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
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 76
who has more rights? Page 4 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
It can help control the spread of HIV and Aids that makes it's way into the Heterosexual community.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
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?
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 78
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?
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 79
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
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
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.
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 81
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.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 82
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
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.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 84
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.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
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.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
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.
 Soul Union
Joined: 6/9/2007
Msg: 88
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
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 89
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/10/2012 2:45:08 PM
They use to do the same thing to people with dark skin, they couldn't marry the whites, they couldn't stay in the same places, they couldn't eat in the same places, they couldn't drink from the same fountain...same thing only now it's the gay people who are being damned by bigots who are screaming about how they should not have to treat them like any other citizen. Use religion all you want, coming out of some book doesn't make it any less disgusting.

Do you have any idea how much cow farts damage the atmosphere? It's not the cows' fault, it's the way people have raised them into huge herds for easy food access. Methane (I hope I got that right) gas is a real problem, and may have also been a huge problem with the dinosaurs. So it's not a bunch of crazy's blaming cows, it's people trying to find a way to live in the world without ruining it.

Just because people have abused other people, and got away with it in the past, in no way means it was ever okay.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 90
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/10/2012 9:10:09 PM
Its a lose lose situation....

But....

The inn keeper (and every tradesman and service organization that agrees with him) can have the last word by contributing the fees he would have charged the homosexuals towards legislation limiting their causes advance.

If he makes this a publicly known policy he will effectively create a win-lose policy,
He will discourage those whose outlook he vehemently disagrees with, (and their supporters), he will give shelter and support to those whose worldview he wishes to propagate.
He will expose those whom threaten him, as the hateful bigots they are, in their inability to accept his mores and culture (even while the are crying discrimination they are ipso facto discriminating against his right to self expression and religious tolerance).
And for those whom simply must bull into where they're unwanted, turn their minor victory hollow with his political contributions.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 91
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 7:39:06 PM
I think even Jesus would rent a room
to someone who needed a room.

In order to be like the image God..
that we are told we must be.....
Then for those outside our moral views,
we must show more compassion.
not less.

Tis how God does it.
so why should we do different?
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 92
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 9:53:27 PM

In order to be like the image God..
that we are told we must be.....
Then for those outside our moral views,
we must show more compassion.
not less.


I read your posts with anticipation, your clarity (and economy of words) are a poets envy!

But within the context of the Inn keepers mores........

How does he show compassion by enabling the abominable?

And how does he set example for his children to stand up for what they believe in?

And how would he consider himself a good steward if his holdings were lent to sin?

For the sake of "compassion" if he turns a blind eye to this abomination, at what point should he resume being a moral man with standards?........only when the sinful won't object?..... or when its approved by his government?
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 93
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:14:31 PM
By being in faith,
and cheerful
with those out of his faith...
he could have set an even better example for his own.

As it is now,
he has taught his family to fear and despise those that are different.
Fear does bring God closer.
It only keeps us in darkness longer.

As for me,
I cannot see "sin".
For I am mortal.
Only God can see that.
So I must accept all.
as they are.
(My only caveat is they be not rude or dangerous.)
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 3:21:16 PM
The christian Taliban in North Dakota, led by Fucus on the Family has proposed a religious exemption that goes beyond 14th amendment opponents and their desire to return to segregation and state sanctioned discrimination.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/10/north-dakota-religious-freedom-amendment-would-allow-the-precepts-of-religion-to-trump-the-law-of-the-land/


The North Dakota Religious Freedom Act proposes to revise the state constitution by adding the following section to Article 1:

“Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”......


The language of the bill is purposely broad and how it can and will be interpreted by the courts has legal scholars on edge. Essentially what was once a crime is no longer a crime unless the law can prove that the action that was once a crime is not part of the religion of the accused. Furthermore if the crime that was once a crime, (let’s say discrimination), is no longer a crime under the guise of religion, then to withhold federal funds from the group or organization that is committing the crime, (discriminating), that is no longer a crime due to religion, is against the law.

According to Robert Doody, executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas, “this proposed amendment could lead people to refuse to follow virtually any law. It could allow people to argue that they have a right to abuse their children, refuse to hire people of different faiths, or deny emergency health care.” As per Alex J. Luchenister, Associate Legal Director for American’s United for Separation of State and Church,“Measure 3 could force the state government to provide taxpayers funds to religious groups. It would also cause religious groups to be favored over non-religious groups. As a result of Measure 3 religious groups and persons could claim exemptions from laws intended to protect people’s rights, such as laws requiring the provision of reproductive health services or prohibiting the infusion of religion into public education.” As per Jusita columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci J. Hamilton, the North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment is “an opportunity to unilaterally adjust public policy to fit each religious individual’s and organization’s world view.”

