Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 51
who has more rights? Page 3 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Obviously, you haven't had your children exposed to one of those "pride" parades, full of drag queens, dog collars, and assless chaps.


no, I haven't..were yours? If so, why did you have your children on the route of a pride parade?

did you have an interest in seeing it?

I'm pretty sure the participants in a "pride parade" do not represent 'all ' gay persons, probably about 5 % maybe (guessing).

but anyway, I have seen straight couples having sex (f*cking) in broad daylight at public parks, beaches and a girl s*cking a guy off under a picnic table, in parked cars at a public park, and in bars..a guy eating a girl out on a park bench (daytime)

are those things you would want your kids to see? if not the solution is to 'ban" heterosexuality? or hetero sex? LOL

have never seen 2 gays having sex in public- maybe my haunts? Or likely they are more careful- they KNOW they would more likely get arrested by police, or maybe beat up by "f*g-bashers" ?

back to the OP this gay couple were probably pretty 'normal'- looking, not wearing assless chaps when they tried to register at the B&B ?

there are already laws against "public" sex in most areas that apply to both straight & gay persons

I've seen dogs f*cking in public before! the horrors, also cattle on farm --eww! :(
owners should be executed for allowing that!

there ought to be a law!

or is this the slippery slop thing again- let those godless f*ggots have sex in private, and soon they will be doing it on the rooftops, civilization collapses, debt agencies re-rate US debt..oh that already happened, more because of reckless borrowing & Wall St. bail-out, though
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 52
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:47:35 AM
Alllowing people to willfully and consentually sodomize each other is for sure threatening all of our civil liberties.


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. If having courts make arbitrary dictates was good enough for Stalin and Mao and Castro, surely it's good enough for America, right?


" The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"


In the U.S., the Attorney General--the closest we have to a Justice Minister--can't repeal any law. Neither can anyone else in the executive branch.

The irony of quoting that is that making what happens in U.S. bedrooms their business is apparently just what you want U.S. courts to do. 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.

What authority does the federal government have to prevent states from restricting acts that no one has a constitutional right to engage in? And if it has none, it's far worse for it to issue arbitrary dictates than to allow whatever perceived injustice this or that minority is howling about.

 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 53
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:52:09 AM
no, I haven't..were yours? If so, why did you have your children on the route of a pride parade? did you have an interest in seeing it?


Yes, they were, and no, I had no interest in seeing it. It's not like I packed them up and said "Hey! Let's spend the day looking at the funny people!" We weren't so much "on their route" as they were "in our path." We were at the Tyler Mall in Riverside and everything was fine when we went in. exit an hour later, and it's a scene from the Blue Oyster bar in the Police Academy movies.

And no at that age I wouldn't have wanted them to see a straight couple having public sex either. Can't do much about two dogs I don't own though...

P.S. Nice dodge on the room vs lawyer thing.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 54
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:58:04 AM

Some homosexuals would rather get a lawyer than a room..


yes you are likely right there

some heterosexuals would too (many, actually)


It's the AMERICAN WAY! if in doubt, SUE -get a lawyer, file a lawsuit!

black people who would rather sue than take their business elsewhere.

obese people who sue airlines for charging them for two seats

non-English speakers who sue for not being served in 'their language'

hot-coffee-spillers who slop coffee on their lap, then sue McDonald's for making coffee "hot"

If your spouse gets a new Porsche, winds it up to 160 + mph and smashes into a bridge abutment, instantly dying..SUE! the manufacturer was obviously negligent in not warning that high rates of speed might cause death in a motor vehicle!

many other examples, hardly 'exclusive' to homosexuals..no doubt many gays would rather do as you said (the vast majority I'd guess)

It's the AMERICAN WAY! if in doubt, SUE -get a lawyer, file a lawsuit!

or just go to the B& B in question & say :hi there, we are two STRAIGHT, HETEROSEXUAL brothers traveling who'd like a room, together" ..

& say "I just love heterosexuality, don't YOU? " to the inn-keeper :)
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 55
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 9:28:15 AM
Interesting discussion......

Closed minded vs open minded
Judgmental vs accepting others
Walking with blinders on vs embracing cultures

I grew up in the DC area and lived in Chicago for 7 years. There are all sorts of parades, protests, rallies, marches, events etc that I have seen. One is called Word Naked Bike Ride (message: celebrating freedom from oil, and the beauty of people)

Parents with their children typical react one of two ways....
OH MY GOD!! There's NAKED people out here! QUICK cover your eyes! How dare people express themselves...being in a free country and all.

OR

Educating their children. This is why they are doing the ride, etc.

Its one thing to protect your children from violence. Its another to not explain to them the world and how different everyone is with the message of accepting others for who they are. Not only that, when they are older they will make their decisions on their own with what they believe.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 56
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 9:31:40 AM
Educating their children. This is why they are doing the ride, etc.

Its one thing to protect your children from violence. Its another to not explain to them the world and how different everyone is with the message of accepting others for who they are. Not only that, when they are older they will make their decisions on their own with what they believe.


NAMBLA should print flyers..

So are you saying that all gay men are pedophiles? Nice stereotype.....
That's about as ridiculous as saying all black people are "gangstas/criminals"


No, of course not all. I have some friends that are homosexual, that live very quietly in an upper middle class neighborhood, and you would never know they were like that. One is a retired doctor, and the other owns a landscaping business.

