- 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
re: The "religious right" is a boogeyman blown out of proportion
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Let's pretend that there is no such thing as a protected class, legally speaking. Is there any difference at this point?
0
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
neither the skinhead nor the klansman would be covered as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act or the Constitution so that's not a valid comparison.
so certain groups are given extra rights and protections under the law?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:41 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm not talking about legality
we were talking about the bakery lawsuit so yes, we are talking about legality.
quote:
I'm talking about the right to voluntary association. What is the qualitative difference between the scenarios?
I suggest you read the Supreme Court's ruling in Runyon v. McCrary. It should be on the Oyez project.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:42 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
How are gays "oppressed" in our society?
they are becoming less so every day, but to say that they haven't been for 99.5% of our country's history would be pretty silly.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:42 pm to los angeles tiger
Anti-Christian bigotry, and especially that against those more "traditional" in their Protestant faith is the last safe bigotry allowed in America. It's culturally encouraged. It is acceptable to ridicule and shame them, even in the public square with almost no fear of retribution. They are the bigot's ultimate low-hanging fruit.
The Democrats have latched onto the loathing that many secularists have for them, and turned them into a bogeyman , who live in the popular imagination as book burners and anti-progress zealots. The BLACK Christians in the Democratic Party get a waiver from this bigotry that is far more miraculously observable than any miracle in the Bible. All the Religious Right hysteria is beautifully and effortlessly choreographed by The Left without a single moment of cognitive dissonance. Like a Queers For Palestine Rally. Nobody stops for a moment to ponder the inconsistency of their position or the meaning of their fear and bigotry.
The Democrats have latched onto the loathing that many secularists have for them, and turned them into a bogeyman , who live in the popular imagination as book burners and anti-progress zealots. The BLACK Christians in the Democratic Party get a waiver from this bigotry that is far more miraculously observable than any miracle in the Bible. All the Religious Right hysteria is beautifully and effortlessly choreographed by The Left without a single moment of cognitive dissonance. Like a Queers For Palestine Rally. Nobody stops for a moment to ponder the inconsistency of their position or the meaning of their fear and bigotry.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
we were talking about the bakery lawsuit so yes, we are talking about legality.
I'm not. I'm asking you what you think is proper, not what the law says.
quote:
I suggest you read the Supreme Court's ruling in Runyon v. McCrary. It should be on the Oyez project.
Luckily, I don't infer my viewpoints based on judicial rulings. I'm interested in your arguments, not those of someone else.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:43 pm to HempHead
quote:Yep. Freedom to associate works for all.
Should a black baker be able to refuse service to a klansmen? Should a Jewish delicatessen owner be able to refuse service to a skinhead?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:43 pm to Jbird
Drac is defending something that gives one individual more rights because they are in a "class" that has been deemed by our government to receive such.
The strange thing is that the Lawrence vs. Texas law was debated as being a private matter that is not the governments business. Well, now they say it is the governments business what is done in their bedroom as well as everyone elses and you must agree with them or be punished.
The strange thing is that the Lawrence vs. Texas law was debated as being a private matter that is not the governments business. Well, now they say it is the governments business what is done in their bedroom as well as everyone elses and you must agree with them or be punished.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so certain groups are given extra rights and protections under the law?
I think we've had the discussion about protected classes before SFP, i know you're opposed to them in all forms and that's fine. I just don't agree with that. You could say that they are less needed now than at any point in our history and i would agree with that, but i don't think that means their time has come and gone and I think you can also argue that the existence of protected classes has played a role in the social progress we've seen in these areas over the years.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Please tell me what kind of social progess we would have it everyone were only having sex with people of the same sex? Tell me what is so progressive about biologically born men claiming they are women because they identify as such?
It's nonsense.
One other thing - you conclude that all people in the "minority" think as you. They don't and there are many gays that are outraged with this bullshite but I guess you know better about what is best for them.
It's nonsense.
One other thing - you conclude that all people in the "minority" think as you. They don't and there are many gays that are outraged with this bullshite but I guess you know better about what is best for them.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:48 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm not. I'm asking you what you think is proper, not what the law says.
like with any situation where constitutional rights of two different parties are in conflict, you have to carefully balance the societal interest to come up with the best result. Ultimately I think that while the "freedom of association" aspect of the 1st amendment is a great ideal, it shouldn't extend all the way so as to be harmful of an innocent party re: an aspect of themselves that they didn't choose.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:48 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I just don't agree with that.
so you agree that some groups should be given extra rights and protections under the law?
it's a yes or no question
quote:
i know you're opposed to them in all forms
because i come down on the "no" side
i'm asking which side you come down on. that's all. it's a yes or no response
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
i just answered your question in the post directly above yours
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
it shouldn't extend all the way so as to be harmful of an innocent party r
In what way is denying business harmful? With the exception of medical treatment, I don't see how that could be true.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'll wait for the day that protected classes are deemed "no longer needed".
I won't hold my breath on that one.
I won't hold my breath on that one.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
so as to be harmful of an innocent party
So, what is being harmed in the bakery scenario? The only harm I can see is to the business. The gay couple can take their business elsewhere.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
constitutional rights of two different parties are in conflict
freedom of association is a constitutional right
there is no right to be free from private discrimination. that's a legislative distinction, not a constitutional one
obviously equal protection under the law, ie public discrimination, is wrong. that's why i don't believe in granting certain groups legislative rights and protections that others are not afforded
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there is no right to be free from private discrimination. that's a legislative distinction, not a constitutional one
protected classes have been judicially upheld by the SCOTUS via the 5th and 14th amendments.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:52 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
Here is one damned link for you. I am sick of you younger people calling for others to provide a link when you can't produce one about what you claim.
you made the claim brah. I don't have to do shite.
And I don't see these people going to jail, which was your claim.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:52 pm to HempHead
quote:
In what way is denying business harmful? With the exception of medical treatment, I don't see how that could be true.
i mean harmful in the legal sense
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News