Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[Silhouette]

KRMG talked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt Wednesday in Tulsa, after a judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Pruitt expressed the hope that the case will eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because of one question.

He says, “Is there really a Constitutional right? Is there cases that support that individuals sexual orientation should be the heart of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? And that’s just not the case.”

Pruitt says courts have previously ruled that the 14th amendment wasn't written for gays and lesbians, but rather to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics of race or gender, not behavior.... Oklahoma attorney general says law is clear on same-sex marriage | www.krmg.com

So there you go. The real compelling problem with setting a precedent in the 14th for allowing a very select group of sexually deviant behaviors [just 'LGBT"] to access protections under the 14th means that SCOTUS will be giving the green light to protection for cults under the US Constitution.

Unless they are a federally recognized behavior [religion], and complete in all their potentials [polygamy, incest, necrophilia and all the rest etc. etc.] it would be unworkable in our US Legal system and would cause an unravelling of the penal and civil codes....which both discriminate against and regulate all manner of human behaviors.

Behavior vs race. This is a crucial distinction that in the end will make or break the cult's momentum in the courts...

 

[WorldWatcher]

KRMG talked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt Wednesday in Tulsa, after a judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Pruitt expressed the hope that the case will eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because of one question.

He says, “Is there really a Constitutional right? Is there cases that support that individuals sexual orientation should be the heart of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? And that’s just not the case.”

Pruitt says courts have previously ruled that the 14th amendment wasn't written for gays and lesbians, but rather to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics of race or gender, not behavior.... Oklahoma attorney general says law is clear on same-sex marriage | www.krmg.com

So there you go. The real compelling problem with setting a precedent in the 14th for allowing a very select group of sexually deviant behaviors [just 'LGBT"] to access protections under the 14th means that SCOTUS will be giving the green light to protection for cults under the US Constitution.

Unless they are a federally recognized behavior [religion], and complete in all their potentials [polygamy, incest, necrophilia and all the rest etc. etc.] it would be unworkable in our US Legal system and would cause an unravelling of the penal and civil codes....which both discriminate against and regulate all manner of human behaviors.

Behavior vs race. This is a crucial distinction that in the end will make or break the cult's momentum in the courts...

Interesting one would think that an Attorney General would have read Romer v. Evans:

"The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of Amendment 2, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Colorado. Sustaining the interim injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings, the State Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. "

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "

United States Supreme Court
Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

KRMG talked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt Wednesday in Tulsa, after a judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Pruitt expressed the hope that the case will eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because of one question.

He says, “Is there really a Constitutional right? Is there cases that support that individuals sexual orientation should be the heart of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? And that’s just not the case.”

Pruitt says courts have previously ruled that the 14th amendment wasn't written for gays and lesbians, but rather to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics of race or gender, not behavior.... Oklahoma attorney general says law is clear on same-sex marriage | www.krmg.com

So there you go. The real compelling problem with setting a precedent in the 14th for allowing a very select group of sexually deviant behaviors [just 'LGBT"] to access protections under the 14th means that SCOTUS will be giving the green light to protection for cults under the US Constitution.

Unless they are a federally recognized behavior [religion], and complete in all their potentials [polygamy, incest, necrophilia and all the rest etc. etc.] it would be unworkable in our US Legal system and would cause an unravelling of the penal and civil codes....which both discriminate against and regulate all manner of human behaviors.

Behavior vs race. This is a crucial distinction that in the end will make or break the cult's momentum in the courts...

Interesting one would think that an Attorney General would have read Romer v. Evans:

"The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of Amendment 2, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Colorado. Sustaining the interim injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings, the State Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. "

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "

United States Supreme Court
Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).​

>>>>

I guess this means blind people will gain the privelege of driving in Colorado. Watch out there on those roads folks! There's equal rights for everyone whether or not they qualify in the real world. And blind people actually have a real bodily defect. LGBTs are an incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors. That's REALLY streching the idea of "equal rights"... Why don't other behaviors get to rewrite law in defiance of the majority rule?

