Started By
Message

re: SCOTUS Reasoning

Posted on 6/16/20 at 3:14 pm to
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41868 posts
Posted on 6/16/20 at 3:14 pm to
quote:

It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
It sounds like the language isn't the issue. It sounds like we are seeing the fruits of destroying and re-configuring the meaning of words to fit our belief systems.

The 60's weren't that long ago. We know what the definitions of words were then. We know what they meant to the law-makers.

We have appropriate words to use if we want the law changed through the process laid out by the Constitution and there have been opportunities to change it that way, and there would have been more opportunities to do so. What the SCOTUS majority did was redefine our language to reach a conclusion they thought was best for today and robbed the people and their representatives of the ability to debate these ideas in the public square.
Posted by Meatflap
Houston, TX
Member since Jun 2014
70 posts
Posted on 6/16/20 at 5:19 pm to
Do you think that the writers of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 deliberately left out gay people? Were they not people that deserve protection from discrimination too?

Homosexuality just wasn't talked about that much but it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. There are plenty of stories where gay people were lynched or beaten simply because they were queer or weird and it still goes on today. Not a good look.

I hear what you're saying about the SC not making legislation but I think it's been quite clear for the last 60 years that the LGBTQ population has been trying to get heard by Congress and it hasn't been happening. So where that legislation should "live" wasn't listening to its constituency. Those people were ostracized for their sexual orientation and SCOTUS said that was illegal.

It is unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on this ruling but I appreciate your willingness to express your views and keep it civil. I tend to side with the majority on this one and think that if there was any legislating from the bench as Alito claims, then maybe it was worth it to extend some protection to an alienated group of people who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Just because they are LGBTQ doesn't mean they aren't human.

I'm going to go throw a pork loin on the BBQ. I hope all of you folks have a great evening. I appreciate the discourse!
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram