|
|
|
|
|
| | who has more rights? Page 4 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) |
Viper....you just never know what they do behind closed doors. And I know people who march in gay pride parades but are not gay. They are more about supporting the rights of another human being's freedom of expression.
true dat..did one have to be Jewish to oppose Hitler? I think not, other people of conscience also did oppose (sadly not enough though) A FEW Christians did oppose, the majority of Christians supported him,. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 4:08:28 PM |
true dat..did one have to be Jewish to oppose Hitler? I think not, other people of conscience also did oppose (sadly not enough though) A FEW Christians did oppose, the majority of Christians supported him,.
Yoga time already? Because I see some serious stretching.. Nobody is talking about firing up any ovens to feed the homosexuals in.
Why is the concept of living quietly such an anathema? I could run around saying "My wife was white! My daughters are blond haired and blue eyed, so neener neener neener!" But I don't.
Guy in office cubicle with photo of dude on desk. Co-worker walks by and says: "Who's that? Your brother? Guy says : "No, that's my new boyfriend"... co-worker walks off.
I really fail to see the issue.
B&B Owner: I'm sorry, but there are certain things we don't allow here. After all, it's not just where we work, it's where we live too, but if you take Route6 7 miles, and turn left at the stoplight, there's a place that will be more than happy to accommodate you.." Homosexuals get on the road, following directions.
Again, I fail to see the issue.. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 4:42:56 PM | I thought businesses were considered people with first amendment rights
I realize this doesn't apply specifically to the case the OP discussed, but to the extent Canadian and American law are similar, it may give some perspective.
In the U.S., persons do not lose their 1st Amendment rights, including the freedom of association, just because they own a business which serves the public. I'll ask again: What authority--if any--does the Constitution give Congress to regulate discrimination by private persons even against blacks, let alone private discrimination on other grounds like homosexuality?
What difference should it make that a private person runs a business which serves the public? Why does that fact necessarily make the person subject to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce? That's the constitutional basis for much of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Also for the individual mandate of the Obamacare law! Talk about a stretch.)
Statist dimwits won't be interested in questions like these. True to their brownshirt nature, they have contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. But for reasonable people who love freedom and like to think, here are a few cases which touch on private discrimination:
The Civil Rights Cases (1883) (Neither sec. 2 of 13th Am. nor sec. 5 of 14th Am. gives Congress power to prohibit private discrimination)
Katzenbach v. McClung (the Ollie's Barbecue Case) (1964) ( Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce lets it prohibit discrimination against blacks by privately owned restaurants, esp. near interstate highways)
Heart of Atlanta Motel (1964) (Similar to McClung, but in context of inns)
Burton v. Wilmington (1971) (14th Am. reached race discrimination by private owners of cafe in state-owned building because it was, in effect, discrimination by state)
Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972) (Fact state issued liquor license to private club was not enough to constitute state action, so 14th Am. did not prohibit club from discriminating against black guest of member)
Jones v. Alfred Mayer Co.(1968) (Sec. 2 of 13th Am. gives Congress power to ban private race discrimination in sale of housing)
U.S. v. Morrison (2000) (Sec. 5 of 14th Am. does not give Congress power to prohibit private discrimination)
Bear in mind that states have inherent authority to regulate private discrimination--at least up to the point where it infringes too far on personal freedom of association. If a KKK member didn't want to rent a room in his house to a black person or a Jew, a state law that required him to would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
How much authority *Congress* has to prohibit private discrimination by *federal* law is a completely different question. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:03:45 PM | Thank you for exposing yourself as someone who has no idea how American government is designed to work, and disrespects both the Constitution and the rule of law
No problem.
You or anyone can criticize laws against consensual sodomy, etc. all you want. But in the end, those laws are only the business of the majority in the state which has them
That's obviously not true. One, can you honestly say there has been an open referendum on anti sodomy laws in any state in recent time? Obviously not. Two, it would seem fairly obvious that the Lawrence case in Texas in 2003 indicates pretty much exactly the opposite.
What authority does the federal government have to prevent states from restricting acts that no one has a constitutional right to engage in?