 

[Silhouette]

Well Worldy? Which behaviors get special protections from the 14th and which don't? How do we decide that if not by a majority rule? And if others don't, how can we be bigoted against them? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Surely you see the problem when the premise is corrected to LGBTs being a very exclusive and limited group of deviant sexual behaviors...

 

[bodecea]

Well Worldy? Which behaviors get special protections from the 14th and which don't? How do we decide that if not by a majority rule? And if others don't, how can we be bigoted against them? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Surely you see the problem when the premise is corrected to LGBTs being a very exclusive and limited group of deviant sexual behaviors...

How come you aren't advising state lawyers to the point of them winning legal arguments over gay marriage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the Quebec University Review, here are some sub category titles:

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
EXCITEMENT"

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
LOCATING A MATE"

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO MATING"

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR"

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
AROUSAL AND COPULATORY
BEHAVIORS"

"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
PARTNER PREFERENCES"...

Again, the article comes with over 300 references supporting its conclusions. I think the scale is coming down heavy and hard on the side of learned behaviors... http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Which remain constitutionally protected.

So you're saying that a legal precedent has been set that some [just some but not all] deviant sexual behaviors have ascended to equal status as "race" as applicable in protections from the US Constitution.

The next question that begs is which deviant sexual behaviors [or any other type of behavior for that matter] is exempt from these protections, and why, specifically? [Hint, you cannot use "because the majority finds them unacceptable" or "they're icky"]

I'll await your answer... At least you're not pretending anymore that deviant sexual behaviors known as "LGBT" aren't learned or behaviors. Why not just come out with that at the next court hearing on the next gay lawsuit? You don't have to answer that question. We already know the answer..

The mistake you make is to perceive homosexuality as a ‘deviant sexual behavior,’ which it is in fact not.

That you perceive it so as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is subjective and irrelevant.

In addition to your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans, you’re also disadvantaged by your comprehensive ignorance of the law, the levels of judicial review, the difference between a protected class of persons and a suspect class of persons, and that laws seeking to restrict the rights of a given class of persons are subject to a more or less stringent level of judicial review.

Race is not the sole criterion by which the state might seek to violate a citizen’s civil liberties, nor is race the sole justification for an adversely effected class of persons, such as gay Americans, to seek relief from that violation of rights in the Federal courts.

Yours is an old and failed canard invalidated by the Supreme Court in Romer, that as ‘deviants’ jurisdictions can violate the civil rights of gay Americans with impunity, that if gay Americans no longer wish to be subject to discriminatory measures they need only ‘stop being gay,’ and seek ‘help’ for their ‘mental illness.’

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The guarantee of liberty enshrined in the Fifth Amendment protects the right of each American, including gay Americans, to express himself as an individual, to define for oneself the meaning and purpose of his life, absent interference by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

KRMG talked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt Wednesday in Tulsa, after a judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Pruitt expressed the hope that the case will eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because of one question.

He says, “Is there really a Constitutional right? Is there cases that support that individuals sexual orientation should be the heart of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? And that’s just not the case.”

Pruitt says courts have previously ruled that the 14th amendment wasn't written for gays and lesbians, but rather to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics of race or gender, not behavior....

One would think that an attorney general is indeed familiar with current 14th Amendment jurisprudence – but this is about politics, not the law.

Needless to say Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is wrong, as no one is making the argument that sexual orientation is a ‘Constitutional right.’ What is guaranteed by the Constitution is the right of each individual to realize self-determination absent interference by the state, as codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause.

The 14th Amendment incorporates (applies) the Federal Constitution to the states and local jurisdictions – including the Fifth Amendment:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, therefore, is to deny citizens the right to individual liberty, to make a protected class of persons different from everyone else, and seeks to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, absent a rational motive or proper legislative end.

