06:14 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
Certainly, there's no job where sexual orientation would be a bona fide requirement for the performance of the job.
Congressional page??
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629666 - 10/30/06 07:48 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
-5- is a Cardinals fan, and (unless he were applying to another baseball team) there's no bona fide reason to discriminate against him because of his Cards affinity. And yet, if he applied to work for me I could legally deny him solely on that basis. Should we make team allegiance a special class?
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629668 - 10/30/06 06:43 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Certainly, there's no job where sexual orientation would be a bona fide requirement for the performance of the job.
Congressional page??
TICG just wants someone who IS sexually oriented; he doesn't care which way!  
Female, attractive, and sexually oriented towards me
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629669 - 10/30/06 06:53 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
Female, attractive, and sexually oriented towards me
I've read your other posts...wouldn't simple possession of a pulse constitute sufficient sexual orientation toward you?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629671 - 10/30/06 07:32 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
And also under the laws of some other jurisdictions, but federal law the laws of many jurisdictions do not treat sexual orientation as a protected class. It appears that you want that to change.
That's irrelevant to this discussion, but of course I do! There's no legitimate basis for denying employment, housing, credit, a driver's license, a hunting license, or access to government services or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation.
So you don't see any reason to deny any of this to someone who likes say 8 year old little girls? After all, this is just a sexual orientation no different than homosexuality.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629673 - 10/30/06 07:41 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
....to someone who likes say 8 year old little girls? After all, this is just a sexual orientation no different than homosexuality.
No, it's not.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629674 - 10/30/06 09:04 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Constitution does not mention separate but equal, but the concept had been understood perfectly since the refounding of the Republic after the Civil War. Should the judicial branch left that definition ALONE?
"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But the Courts read that to mean separate, but equal does not satisfy this requirement.
And Plessy originally held that separate but equal DID satisfy the requirement. The common sense behind Brown and the failure (intentional or not) that led to Plessy was that separate but equal was never actually equal. Thus, the requirements of the Constitution were not being met.
Quote:
If you were okay with the Court deciding that, you would have to be okay with the Court deciding this, since they are being decided on the same grounds.
You may not be okay with the Court extending equal protection to sexual orientation, but that is not what you seem to be arguing.
The Constitution doesn't say that everyone but homsexuals gets equal protection. My argument is that they already have equal protection. Any one man may legally marry any one woman who will say "I do," and vice-versa. Their cause here is a redefinition of marriage.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629675 - 10/30/06 09:06 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
There's no legitimate basis for denying employment, housing, credit, a driver's license, a hunting license, or access to government services or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation.
Now who wants the government to impose their moral view on everyone else? I don't think government should deny government services (including marriage - as it is traditionally defined) on the basis of sexual orientation. As a private employer or provider of housing, I would not discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. But I also don't think the government should mandate that moral policy for private persons.
The barbarian is a libertarian, except when it comes to, you know, private businesses - let's not get crazy and start letting them set transact business freely if it might be in a politically incorrect manner!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629676 - 10/30/06 09:13 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,889
CA
|
Why are gay unions being compared to polygamy, incest, animals and child molesters? While you may not agree with gay unions, you're comparing apples to oranges, strawberries, grapes and peaches. What are the legal ramifications of making gay unions ok? Is it going to make a huge impact on the world? No really. The gay community isn't trying to redefine marriage; they just want to participate in a union that gives them the same rights.
_________________________
He who sings scares away his woes. ~Cervantes
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629677 - 10/30/06 08:10 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,958
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
Certainly, there's no job where sexual orientation would be a bona fide requirement for the performance of the job.
gay porn star comes to mind...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629680 - 10/30/06 09:29 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Constitution does not mention separate but equal, but the concept had been understood perfectly since the refounding of the Republic after the Civil War. Should the judicial branch left that definition ALONE?
"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But the Courts read that to mean separate, but equal does not satisfy this requirement.
And Plessy originally held that separate but equal DID satisfy the requirement. The common sense behind Brown and the failure (intentional or not) that led to Plessy was that separate but equal was never actually equal. Thus, the requirements of the Constitution were not being met.
Quote:
If you were okay with the Court deciding that, you would have to be okay with the Court deciding this, since they are being decided on the same grounds.
You may not be okay with the Court extending equal protection to sexual orientation, but that is not what you seem to be arguing.
The Constitution doesn't say that everyone but homsexuals gets equal protection. My argument is that they already have equal protection. Any one man may legally marry any one woman who will say "I do," and vice-versa. Their cause here is a redefinition of marriage.
So, if states had created a separate but truly equal system, that would have been ok?
Or is that you don't have problem with judicial review when you agree with the outcome?
Again, your issue is with how the court is applying judicial review in this context.
You had no problem with the Court "creating" law as you put it in Brown. As you say, it was a common sense decision. But there were many who argued the Court was "creating" law then too.
Stick to the equal protection argument. It's the right one; the judicial review is conservative chest thumping and my little tete a tete with you here is how democrats could attack it, if they had the brains to do it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629681 - 10/30/06 08:23 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
....to someone who likes say 8 year old little girls? After all, this is just a sexual orientation no different than homosexuality.
No, it's not.
Why not?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629682 - 10/30/06 08:24 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
an 8yr old girl is not legally old enough to decide for herself. petey pedophile is SOL.
First of all, who says the 8 year old isn't old enough to decide for herself? We as a culture do. Why is this different from telling a homosexual couple that there is obviously something wrong with them deciding for themselves?
Besides, it doesn't matter who the partner is. The question is, why isn't this sexual deviation a protected class like homosexuals?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index