Excellent question my terrified friend. I don't really know the answer but it seems that the 2003 ruling sorts it out a bit.
The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
So even if you did have an open vote in every state and the majority of voters said that they think sodomy should be illegal, you'd still be forced to consitutionally protect people's "liberty" to sodomize each other because of the fourteenth amendment and the Lawrence ruling of 2003. I suspect the next time the supreme court gets a hold of this issue it would be unanimous in its ruling in favour of gay liberties. Can you really imagine anyone voting against this anymore? Do you really think the moral fabric of society depends on, well, "No Entry" signs? Seriously. What do you personally think, Matchlight? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:16:40 PM | I think they both were right to feel the way they did and do, and the way I see it ALL parties where judging each other, so they were both wrong.
Out of respect for the christians they should of went somewhere else, and as far as the christians they are opened for business to the public and should of kept their christian beliefs outside of their business, and inside their church and private homes.
They both had an option not to cause a stink, and not to sue. They were both wrong.
Take Care | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:26:17 PM | Soddomite unite! The laws included the vast majority who kinda liked oral sex or oral sects. The most prounounced and loudest "moral figures" of the "moral majority" have been busted having oral sex, toe tapping in airports, having affairs, and other unBiblical behaviors. The consitistency of the hyporcrisy is most telling. It has little to do with morality, but far more to do with the control of the females of the species...while enjoying blowjobs.
http://www.thenation.com/article/we-colonials-sodomy-laws-america
In Dishonorable Passions, William Eskridge offers the first comprehensive history of sodomy law in America. Eskridge is a historian and a law professor at Yale who also wrote a brief that was cited repeatedly in Kennedy's opinion, and the energy in the book barrels toward Lawrence. It's hard, really, to imagine how it could be otherwise, especially as the Lawrence decision provides Eskridge with a gay civil rights story that has a beginning and an end (such stories being fewer and farther between than you might realize). In writing from the vantage point of Lawrence and gay civil rights, Eskridge treats sodomy in a way that mirrors our culture's treatment of sodomy more generally. Both make it fundamentally about homosexuality. But sodomy, as Eskridge told the Court--and also tells readers--technically isn't about homosexuality at all. Rather, it's about sex without procreative possibility (which can be hetero as well as homo sex). Because sodomy has come to be seen as emblematic of homosexuality, however, much of the career of sodomy law in modern America has been a command performance as something other than what it really is. And that is what allowed historians--called upon to show that policing homosexual behavior was not, in fact, the time-honored tradition conservatives claimed it to be--to assume center stage in Lawrence. All those years in the archives: who knew they would matter so much? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:53:37 PM | | we should get Michael Moore's "Sodom-mobile" back on the road! | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:58:23 PM |
Business or not, it's still where they LIVE. So what if they rent the room, and tell a bunch of fag jokes at the dinner table?
People who own motels often live in an apartment on the premises--they can't refuse service because of this.
I have known several people who own B&Bs and their living quarters are separate from the business side.
So what if they rent the room, and tell a bunch of fag jokes at the dinner table?
Why would anyone be having dinner at a bed and BREAKFAST. If I were a guest at such an establishment, however, and the owner began to tell "fag" jokes at the table, I would ask for my money back and I would leave. I would also review the place so that other tolerant people wouldn't make the mistake of staying there.
In addition, do they ask for marriage licenses? They need to turn anyone who is not legally wed, eh? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:17:38 PM | | When people talk about 'Rights'...to me, it means what the powers that be allow and not allow you to do...so who has the power, the Government or the individual? If it's the government, then I am sure there are a 100 laws (like the US) that force people to all act a certain way...if it's the individual, then the PRIVATE business owner can refuse to serve anyone they wish. The problem here isn't that the gay couple got refused service, the problem is they just don't go down the street to the next B&B. And move on with their lives. I guess Canada and the US are pretty much the same when it come to people crying about their 'Rights'. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:36:16 PM |
One, can you honestly say there has been an open referendum on anti sodomy laws in any state in recent time? Obviously not. Two, it would seem fairly obvious that the Lawrence case in Texas in 2003 indicates pretty much exactly the opposite.