The burden rests most heavily and solely with the state to justify denying citizens their individual liberty – whether to deny them their physical liberty pursuant to procedural due process, or to deny them their personal liberty to be free from interference by the state pursuant to substantive due process – whatever the state’s desire to deny a citizen his liberty, the state must be compelled to recognize due process, to be consistent in its treatment of all citizens’ civil liberties, and to afford all citizens equal protection of the law.

 

[Slyhunter]

The evidence points to a learned behavior. The twin study that liberals like to brag about actually ended up being complete horse shit & actually proved the opposition correct.

If being gay is genetic, how is it possible that there can be a straight & a homosexual in identical twins? They're identical in every way, except one is homosexual. How did that happen, scientific genius liberals who never fall for junk science?

I love young girls. As a 50 year old I don't chase them, I don't flirt with them, I don't pursue them. High school and College cheerleaders are my favorites.

I hate women. I hate pretending to be something I'm not to get a date. I hate listening to them yammer on. I hate dealing with the games they play. I hate being used by them. There is only one thing I want from a woman and I've given up on sex because I'm not willing to put up with their personalities to get it.

If I could become gay I would. Guys are easier and much more straight forward. feel happy, lets have sex. Feel pissed, have rough sex. Feel sad, have melancholy sex. Feel bored, have sex. Have a headache, have fast sex. Men are simple. I can understand why someone would choose to be gay. It's easier.

I hate hair. I hate muscles. I hate beards. I hate dirty smelly piss stained dicks. I hate taking a shit, which makes me think I would hate a dick being stuck up there even more. I can't be gay. But I would if I could.

I was born heterosexual.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh shut your pie hole with the hate garbage. The radical homosexuals are just as if not more hateful than the people they claim hate them.

Hate is usually caused from experience, bad ones most of the time. So as hard as it is for your leftarded moonbat illogical mind to wrap your mind around the concept, Hate breeds Hate. Call off the hardline elements of the gay agenda & things will simmer down, I guarante it. People just want to be left alone, and are willing to leave others alone once you all stfu and quit trying to use shaming language and trying to claim "hate" as a term only the left can define.

By the way, you didn't answer my question. How could homosexuality be genetic if identical twins can end up having both a straight & a gay in the pairing? Come on now genius who tells everyone else their stupid yet never backs up his shit...Answer the question.

Then why do religious people that have read the Bible and the commandment was to love each other, even your enemies, yet we see hate filled diatribes against homosexuality and those that are homosexual from those that claim to be religious?

Some of the foulest mouthed people here are professed christians. It's as if they are trying their best to show us that christians aren't very nice people.

many of them are not....thats because a lot of them are hypocrites....many are closet gays....abuse kids....fuck around with whores....lie.....to name a few things....

 

[Slyhunter]

Ask a Pedophile if they chose to be a pedophile. My father is in jail for being a pedophile. He got away with playing doctor with my first sister when she was 12, now she's 47 that he did it again when he had another kid with another woman. He had anal cancer of some type and can't get a hardon. So instead he stuck pens in her vagina and giggled like a little girl while doing so.

I doubt very much he chose to be the person he is. He claims he's innocent. He was only teaching her how to be a good wife and there was nothing sexual about it. It's his lesbian ex-wife's way of getting revenge falsely accusing him of this and turning his child against him.

As bad as he is I say it wasn't his choice to be that way.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism tightens around the necks of conservatives and middle folks all the way just right of far left are defenses based on a false premise.

It seems that everyone, with no evidence whatsoever to support and tons of evidence to the contrary, has made the wrong assumption and assigned "legal fact' to it as a jumping off point for opposing the Lavender Reicht. That assumption-as-fact is "gays are a race of people".

They are factually NOT a race of people. They are an incomplete assortment of deviant sexual practitioners. They practice a certain type of sexuality that has to be by definition "non hetero" or as they call it "not a breeder". Those behaviors, compulsive or not, are still behaviors.

