A Legal Fork for SCOTUS: How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class.

[dblack]

Kind of hard to explain those legal principles in a message board post to someone with little or no understanding of the law.

Gosh, I see! You demote me true! But, I would think that someone with your apparent legal acumen would have no difficulty explaining such heady minutia.

And whence springs your particular understanding of the law? In skimming your previous posts it seems you are quite the self-appointed expert in these matters.

Enthrall me.

I did explain it to you. That you did not realize that I did kind of proves my point.

I'm afraid it also proves something else.

You're right, of course, that the "protected classes" of anti-discrimination laws aren't classes of people. They're classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. That's the letter of the law, and it was the argument used to give civil rights legislation a constitutional veneer. But it's clearly not the common perception of protected classes, and it's not how civil rights laws play out in society.

Whether it's because of an inability to make such a subtle distinction, or simply a recognition of practical reality, most people today - on both sides of the debate - see civil rights laws as pro-active measures to ban specific unpopular opinions. Or at least to ban acting on, or promoting those opinions.

There seems to be a growing awareness of the basic abuse of government power this represents. And every new "protected class" we create wakes more people up. We need to get back to government that protects our rights equally, rather than trying to tell us how to exercise those rights.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kind of hard to explain those legal principles in a message board post to someone with little or no understanding of the law.

Gosh, I see! You demote me true! But, I would think that someone with your apparent legal acumen would have no difficulty explaining such heady minutia.

And whence springs your particular understanding of the law? In skimming your previous posts it seems you are quite the self-appointed expert in these matters.

Enthrall me.

I did explain it to you. That you did not realize that I did kind of proves my point.

I'm afraid it also proves something else.

You're right, of course, that the "protected classes" of anti-discrimination laws aren't classes of people. They're classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. That's the letter of the law, and it was the argument used to give civil rights legislation a constitutional veneer. But it's clearly not the common perception of protected classes, and it's not how civil rights laws play out in society.

Whether it's because of an inability to make such a subtle distinction, or simply a recognition of practical reality, most people today - on both sides of the debate - see civil rights laws as pro-active measures to ban specific unpopular opinions. Or at least to ban acting on, or promoting those opinions.

There seems to be a growing awareness of the basic abuse of government power this represents. And every new "protected class" we create wakes more people up. We need to get back to government that protects our rights equally, rather than trying to tell us how to exercise those rights.

Bullshit. Laws protect us blindly.

 

[paddymurphy]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

NO. Mostly because there should not BE any "special classes" to begin with.

Yep. But that means a level playing field. And those who already have their special privileges don't want them revoked.

We seem to be giving up on the idea that government's primary responsibility is the protection of universal, individual rights. People today seem to see government, more and more, as a means of distributing power to interest groups. Collective rights are what our government is preoccupied with now, and what determines any person's legal rights is the identity group they belong to, and how effectively they can wield political influence.

Yeah, that is just so much bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static..

[/QUOTE]

Really?

Blacks are an 'identifiable group'- static?

Thomas Jefferson is believed to have fathered multiple children with a woman of African descent.

Were those children 'black'?

Well legally yes- except when they were not.

It is presumed that two of those children could pass for white and merged into the white population- yet legally they were 'black'- even though they looked 'white'.

Most groups are not 'static'- Jews are called Jews by some even if they convert. Mormons are considered Christians by some and not Christians by others. You create this whole fictional categorization entirely to attack homosexuals.

You blind hatred of all things 'gay' keeps having you try to figure out new ways to attack homosexuals- in this case just exposing your ignorance- once again.

 

[Syriusly]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

Oh cry me a river! Your nonsensical points have been refuted by numerous posters and on numerous threads. You say the same delusional shit day in and out. We get it already...you really hate gays. You have started dozens and dozens of threads on your irrational hate. You're mentally ill Sil and at this point I simply just pity you.

I am pretty much the lone voice on the opposition to your cult....

You are pretty much a loony voice of homophobic hatred.

This is the kind of hate you people promote.

 

[dblack]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

Oh cry me a river! Your nonsensical points have been refuted by numerous posters and on numerous threads. You say the same delusional shit day in and out. We get it already...you really hate gays. You have started dozens and dozens of threads on your irrational hate. You're mentally ill Sil and at this point I simply just pity you.

I am pretty much the lone voice on the opposition to your cult....

You are pretty much a loony voice of homophobic hatred.

This is the kind of hate you people promote.

Ouch!

 

[Silhouette]

Someone actually voted "no" in the poll.. Way to pitch a legal argument to the Court.

 

[hipeter924]

Isn't the Q redundant?

it isn't. Its the least nutty option in my opinion. Even folks in the community were getting a little sick of all the extra letters being added. "Q' was added for all other designations plus supporters of the community. You don't have to be gay to be 'Q'.

LGBTQ is still a bit of a mouthful.

Apparently meant to be LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Intersex Questioning) now, but far easier to just say LGBT and have everyone know what I mean.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently meant to be LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Intersex Questioning) now, but far easier to just say LGBT and have everyone know what I mean.

Maybe just shorten it to "Questioning". Which brings me back to my points in the OP...