It's anything but obvious that either of your assertions is true. One, a state can repeal a statute any time the majority wants to. When it has the chance and lets the statute be, presumably the majority still favors it. That was the case in Texas.
Two, Lawrence does not indicate anything like that. What it *does* indicate is that five judges contrived to make their personal views the law by signing on to a bizarre, unprincipled decision.
I don't really know the answer but it seems that the 2003 ruling sorts it out a bit.
It's clear you do *not* know the answer. And Lawrence didn't sort anything out--just the opposite. As Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent,
"I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence-indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know-that it requires little discussion . . .
This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the [criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive rational-basis review." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 599 (2003)
Can you really imagine anyone voting against this anymore?
Of course I can, even if I wouldn't myself. And I support their right to do that. Evidently the majority of Texans would have voted against it in 2003, and other states had similar statutes. It doesn't stop there--you ignore what Lawrence means for laws against the other things Scalia mentioned.
You focus on what you consider the moral rights of homosexuals. But you ignore a much larger, much more important, but less obvious problem--the threat arbitrary exercises of government power pose to the freedoms of all of us.
That--and only that--is the issue I'm concerned with here. Starting with Dred Scott in 1857, the case that helped set off the Civil War, some of the Supreme Court's worst abuses of its power have come in its "substantive due process" decisions. Like Roe, Lawrence was one of them.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version of SDP. The Court finds that a law deprives people of process--but not, say, by failing to provide for a hearing, or by not giving the person charged enough notice. In SDP cases, the Court is concerned with whether the *substance* of a law--what it does--is fair.
In SDP analysis, only when the law the Court's reviewing infringes a fundamental right (e.g. voting) does it apply its "strict scrutiny" standard. That means the law will not satisfy due process unless the government can prove it is *narrowly tailored* to achieve a *compelling* government interest.
But the Court's never even suggested there's a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, and it didn't try to say that in Lawrence. So it had to review the Texas law under its ordinary "rational basis" standard. To respect the separation of powers, under this standard the Court defers to the judgment of the legislature which made the law. It doesn't want to look like it's second-guessing the lawmakers by acting like a lawmaker itself.
Because of this, rational basis review is very relaxed. It's almost impossible for a law not to survive it. The challenger has to prove it's not rationally related to any legitimate government interest. Since the beginning of this country, courts had never questioned that regulating public morality was a legitimate interest of government.
That is and always has been the basis of all sorts of garden variety criminal laws in all 50 states. But in Lawrence, a majority of the Court was determined to impose its personal views on millions of Americans, and it found a way to do it. Lawless. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 9:57:11 PM |
But you ignore a much larger, much more important, but less obvious problem--the threat arbitrary exercises of government power pose to the freedoms of all of us.
I get what you're saying, but the law in Texas, whether popular with the majority or not, is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with a theoretical majority of red neck, hicks who want to ban sodomy. It violated due process guarantees and equal protection as well as various liberties. Would it not be an arbitrary imposition of government powers if the SC had ruled differently? There is no judicially invented right here, just fair application of existing amendments and guarantees. The bottom line is that there is no moral ground that could benefit the state by banning sodomy. Some disagree like Scalia. Some don't.
That--and only that--is the issue I'm concerned with here. Starting with Dred Scott in 1857, the case that helped set off the Civil War, some of the Supreme Court's worst abuses of its power have come in its "substantive due process" decisions. Like Roe, Lawrence was one of them.
I get it. You think it's a wierd travesty of sc justice. But yours is not the only opinion here.
Lawrence used a new method of substantive due process analysis, and that the Court intended to abandon its old method of categorizing due process rights as either "fundamental," or not, as too restrictive. This interpretation is more consistent with the open-ended balancing style that the more liberal justices have consistently advocated
Time to advance the course of due process already. Sheesh. It's been 12 years since the cops busted into Lawrence's apartment, busted him doing his boyfriend and fined him 250 bucks plus court costs. How ridiculous is that? Does that not seem absolutely crazy to you? Busted for banging your boyfriend? Nuts.
The challenger has to prove it's not rationally related to any legitimate government interest
Bingo.