There is a disturbing conclusion that could be born inadvertently from this false-premise-as-fact. And that is, we regulate behaviors by a majority rule. We institute penal and civil codes to daily discriminate against behaviors. If one group of behaviors organizes as a de facto cult, without seeking actual legal recognition as a religion, what group of behaviors will come next and shove their dogma down the throats of those who are agreeing on the false premise in error?

Here is some evidence that sexual orientation is learned. You can vote on the poll after reading the links and the sources, which are quite prestigious.



Its conclusions are that even in lower animals that you'd clearly assume were vastly more slavish to their DNA than we "monkey-see, monkey-do" post-natal learners, these lower creatures actually take cues from their environment on which peculiar aspects in their mate they select. And after a first few times with this mate, that they chose by observing a social matrix or set of norms, they became habituated to selecting that type of mate in the future. They were sexually oriented from their environment. ie: they learned what was considered normal and what wasn't from looking around them.

This has HUGE implications as LGBTs try to infuse every aspect of our culture with their various sexual tweaks. Think about it.

Here's an article on how child predators learn their orientation BEHAVIORS. It jibes with the Canadian university review above and even concludes its likely "a form of social learning took place"...



Next we have the CDC declaring that gay men have suffered a "pervasive" "epidemic" of having been molested as boys. Then they grew up gay. I wonder if there's a relation?



So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't? Why are we equating what is otherwise a mere compulsive or fixed or even chosen [think Anne Heche] temporary state of behaving 'as race'?

What other behaviors will debut to tell us we must accept them 'as race' once a legal precedent has been set on this false premise?

Next time you're in court with some gay people telling you "how it's going to be" and "what you're going to do for us" and "what parts of your religion we're allowing you to remain faithful to" and "we're going to teach your kids about fisting in schools or else!", and "you're going to celebrate our pedophile-messiah Harvey Milk...or else!", try putting the argument to the court that from the very onset, LGBT must be handled as behaviors and not race, unless they can prove they are a fixated group of non-changing people all having a similar genetic variant.

And to the LGBTs who have enjoyed this tidal wave of legal battles thusfar on the false premise, good luck once the real premise is introduced. Methinks once courts are convinced of your real affectations [behaviors] and no longer see you as a race of people, your legal outcomes might change just a tad...

My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....

Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?

yea but they do it because they can....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?

You could easily train a human to do the same and to love it. In fact, this is what gay men do.

However, the rest of the majority would not consider this acquired-behavior normal and would be in their full rights to regulate it...being a behavior and not a race...need to keep making that crucial legal distinction in case people forget it... At the very least the majority would be in their full legal rights to ban the practitioners of it from gaining access to any social acmes such as marriage to flaunt this deviant behavior as "normal". Kids learn by example and the majority has a right to regulate the behaviors kids see as normal in their daily walks of life.

You could easily train a human to do the same and to love it. In fact, this is what gay men do.

really?.....gay men lick their own balls and asses?....dam...they must be pretty limber....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The evidence points to a learned behavior. The twin study that liberals like to brag about actually ended up being complete horse shit & actually proved the opposition correct.

If being gay is genetic, how is it possible that there can be a straight & a homosexual in identical twins? They're identical in every way, except one is homosexual. How did that happen, scientific genius liberals who never fall for junk science?

I love young girls. As a 50 year old I don't chase them, I don't flirt with them, I don't pursue them. High school and College cheerleaders are my favorites.

I hate women. I hate pretending to be something I'm not to get a date. I hate listening to them yammer on. I hate dealing with the games they play. I hate being used by them. There is only one thing I want from a woman and I've given up on sex because I'm not willing to put up with their personalities to get it.

If I could become gay I would. Guys are easier and much more straight forward. feel happy, lets have sex. Feel pissed, have rough sex. Feel sad, have melancholy sex. Feel bored, have sex. Have a headache, have fast sex. Men are simple. I can understand why someone would choose to be gay. It's easier.