 

[Skylar]

Isn't the Q redundant?

it isn't. Its the least nutty option in my opinion. Even folks in the community were getting a little sick of all the extra letters being added. "Q' was added for all other designations plus supporters of the community. You don't have to be gay to be 'Q'.

LGBTQ is still a bit of a mouthful.

Apparently meant to be LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Intersex Questioning) now, but far easier to just say LGBT and have everyone know what I mean.

The Q isn't just questioning. It stands for Queer. And its a catch all term for all remaining alternative sexuality as well as friends of the LGBTQ community. Including Intersex.

Even for the LGBTQ community....it was getting to be a bit of a mouthful.

 

[Silhouette]

Isn't the Q redundant?

it isn't. Its the least nutty option in my opinion. Even folks in the community were getting a little sick of all the extra letters being added. "Q' was added for all other designations plus supporters of the community. You don't have to be gay to be 'Q'.

LGBTQ is still a bit of a mouthful.

Apparently meant to be LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Intersex Questioning) now, but far easier to just say LGBT and have everyone know what I mean.

The Q isn't just questioning. It stands for Queer. And its a catch all term for all remaining alternative sexuality as well as friends of the LGBTQ community. Including Intersex.

Even for the LGBTQ community....it was getting to be a bit of a mouthful.

Like I said, given my points in the OP, "Questioning" is the perfect moniker for your group. Short, easy and quite to the point. We are all questioning y'all actually, come to think of it.

 

[Skylar]

Isn't the Q redundant?

it isn't. Its the least nutty option in my opinion. Even folks in the community were getting a little sick of all the extra letters being added. "Q' was added for all other designations plus supporters of the community. You don't have to be gay to be 'Q'.

LGBTQ is still a bit of a mouthful.

Apparently meant to be LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Intersex Questioning) now, but far easier to just say LGBT and have everyone know what I mean.

The Q isn't just questioning. It stands for Queer. And its a catch all term for all remaining alternative sexuality as well as friends of the LGBTQ community. Including Intersex.

Even for the LGBTQ community....it was getting to be a bit of a mouthful.

Like I said, given my points in the OP, "Questioning" is the perfect moniker for your group.

'My group?' I suppose I might qualify as a friend of the LFBTQ community. But more accurately, I merely have friends who are gay or lesbian. With their sexual orientation being among the least interesting things about them. To me anyway.

Short, easy and quite to the point. We are all questioning y'all actually, come to think of it.

The only legally relevant designation to the upcoming Obergefell ruling is 'same sex'. And there's no significant legal dispute as to what that means. Rendering your latest pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays more meaningless gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

You're a legal-eagle Skylar, from a purely argumentative standpoint, do you think it's wise for 2 people to have voted "no" in the poll above?

 

[Skylar]

You're a legal-eagle Skylar, from a purely argumentative standpoint, do you think it's wise for 2 people to have voted "no" in the poll above?

Ask the people who voted no.

I've simply pointed out how gloriously irrelevant your made up 'static class' nonsense is to the rights and protections afforded gays.

 

[syonidv]

I thought it was up to LGGBTQQIAAPPK2S now: Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous, Kink, and Two-Spirited.

I'm sticking with the OP. "Alphabet soup" it is from now on.

 

[Skylar]

I thought it was up to LGGBTQQIAAPPK2S now: Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous, Kink, and Two-Spirited.

I'm sticking with the OP. "Alphabet soup" it is from now on.

LGBTQ covers it. As it was getting to be a mouthful even for their community.

 

[Silhouette]

I thought it was up to LGGBTQQIAAPPK2S now: Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous, Kink, and Two-Spirited.

I'm sticking with the OP. "Alphabet soup" it is from now on.

LGBTQ covers it. As it was getting to be a mouthful even for their community.

That's because they themselves don't even know who/what they are. And hence the point of this entire thread.

 

[Skylar]

I thought it was up to LGGBTQQIAAPPK2S now: Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous, Kink, and Two-Spirited.

I'm sticking with the OP. "Alphabet soup" it is from now on.

LGBTQ covers it. As it was getting to be a mouthful even for their community.

That's because they themselves don't even know who/what they are. And hence the point of this entire thread.

More that to create an acronym out of every alternative sexuality that their community embraced would be unruly. So they used 'Q' to represent a myriad of alternative sexualities as well as allies of the LGBTQ community.

Again, Sil.....you making up a meaning for LGBTQ has no relevance. Its the LGBTQ's definitions that matter.

 

[dblack]

I voted no because, despite the practical effect of these laws, they're not intended to create protected classes of people. Some states have adopted them in that way, but it's a mistake to do so. Protected classes, as described by Federal civil rights legislation, are classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. If we define sexuality as one of those traits, any kind of sexual preference - including heterosexuality - would be banned as a basis of discrimination.

 

[Skylar]

I voted no because, despite the practical effect of these laws, they're not intended to create protected classes of people. Some states have adopted them in that way, but it's a mistake to do so. Protected classes, as described by Federal civil rights legislation, are classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. If we define sexuality as one of those traits, any kind of sexual preference - including heterosexuality - would be banned as a basis of discrimination.

It is. If a baker refused to serve a heterosexual couple because he objected to 'breeders', he's be just as vulnerable to applicable PA laws regarding sexual orientation.