Thus, according to the more liberal wing of the Court, in order to ensure that a government's action is not arbitrary, the government must present some evidence to justify their decisions when they interfere with a person's liberty
So I guess the gubmmint of Texas couldn't come up with a reasonable justification for busting two guys doing it. Maybe you can find some justification for this law to further your case here. How can banning homosexual sex further any states' interests? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 4:16:56 AM | | It can help control the spread of HIV and Aids that makes it's way into the Heterosexual community. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 4:24:50 AM |
It can help control the spread of HIV and Aids that makes it's way into the Heterosexual community. Wow, just wow. I'd like you to explain exactly how this is possible... because for the life of me, I cannot fathom that this sentence was uttered in this thread.
Did you perhaps lose your way and post in the wrong thread? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 6:11:05 AM |
It can help control the spread of HIV and Aids that makes it's way into the Heterosexual community.
Wow, just wow. I'd like you to explain exactly how this is possible... because for the life of me, I cannot fathom that this sentence was uttered in this thread.
Did you perhaps lose your way and post in the wrong thread?
Ditto to the second quote!
.if it's the individual, then the PRIVATE business owner can refuse to serve anyone they wish. The problem here isn't that the gay couple got refused service, the problem is they just don't go down the street to the next B&B. And move on with their lives.
Someone already mentioned this, but it bears repeating. If a black had been refused service, how would that change the situation? Remember the civil rights movement that gained blacks the right to eat in restaurants and to end segregation? Do we allot rights to only certain segments of society? Is it legal for a B&B owner to deny ANYONE based on his/her personal preference? How about a restaurant owner? That's a private business, isn't it? | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 7:39:14 AM | these B & B people are probably faithful followers of the Good Most Rev. Fred Phelps of the Topeka First Baptist Church..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
"loving Christians" , all.
back to my post at top of page, ya'll do realize it was not 'exclusively' black people who marched for civil rights in places like Selma, Alabama, etc. ..got attacked by the dogs eater hoses & truncheon-flailing cops.. a few 'whites' among st the "Freedom Riders" too.. people of conscience can object to ill treatment of others without always being part of that group | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 8:28:00 AM |
Would it not be an arbitrary imposition of government powers if the SC had ruled differently?
No. And the Court should never have inserted itself into an issue of public morality by taking the case. But several justices are cheerleaders for "gay rights," as is obvious to anyone who has analyzed Lawrence and Romer, its earlier excursion into that area. The notion that the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means is a myth, in any event.
It violated due process guarantees and equal protection as well as various liberties.
The Court didn't hold all that in Lawrence. It found that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause impliedly prohibited states from depriving persons of a liberty not explicitly protected by anything in the text of the Constitution. That approach is known as "substantive due process."
Starting with Lochner in 1905, and continuing for thirty years, the Court used SDP to strike down more than 200 state laws designed to protect workers or consumers. Its rationale was that the laws violated the "liberty of contract"--a person's right to agree to exchange his labor for some compensation.
After the Court had repudiated substantive due process, its decisions used to treat the era from 1905-1935 as a regrettable time when it had overreached itself. It still takes that view as to economic regulation.
Starting in the 1960's, though, the Court got back into the SDP business--only this time it made 14th Am. due process the basis for protecting *personal* liberties, like the right to privacy. In 1973, it declared in Roe--arbitrarily--that this privacy right includes a right to abortion. Apparently the bad old habit of SDP is just fine, as long as the Court sticks to ginning up only the kinds of "liberty interests" most of the current justices favor.
Maybe you can find some justification for this law to further your case here. How can banning homosexual sex further any states' interests?
I don't need to find any justification for that law, or similar ones. I am not trying to make a case for them. What counts is that majorities in the states which have laws regulating public morality have seen fit to pass them--as they had throughout this country's history. As long as those majorities aren't approving genital mutilation or some other flagrantly heinous thing, no one else has any business second-guessing their moral judgments.
Time to advance the course of due process already
That's what constitutional amendments are for. And the Constitution was purposely made hard to amend, for very good reasons. Due process is not an all-purpose excuse for whatever minority is currently in vogue to force its moral views on a majority it views as benighted. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 9:28:34 AM | "It can help control the spread of HIV and Aids that makes it's way into the Heterosexual community."