I hate hair. I hate muscles. I hate beards. I hate dirty smelly piss stained dicks. I hate taking a shit, which makes me think I would hate a dick being stuck up there even more. I can't be gay. But I would if I could.

I was born heterosexual.

no but you can be bi-sexual....so go find a guy and come out of that bi-sexual closet you have yourself in...

 

[hazlnut]

Jesus - you can't even accurately read the articles you posted.


I guess, like gays, stupid people like yourself are just born that way.


Sexual orientation is a spectrum from Homosexual to bisexual to heterosexual and asexual.

Homosexuals are in the minority and, as our understanding of sexual orientation has changed over the decades, they are now rightly seen as a protected class.


Back in the 50's and 60's elementary school teachers tried to get left-handed children to write with their right hand. Some could (bisexual), but most could never feel comfortable writing that way.

 

[Seawytch]

So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't?

Vote = "Other"

No, you see, that's the thing. Whether "gays are a race" to "gays are behaviors" is totally irrelevant to the discussion from a legal framework.

Colorado's Public Accommodation laws also protect "marital status" as do other states, some states include verterans status - those are also behaviors.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't discriminate based on behavior in Lawrence v. Texas.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't target homosexuals for discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

Interracial Marriage is a behavior. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. They were treated equally under that perspective. It was barring the behavior of blacks wanting to marry whites that was found unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.​

You think you've had an epiphany with the "behavior" schtick, but not really - it's just repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.



>>>>

Bump for the most worthy post in this thread.

 

[Seawytch]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism tightens around the necks of conservatives and middle folks all the way just right of far left are defenses based on a false premise.

It seems that everyone, with no evidence whatsoever to support and tons of evidence to the contrary, has made the wrong assumption and assigned "legal fact' to it as a jumping off point for opposing the Lavender Reicht. That assumption-as-fact is "gays are a race of people".

They are factually NOT a race of people. They are an incomplete assortment of deviant sexual practitioners. They practice a certain type of sexuality that has to be by definition "non hetero" or as they call it "not a breeder". Those behaviors, compulsive or not, are still behaviors.

There is a disturbing conclusion that could be born inadvertently from this false-premise-as-fact. And that is, we regulate behaviors by a majority rule. We institute penal and civil codes to daily discriminate against behaviors. If one group of behaviors organizes as a de facto cult, without seeking actual legal recognition as a religion, what group of behaviors will come next and shove their dogma down the throats of those who are agreeing on the false premise in error?

Here is some evidence that sexual orientation is learned. You can vote on the poll after reading the links and the sources, which are quite prestigious.



Its conclusions are that even in lower animals that you'd clearly assume were vastly more slavish to their DNA than we "monkey-see, monkey-do" post-natal learners, these lower creatures actually take cues from their environment on which peculiar aspects in their mate they select. And after a first few times with this mate, that they chose by observing a social matrix or set of norms, they became habituated to selecting that type of mate in the future. They were sexually oriented from their environment. ie: they learned what was considered normal and what wasn't from looking around them.

This has HUGE implications as LGBTs try to infuse every aspect of our culture with their various sexual tweaks. Think about it.

Here's an article on how child predators learn their orientation BEHAVIORS. It jibes with the Canadian university review above and even concludes its likely "a form of social learning took place"...



Next we have the CDC declaring that gay men have suffered a "pervasive" "epidemic" of having been molested as boys. Then they grew up gay. I wonder if there's a relation?



So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't? Why are we equating what is otherwise a mere compulsive or fixed or even chosen [think Anne Heche] temporary state of behaving 'as race'?

What other behaviors will debut to tell us we must accept them 'as race' once a legal precedent has been set on this false premise?

