- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:16 pm to UpToPar
quote:
When the government starts telling private individuals who they must conduct business with, it's a problem.
As opposed to the government telling private individuals they are not afforded the same rights as everyone else and can be denied service for an arbitrary reason?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:24 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
As opposed to the government telling private individuals they are not afforded the same rights as everyone else and can be denied service for an arbitrary reason?
I see you're having trouble with this again. The government absolutely cannot anyone equal protection under the laws. But, the 14th amendment limits what the GOVERNMENT can do. The 14th amendment does not give the government the right or obligation to ensure that no body is discriminated against.
There is no right to be free of discrimination by private individuals, no matter how many times you say this.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:45 pm to UpToPar
quote:Civil rights laws protect people based on classes like age, sex, race, gender, nationality, and religion. They wouldn't apply in either of the cases you cited.
What if I live in a small town and the only car mechanic in town doesn't like my family and refuses to take my business?
What if a the owner of a maid service hates cats and decided that she does not want to clean any homes with cats. Should The government tell her that she has to clean homes with cats?
When the government starts telling private individuals who they must conduct business with, it's a problem.
If you simply don't like someone because they're a dick to you, you can refuse them. If you don't like someone because their skin is a different color, you can't refuse them. The intent is to protect people from wanton discrimination.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:48 pm to UpToPar
quote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes a right to public accommodation and offers protections based on certain classes. Many states have expanded those protections to include additional classes.
I see you're having trouble with this again. The government absolutely cannot anyone equal protection under the laws. But, the 14th amendment limits what the GOVERNMENT can do. The 14th amendment does not give the government the right or obligation to ensure that no body is discriminated against.
There is no right to be free of discrimination by private individuals, no matter how many times you say this.
edit: and to be clear, "public accommodation" refers to privately owned establishments that accommodate the public
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:48 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Civil rights laws protect people based on classes like age, sex, race, gender, nationality, and religion. They wouldn't apply in either of the cases you cited.
There are no civil rights laws protecting people based on sexual orientation. That's my point. Will there be in the near future? Probably. But even then, those laws (assuming they are federal) can only affect private businesses if those private business have some relation to interstate commerce (which has been liberally construed, but still does not affect all businesses).
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:50 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Civil rights laws
Yes, and they shouldn't exist. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Civil rights "laws" started because people couldn't handle truth and found it offensive.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:51 pm to UpToPar
quote:
There is no right to be free of discrimination by private individuals, no matter how many times you say this.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
"Nor shall any state deprive any person...within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The equal protection clause holds that similarly situated individuals should be treated similarly. For example, A gay married couple, under US law is similarly situated to a heterosexual married couple, according to the SCOTUS.
The STATE OF MISSISSIPPI has just signed a law which abridges the rights of gay citizens and does not afford them the same protection of its laws as it does for straight people.
quote:
There are no civil rights laws protecting people based on sexual orientation
No, there is just the US constitution which protects individuals and citizens from laws like the one passed by the state of MIssissippi.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:51 pm to UpToPar
quote:Yes there are. You're thinking specifically on the federal level, but many state and local governments have extended civil rights laws to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
There are no civil rights laws protecting people based on sexual orientation. That's my point. Will there be in the near future? Probably. But even then, those laws (assuming they are federal) can only affect private businesses if those private business have some relation to interstate commerce (which has been liberally construed, but still does not affect all businesses).
edit: and I think some federal courts have interpreted federal law and constitutional law to extend protections to people based on sexual orientation in at least some cases, but I don't remember specifics at the moment
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:54 pm to TechDawg2007
Hate cloaked in "religious freedom"
Mississippi always trying to stay on the wrong side of history.
Mississippi always trying to stay on the wrong side of history.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:54 pm to TaderSalad
quote:Civil rights laws exist because of rampant racial discrimination. It actually started with the Civil Rights Act of 1875, IIRC. Can you think of a reason we might have needed to protect people from racial discrimination in private establishments back then? I can
Yes, and they shouldn't exist. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Civil rights "laws" started because people couldn't handle truth and found it offensive.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 5:59 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
The STATE OF MISSISSIPPI has just signed a law which abridges the rights of gay citizens and does not afford them the same protection of its laws as it does for straight people.
Are you arguing just to argue? I said earlier, I am not commenting on the law that was passed by Mississippi. I think it is probably unconstitutional on its face.
I am only commenting on the underlying act that the law tries to protect (discrimination by a private business based on sexual orientation). There seem to be some in here that think discrimination by a private business is unconstitutional. That's simply not the case.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 6:00 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
but many state and local governments have extended civil rights laws to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
I'm sure that there are. I was working on the assumption that Mississippi was not one of these states.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 6:01 pm to TechDawg2007
Not sure this is any different than Sharia Law.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 6:02 pm to UpToPar
Why would gays want to patronize businesses that don't want their money?
I mean is it just so they can say that they win?
I won't spend my money at places that are rude. Are gays different in that regard?
I mean is it just so they can say that they win?
I won't spend my money at places that are rude. Are gays different in that regard?
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 6:25 pm to TechDawg2007
What did you expect from Mississhitty
Posted on 4/5/16 at 6:58 pm to TechDawg2007
Good. They shouldn't be disgusting Queers in the first place.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 7:20 pm to TechDawg2007
half the ms state legislature is probably in the closet
Posted on 4/5/16 at 7:27 pm to LSU1NSEC
I wonder if half the Dems are out of the closet?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 7:33 pm to roadGator
send MS a truckload of bibles the next time they ask for Federal aid
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News