"Wow, just wow. I'd like you to explain exactly how this is possible... because for the life of me, I cannot fathom that this sentence was uttered in this thread."
"Did you perhaps lose your way and post in the wrong thread?"
I agree....definitely lost....or another example of someone's parents who should have not reproduced. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 2:46:32 PM |
Why would anyone be having dinner at a bed and BREAKFAST. If I were a guest at such an establishment, however, and the owner began to tell "fag" jokes at the table, I would ask for my money back and I would leave. I would also review the place so that other tolerant people wouldn't make the mistake of staying there.
In addition, do they ask for marriage licenses? They need to turn anyone who is not legally wed, eh?
I may be confusing a B&B with what used to be called a "boarding house"..
I never stay anyplace that doesn't have room service. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 4:04:27 PM | I definately, side with the gay couple.
But on second thoughts, wonder if I am not being hypocritiacal?
For example, bars and restaraunts can insist on a dress code.
Bars, can and do, restrict patches or colours that represent gang memberships.
In a City, where there has been many acts of violence as a couple gangs fight for control of the drug trade here,,,,,,I certainly support those business`s rights to refuse service to them.
So, am I being hypocritical?
I guess I would argue, that Gay couple isnt affecting any one else one bit. But, possibly, being able to dscriminate in order to assure saftey ofones patrons,,,,,should be allowed.
But, its a fine line I think,,,,and maybe crossing. . | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 7:44:07 PM |
I am not trying to make a case for them. What counts is that majorities in the states which have laws regulating public morality have seen fit to pass them--as they had throughout this country's history. As long as those majorities aren't approving genital mutilation or some other flagrantly heinous thing, no one else has any business second-guessing their moral judgments
This is your major malfunction, Match. How in the world do you think that a majority of citizens in Texas have stood up and had their opinion counted on this issue. Sodomy became a crime in Texas in 1860!!!! Unless a bunch of civil war vets are communicating from the grave, we haven't had a vote on it since. Just look at the history of sentencing. It used to mandate a death sentence. Then castration. Then 15 years in jail. Then, two years. Then a $250 fine and no jail time. Now it's not punishable. Plus, what makes you think not being allowed to have a physical relationship with your loved one isn't a "heinous thing"? Pretty easy to suggest that when you're straight. And yes, we all have a great deal of "business" second guessing the majority moral judgment. It's just stupid to assert otherwise.
And the Constitution was purposely made hard to amend, for very good reasons
Yes...to keep people from hitching their horses on the wrong side of the street during a show down, to make sure that rendering butter after 2pm remains a crime and most importantly, to ensure no one commits ungodly crimes against nature in the privacy of their own home.
But on second thoughts, wonder if I am not being hypocritiacal?
For example, bars and restaraunts can insist on a dress code.
Bars, can and do, restrict patches or colours that represent gang memberships
You're not being hypocritical at all. People have a choice in the clothes they wear. But you can't change your sexuality. So it would for sure be a denial of your human rights to be excluded for something you can't change about yourself. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 7:59:31 PM |
I may be confusing a B&B with what used to be called a "boarding house"..
You spend a night or several nights at a bed and breakfast--you don't move in.
For example, bars and restaraunts can insist on a dress code.
Bars, can and do, restrict patches or colours that represent gang memberships.
In a City, where there has been many acts of violence as a couple gangs fight for control of the drug trade here,,,,,,I certainly support those business`s rights to refuse service to them.
I don't see how these analogies work. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/25/2011 9:20:25 PM | we haven't had a vote on it since.
Do you know that? I haven't researched that Texas statute, but I'd be very surprised if it had last been amended many years before 2003. That's important, because when the legislature amends a statute but does not repeal it, courts usually take that to mean the majority wanted to keep it.
And yes, we all have a great deal of "business" second guessing the majority moral judgment.
You can doubt it or deplore it all you want. I don't favor state laws criminalizing sodomy, either. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether there is any constitutional ground for prohibiting a state from regulating homosexual behavior by law. I think it's clear there is not, and that the Court once again misused 14th Amendment due process.