The North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment is little more than a power grab by the Catholic hierarchy, at the state level, to sanction discrimination and receive federal funds while doing it, under the guise of protecting religion. Pay attention because they are taking a page from the anti-choice movement, which is so successfully taking apart the legal right to abortion, also at the state level. Planned Parenthood has donated $650,00 to North Dakotans Against Measure 3. $610,400 of that is from Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Another $380,400 has come through the people. The good news is more money is being spent against Measure 3 than for Measure 3.

Grand Forks is North Dakota’s third largest city. The North Dakota Grand Forks Herald and its parent company Forum Communications DO NOT ENDORSE MEASURE 3. Tom Dennis the Herald’s opinion editor writes…

“In North Dakota, there is no threat to religious freedom so urgent that the measure needs to be passed right now. The state can take its time and study the issue with more care, including the laws and experiences in other states. Given the profound worries about Measure 3 as expressed by knowledgeable critics, that’s the prudent course.”
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 95
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 7:48:42 PM
^^^^In 1993, Congress tried to require state and local governments to meet the "compelling interest" standard this amendment would impose by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The constitutional authority for the RFRA was section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which gives Congress power to make laws to enforce the amendment's provisions. But in 1997, the Supreme Court held that wasn't adequate authority for the RFRA.

So apparently North Dakota is trying to amend its constitution to do what Congress was unable to do with the RFRA. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as the Court now interprets it, can't require states to defer this far to religious practices in their laws. A state can't interpret the U.S. Constitution so as to contradict the Supreme Court's interpretation. But that doesn't mean a state can't amend its own constitution to require its laws to do what the U.S. Constitution can't require them to do.

This amendment would give North Dakota's courts power to strike down state laws that infringed a person's right to do or refrain from doing a thing because of his religious beliefs, unless the state could prove the law served some compelling government interest. And as long as a state constitution provides an "independent and adequate" basis for interpreting a state law, it won't violate the U.S. Constitution.
 BLoNde__ANgeL
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 96
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/12/2012 8:13:58 PM
Once someone gets their Tax ID & business license, they have to do things on the up & up. They cannot legally do : "If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium" & get away w/ it!

So when the owners of the B&B drive up to a gas station, can the gay gas station owner refuse to gas up their car, cuz they know they are homophobic?

This is a world where people need to learn to get along in a respectful manner, otherwise-anarchy!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 97
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 9:17:40 AM
So when the owners of the B&B drive up to a gas station, can the gay gas station owner refuse to gas up their car, cuz they know they are homophobic?


Most people think it's wrong to treat someone badly just because of his race, religion, or whatever. But in a free country, bigots have the right to hate anyone they want.

Legally, these things should be up to the state. If a state wants to make it the law that private businesses can't arbitrarily discriminate against customers, it can. There have always been state laws that forbid innkeepers to turn away customers, for example. A law can only intrude so far on the landlord's rights, though, because there are constitutional rights to free association and privacy. A state law that forced a Jew renting a room in his house to accept a Nazi would certainly be unconstitutional.

And if a state wanted to allow private businesses to discriminate, no matter how arbitrarily, in most cases the Constitution shouldn't prevent it. The Constitution limits what *government* may do. There are only two or three things in it that conceivably ban discrimination by private persons, and the only thing that clearly does that is the Thirteenth Amendment. But this isn't about keeping someone as a slave.
 balrog67
Joined: 4/1/2012
Msg: 98
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 12:26:03 PM

What Match fails to understand is that you're free to hate anyone you like, but you're not free to act on that hate in a discriminatory manner.


Sure you are. At least in the US, you can freely discriminate against any number of groups. The number of federally protected classes are well defined. If I have some irrational fear or loathing of left-handed people, there is nothing in the Law that keeps me from discriminating against them. A B&B owner has every 'legal right' to refuse services to them.
The Lefties recourse is to let people know about this practice and allow the market to decide if they will patronize the business or not - but no one can tell the owners they HAVE to serve Lefties (and I know for sure that Match agrees with me on the Lefty point in particular). ;-D

Lefties are not a 'protected class'. Neither are Democrats, Republicans, Blondes, or Child Molesters. We as a nation are free to discriminate against them as we choose - until the Law is changed. Whether it is 'just' to practice such discrimination is up to the individual to decide.

Discrimination can have either legal or social consequences, or both.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 99
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 12:37:19 PM

What Match fails to understand is that you're free to hate anyone you like, but you're not free to act on that hate in a discriminatory manner.