But then, they don't belong to the crowd that screams :"We're here! We're queer! We're in your face!".. I can't imagine either one of them in a dog collar.
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 57
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 9:39:23 AM
NAMBLA should print flyers

So are you saying that all gay men are pedophiles? Nice stereotype.....
That's about as ridiculous as saying all black people are "gangstas/criminals"
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 58
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 10:46:21 AM
modivin,

I think I have a right to educate my minor children as I think best. That is supported by US supreme court caselaw. I do not have to surrender my kid's education to any special interest group that self-righteously assumes moral superiority. Just because you characterize someone else's beliefs as 'stereotypes' does not give you any authority to force your beliefs on someone else's minor children. You may think you are 'right', and that everyone who disagrees with you is 'wrong', but your thinking and saying so doesn't make it fact, and *I* have every right to voice my disagreement, and every right to tell *my* children how *I* believe on a given subject.

"Socially acceptable" does not equal "true".

Do any of you self righteous leftist believe in Freedom of Conscience?
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 59
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 11:09:20 AM
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.

Nonamous Dog

Where did I say you were not given the right to educate your kids as you wish? Right..I didn't!! You're the one projecting your own self-righteousness on here. Do you even know what the acronym viper put up stood for? Probably not.
And for moral superiority? Sounds like you have that down quite well considering you are drifting off in to the land of reading between the lines. The only thing you're reading in to is what your mind is creating as there is no hidden message with what I wrote.

Let me ask you....do you know which side won the Civil War?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 60
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 11:12:10 AM
It might assist a *serious* discussion on the topic to actually get clear what is under discussion.

1. It's not the Canadian Human Rights Act under discussion, it's the B.C. Human Rights Code, because a Bed & Breakfast is not primarily a subject of Federal regulation. The relevant section is section 8:
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.

2. In response to natural_energy: You do not have to guess, here it was VERY obvious. An earlier decision in the same case is here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2010/2010bchrt69/2010bchrt69.pdf, and you can read exactly what took place.

3. The Molnars' (owners of the B&B) position is not as completely unjustifiable as many are saying. There are at least two questions.

First, are their rights of freedom of association and freedom of religion being compromised by being forced to accommodate gay couples in a business that is ALSO their home? That's not the same thing as barring a gay couple from a restaurant or even a hotel, for example. Nor is it the same as refusing to accept a gay couple as room-mates-- it's something in between. The dividing line is obviously "customarily available to the public", or not.

Supposing the Molnars were to state that, consistent with their religious beliefs, they would not lease a single-bed room to *any* unmarried couple.

Second, even if it does not breach their freedoms, can their religious beliefs constitute a a "bona fide and reasonable justification" for refusing the accommodation ?
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 61
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 11:25:08 AM
So what then would the criteria be for anyone in the public wishing to utilize their B&B?

-It is open to the paying public as a B&B.
-Is it advertised in such a manner that upon arrival you have to show proof of relationship status or surrender such information?

I say if they had the B&B advertised as a one that follows their religious beliefs in that you must be _______ to stay here then that is fairly stating they are a certain religious B&B. Although, doing so would probably earn them more of a private B&B rather then open to the public. Furthermore, they probably would not do such advertising since it would be a bad marketing move.
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 62
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 11:47:33 AM
Simple, the persons religious beliefs must not have anything to do with his or her business
in the 50s, it was black people,today its s
no one has a right to impose there , sick morality on customers
here in canada, it is not legal, thank god for that!!!!
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 63
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 12:35:48 PM

Simple, the persons religious beliefs must not have anything to do with his or her business in the 50s, it was black people,today its no one has a right to impose there , sick morality on customers


Would you do me a favor and let Walmart know that? Vudu, an on demand online streaming service, used to have a "steamy romance" section (isn't that the most precious way to describe porn?) in their listings. Until they were purchased by "family friendly" Walmart, at which point everything promptly fell off the listing screen.

Talk about imposing morality on customers!

No one has still addressed the whole accomodation limit thing. Let's say I run a B&B, and I rent a room to Adam and Steve. At the .. communal dinner table, I say: "A priest, a rabbi, a lesbian, and a homosexual walk into a bar. The bartender says: What is this? Some kind of joke?" "Should they be able to sue me? After all they got their room...
 HappyDip
Joined: 9/13/2011
Msg: 64
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 12:49:36 PM

no one has a right to impose there , sick morality on customers

I thought businesses were considered people with first amendment rights...?
Personally, I am all for a business being as racist, bigoted, whatever, with the power of consumption still in the consumers hands.
IMO all imposing federal laws does is put it below the surface.
I would prefer it to be out in the open. Makes it easier to spot and for individuals and communities to avoid.
"Oh no, I didn't hire you because you were black, I didn't hire you because my retarded nephew went to community college so has a degree that is more applicable than your Harvard one."


here in canada, it is not legal, thank god for that!

Then why do people with "intimate encounter" on their profile on this site get restricted access to other users?
Why no pictures of people without tops?
Is POF still a Canadian business?
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 65
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 3:14:05 PM

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,.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 66
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..
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 68
view profile
History
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?
 jan1025
Joined: 3/23/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
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
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 70
view profile
History
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?
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 71
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 5:53:37 PM
we should get Michael Moore's "Sodom-mobile" back on the road!
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 72
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?
 Home_for_30
Joined: 2/6/2010
Msg: 73
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'.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 75
view profile
History
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?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?