Judging by your laughable (literally) comments about why Article V requires first a two-thirds and then a three-fourths supermajority vote to amend the Constitution, I doubt you know about Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court's first "gay" case in 1986.
In Bowers, the Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law not unlike the Texas law in Lawrence. The Georgia statute dated only from 1968 and had been amended as late as 1984. The majority in Lawrence adopted the argument Justice Stevens had made in his dissent in Bowers.
As Justice Scalia details, the Court's guidelines about stare decisis (letting an earlier decision stand) should have prevented the Lawrence majority from overruling Bowers. In Casey, a 1992 abortion case, the Court cited several factors which favored stare decisis in declining to overrule Roe v. Wade. All those factors were also present in Lawrence, and yet the majority conveniently ignored them.
But you can't change your sexuality . . . So it would for sure be a denial of your human rights to be excluded for something you can't change about yourself.
A person's race, for example, is genetically determined and can't change. But it's very far from established fact that the same is true of a person's sexual preference. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/26/2011 7:19:43 AM |
A person's race, for example, is genetically determined and can't change. But it's very far from established fact that the same is true of a person's sexual preference
Uh huh. So go on a date with a guy then. If it's as easy as taking off your cript blue do rag before going to Wendy's, then you've got a point.
I haven't researched that Texas statute, but I'd be very surprised if it had last been amended many years before 2003
Its been changed several times in court rulings. I'm not sure how any of those represent the will of the majority of the people. If you look at the trend in these rulings, the law is obviously out dated, obviously inapplicable and unenforcable by any modern standards. From a death sentence to a $250 fine. What's that tell you?
In Bowers, the Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law not unlike the Texas law in Lawrence. The Georgia statute dated only from 1968 and had been amended as late as 1984
Georgia courts repealed their own law in 1998. As I read, the mistake in the Bowers case was that the judges supposed the law had anciet roots and longstanding historical signifigance to the people of Georgia. While it's true sodomy laws are among the oldest in the country, the intent of the law was to punish rapists and pedophiles and encourage procreation, not to outlaw homosexuality. None of these original intent issues are relevant in any state today. The issue of court mandated moral code occurs when there is a law defining morality rather than when there isn't.
Because sodomy isn't a right spelled out in the constitution doesn't preclude the sc from ruling on the subject. The majority of our liberties are not protected by the constitution. You can't possibly name all the liberties we enjoy daily under a three hundred year old document. Yet we still have the right to them. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 10/26/2011 11:41:51 AM | Its been changed several times in court rulings.
What are you referring to? I think I made clear I was talking about the Texas statute that was at issue in Lawrence. And the question was whether it represented the view of the majority of Texans. If you're claiming courts had changed the meaning of that statute before it reached the Supreme Court, I doubt it.
From a death sentence to a $250 fine. What's that tell you?
It tells me the view of majorities in various states was changing, and that the political process was working as it should.
Uh huh. So go on a date with a guy then. If it's as easy as taking off your cript blue do rag before going to Wendy's, then you've got a point.
The point stands, just as I wrote it. What your comments have to do with whether a person's sexual preference is fixed at birth, like his race, only you know.
Georgia courts repealed their own law in 1998.
Courts don't repeal laws in the U.S. Legislatures do that.
As I read, the mistake in the Bowers case was that the judges supposed the law had anciet roots and longstanding historical signifigance to the people of Georgia.
It sounds like you're trying to give your version of the test the Court uses to determine whether a right is fundamental. In Bowers, the Supreme Court made very clear homosexual sodomy was not a constitutional right. Laws which abridge fundamental rights have to meet a much higher standard that ones which don't.
None of these original intent issues are relevant in any state today.
I don't know what the original intent of antique sodomy statutes has to do with the intent of the Georgia legislature in 1968, when it passed the statute at issue in Bowers, or after that, when it amended it.
You can't possibly name all the liberties we enjoy daily under a three hundred year old document. Yet we still have the right to them.
The Constitution was written in 1787 and has been amended as recently as 1992. It's true we have rights not named in it--that's what the Ninth Amendment is about. Since the mid-1920's, the Supreme Court has used the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment to uphold unnamed rights, for example raising and educating your children.