Next time you're in court with some gay people telling you "how it's going to be" and "what you're going to do for us" and "what parts of your religion we're allowing you to remain faithful to" and "we're going to teach your kids about fisting in schools or else!", and "you're going to celebrate our pedophile-messiah Harvey Milk...or else!", try putting the argument to the court that from the very onset, LGBT must be handled as behaviors and not race, unless they can prove they are a fixated group of non-changing people all having a similar genetic variant.

And to the LGBTs who have enjoyed this tidal wave of legal battles thusfar on the false premise, good luck once the real premise is introduced. Methinks once courts are convinced of your real affectations [behaviors] and no longer see you as a race of people, your legal outcomes might change just a tad...

My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....

Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?

Dogs are mostly heterosexual...does that mean it's not okay for humans?

 

[Silhouette]

Jesus - you can't even accurately read the articles you posted.


I guess, like gays, stupid people like yourself are just born that way.


Sexual orientation is a spectrum from Homosexual to bisexual to heterosexual and asexual.
Homosexuals are in the minority and, as our understanding of sexual orientation has changed over the decades, they are now rightly seen as a protected class.


Back in the 50's and 60's elementary school teachers tried to get left-handed children to write with their right hand. Some could (bisexual), but most could never feel comfortable writing that way.

Yes, and dogs can be trained to do anything from sitting, to rolling over, fetching and walking on their hind legs. Your point doesn't negate that the orientations are gotten by behavior.

Why are JUST "LGBT" seen as a protected class? Which other behaviors that the majority object to will or will not be given a "protected class status" and why or why not? Not just talking sexual here because of course, once the fed sets a precedent for protecting behaviors that the majority object to, it cannot be arbitrary in excluding others from the same "rights"....that the majority object to...

Behaviors vs race. It's a pivotal misconception that behaviors somehow qualify for protected class status. Having a lot of money to promote your cult or being really whiney or pushy about promoting your cult or milking a lot of sympathy to promote your cult does not = a legitimate peer of "race".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why are JUST "LGBT" seen as a protected class?

They aren't.

Under federal law protected classes include race, gender, ethnicity, national origin.

Under State laws protected classes include race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin but also include other "statuses" such as marital status (a behavior) and veterans status (a behavior)

Which other behaviors that the majority object to will or will not be given a "protected class status" and why or why not?

As already mentioned some states include the behaviors of getting married or being a veteran.

The SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to ban Civil Marriages based on two people of different races wanting to get married. Blacks could marry - they were not denied based on race. Whites could marry - they were not denied based on race. However the behavior of a black marrying a white was made illegal - the SCOTUS said you can't do that.

Not just talking sexual here because of course, once the fed sets a precedent for protecting behaviors that the majority object to...

In 1967 a great majority of people objected to the idea of legal interracial marriage, far out weighing those that supported interracial marriage by about 40%.

Already set many years ago with the Loving decision and applied to homosexuals in the Romer decision.

it cannot be arbitrary in excluding others from the same "rights"....that the majority object to...

Correct, to deny equal treatment under the law the laws can not be arbitrary.

For the government to discriminate there must be a compelling government interest in targeting a group for unequal treatment.




>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Why are JUST "LGBT" seen as a protected class?

They aren't.

Under federal law protected classes include race, gender, ethnicity, national origin.

Under State laws protected classes include race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin but also include other "statuses" such as marital status (a behavior) and veterans status (a behavior)

Veterans earn their status through efforts in military service. Theirs isn't a behavior but a contractual benefit. And the majority got together to award them special status because of their service to the country. The majority approves of their behavior.

Which does just LGBT fall under? Service to the country? No, HIV and Harvey Milk suck. Race? No. Gender? No. Religion? No. Country of origin? No. And the majority disapproves of these behaviors.

And why just LGBT by the way? Who is being excluded and why? Please don't tell me that other behaviors are being excluded because they're illegal. That would mean you approve of a majority rule over behaviors and regulating what they can and cannot do.

 

[rightwinger]

Whether born that way or by choice, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry the person they love?