re: SCOTUS Reasoning

quote:

---

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?

---

To say it was deliberately left out implies that it was discussed and intentionally left out of the bill. I don't know the history of the bill but I highly doubt it was even a consideration to protect homosexuality. Homosexuality was widely considered immoral and despised by our country. I believe it was still considered a mental illness, too. Why would it be protected if people thought it was immoral and something people needed to be cured of?

quote:

---

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.

---

Homosexuality is as old as sin. It's not like people didn't know it existed, they just had a more biblical mindset when it came to that issue. It was seen as a crime against nature by most people. It wasn't until the 90's that the media started to make it more mainstream and condition people to accept it as normal.

quote:

---

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.

---

We have a Constitution for a reason. It's to prevent abuse of liberty by those who think they know better than us. We have a separation of powers so one branch doesn't have too much power. The different roles keep each other in check. You seem to think it's OK for the judicary to usurp the legislative powers of Congress because it's an issue you agree with, but what about when they do it for something you don't agree with?

What if a bunch of fanatical Muslims got appointed and interpreted the Constitution based on Sharia? What if Conservatives took over the majority and decided that Trump or someone like him could be President for life due to a state of national emergency? What if abortion were made illegal on a whim based on the personal preferences of some justices with no appeal to the law, precedent, states' rights, and so on?

The Constitution was written as it was so that one party or one person or group of persons couldn't completely trample on the rights of the rest. You seem to think that it only applies when it supports your own position. That's dangerous because tomorrow it might make you a slave.

quote:

---

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.

---

It's not a matter of whether or not protections for certain classes make those people "human". It's about the checks and balances we have and the freedom we enjoy because of those things. If one branch gets too much power, our freedoms can be eroded even faster than they are now. Don't let your own personal preferences get in the way of the bigger picture here. If you think this country is in bad shape, lobby, vote, protest, and evangelize to get your voice heard. It's the role of your representatives to represent you and your neighbors and they will pay for it come re-election time if they aren't going along with the will of the voters. Don't look to tyrants in black robes to take on that role or else you will regret it when they act against your own desires.