As a flat statement about the U.S., at least, what you're claiming is not true. In choosing personal associates, private individuals are obviously free to discriminate for any reason they like. Whether they can do it in business should in almost all cases be for the state to decide.

In my state, I would like to see private businesses free to discriminate in hiring or serving because of race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic. If the employees or customers some businesses reject can profit their unbiased competitors, they will be glad to take them.

Almost everything in the Constitution of the U.S. was meant to apply to government--and originally only the federal government. Before about 1900, nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted what states could do. Before a bad Supreme Court decision in 1947, a state could have had its official religion, if it wanted.

The Constitution restrains government's power over the individual person. Almost nothing in it, except for the 13th Amendment, can reasonably be interpreted to limit what individual persons may do.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 100
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 6/13/2012 3:12:04 PM

In my state, I would like to see private businesses free to discriminate in hiring or serving because of race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic. If the employees or customers some businesses reject can profit their unbiased competitors, they will be glad to take them.

Almost everything in the Constitution of the U.S. was meant to apply to government--and originally only the federal government. Before about 1900, nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted what states could do. Before a bad Supreme Court decision in 1947, a state could have had its official religion, if it wanted.



Or perhaps the 14th Amendment which Match apparently hates with prejudice.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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 of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pay particular attention to the last sentence. Partisan hacks cherry pick the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rights in general to suit their prejudices. Glad some are proudly wearing their sheets and hoods on these forums.

Meanwhile down in Redneckistan, the KKK is being challenged on their desire to pick up trash, while being trash. I was sooo looking forward to a mile stretch of highway where good people could throw copious amonts of litter and feel good about it. We shall see how this plays out with your peeps.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9VC9CJ01.htm


Georgia denies KKK application to adopt highway
By ERRIN HAINES
ATLANTA

A Ku Klux Klan group in Georgia lost its bid Tuesday to join the state's highway cleanup program, but a legal challenge to the decision may be looming. Similar groups in other states have won legal battles after initially being turned down for highway cleanup programs.

The International Keystone Knights of the KKK in Union County applied last month to the "Adopt-A-Highway" program, hoping to clean up along part of Route 515 in the Appalachian Mountains. The state program enlists civic groups, companies and other volunteers to pick up trash, and the groups are recognized with a sign along the road they adopt.

Transportation Department officials met with lawyers from the state Attorney General's Office on Monday and also consulted with Gov. Nathan Deal. The agency said Tuesday it would deny the KKK group's application, adding that the program is aimed at "civic-minded organizations in good standing."

"Participation in the program should not detract from its worthwhile purpose," the department's statement reads. "Promoting an organization with a history of inciting civil disturbance and social unrest would present a grave concern to the department. Issuing this permit would have the potential to negatively impact the quality of life, commerce and economic development of Union County and all of Georgia."

The statement went on to explain that motorists who drive past signs promoting the KKK or who see members picking up trash could be distracted -- creating a safety issue -- and that the section of highway the group wanted to adopt is ineligible because of its 55 mph speed limit.

The group said they wanted to preserve the area's scenic beauty. Harley Hanson, a member of the KKK group whose wife sent the application, said Tuesday that the International Keystone Knights' national leadership is considering legal action.

"If this does go into a litigation situation, the state really cannot afford to be wasting the money on something based on somebody else's beliefs," Hanson said in a phone interview. "It's saddening, really."

The Transportation Department sent a letter to the applicant, April Chambers, explaining the agency's decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 rejected Missouri's attempt to turn down a controversial group's application, saying membership in the program cannot be denied because of a group's political beliefs. In Kentucky, the transportation department accepted a white-separatist group's contract to participate in the state's highway cleanup program, fearing an unsuccessful legal battle.

An emailed request for comment from the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday was not immediately returned.

Hanson insisted the group's aim was to beautify the highway, not to seek attention. He also said the move might help recast the image of the Klan beyond its racist and violent past.

"We can't change what happened, but we can still work for a better tomorrow," Hanson said, adding that the group does food drives and has collected toys for Christmas. "It was not just to warn people, `Hey, the KKK lives next door,' but to do some good for the community."

Critics balked at the move as little more than an offensive publicity stunt. State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, who raised objections to the application, hailed the DOT decision as the right thing to do.

"They make the point we've been making: This is not a group that really qualifies as a civic organization," said Brooks, a civil rights activist who experienced Klan violence in the segregated South. "It's a terrorist organization. This is the right decision, and I commend the Department of Transportation for reaching a decision in due speed."
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?