But the fact something isn't named in the Constitution doesn't make it a right states have to treat with kid gloves. The Constitution doesn't name using marijuana as a right, either, but that doesn't mean states can't restrict the use of marijuana by law--even in the privacy of your home.
However ridiculous I might think it was for a state to do that, particularly if it only justified it on moral grounds, it's up to the majority in that state. If that majority should dissolve, let the new majority repeal the law. That's how our political process is designed to work.
Until pretty recently, the Supreme Court didn't presume to substitute the justices' moral view about whether a law deprived people of some liberty without due process for that of majorities in the states. If it did insert itself, it would at least wait until almost all the states had changed their laws on the issue, and only a few holdouts remained. It at least acknowledged that the Tenth Amendment exists.
The Court recognized that using the Fourteenth Amendment as a club to beat many millions of Americans into submitting to the will of a handful of justices was an abuse of its constitutional powers. But some of the justices seem to have forgotten that, and now ignore the will of even large majorities when one of their favored minorities is involved. Especially when it's homosexuals--to the willfully ignorant "today's blacks," and the grievance group du jour.
Lawrence v. Texas, for example, was apparently about a state law against sodomy; but it was also a transparent attempt to lay the groundwork for forcing all states to legalize same-sex marriage. If it's no longer practical to impeach justices, we should amend the Constitution to allow some supermajority vote of Congress to reverse the Court's decisions.
Remember that the men who founded this country meant the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches--Jefferson didn't want a Supreme Court at all. Nowhere does the Constitution set the Court up as the final arbiter of what it means. The men who wrote the Constitution never even dreamed of making it that. The Court invented that power for itself in 1958, in Aaron v. Cooper, a decision about integrating Little Rock's public schools. | |
|
| who has more rights?
Posted: 6/10/2012 11:07:54 AM | A bed and breakfast?...isnt that..like your own home?......seems to me you should be able to choose who you invite into your own home. - Raxarsr
You would have thought so, Raxarsr, but not today, not in our no-one-left-behind, everyone-has-his-rights, don't-dare-'discriminate'-against-anyone, politically correct society. "Management has the right to refuse" no longer applies, not today. Anyone can come into your home now. I am afraid you've just gotta take it in the neck, no matter what they bring with them, even if goes against everything you and your family believe in.
The bed-and-breakfast owners were Christians and they would have been following a certain code, laid down in their particular holy book, the Bible, just like the Muslims follow their holy book, and everyone else has their version of a holy book. It is called religious freedom. Unfortunately, when it comes to the right to actually practise their religion and the tenets contained in the Bible - including the directive to avoid people who go against the word of God - society takes a dim view, especially the godless United Nations, who stamp their approval or disapproval on anyone or anything they choose at any particular time.
As for me, I left Christianity and the Bible a long time ago, not merely through disillusionment, but through the study of other works - works which have left me in no doubt about our human origins.
Just as an aside, I live in New Zealand, one of the most politically correct, regulated and controlled countries in the world, where the government wanted to tax farmers because their cattle 'farted' too much. (It's all documented, folks, before you attack me as being unreal.) I came here from Britain in 1993. I have watched society being herded into a giant sheep pen, flock by flock, stamp by stamp, to the point where we don't know our ass from our elbow anymore. As for 'discrimination,' let me give you an example of it here. I l ive in Queenstown, a small touristy place in the South Island. It is like Aspen, Colorado, with many similarities. Anyway, I see handwritten notices on noticeboards, postcards in shop windows and advertisements in the newspapers blatantly asking for "Flatmates- Asians only." I can just imagine me, fast becoming the minority here, asking for Caucasian flatmates only. Why, my ass wouldn't hit the ground on the way to the United Nations in New York City, where my life would be destroyed in . . . oh so many ways. But here's to equality.
As for the bed-and-breakfast owners, the Christians, they will be hounded, discriminated against, reviled and generally vilified by today's caring society. And make no mistake, it is going to get a lot worse for them, for Christians across the world, but I am certain that they know this. It was foretold a long time ago:
"They will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake." Matthew 24:9
Best wishes to everyone.
Peter | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
