Judge rules transgender people are protected, keeps hold on troop ban

[dblack]

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me.

My apologies. I thought you were framing it as an equal rights issue. It's not. It's a social engineering project.

Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Do you not recognize that society has far more power to influence behavior than government? It's this power that moderates the vast bulk of human interactions. Most of us, most of the time, "behave ourselves" because we're worried about what others will think of us - not because of the law. And the irony is that the laws you're promoting undermine that power. We're converting a voluntary, collaborative approach to maintain societal norms into a matter of government and law enforcement. I think it's a bad trade.

 

[jillian]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

no. they aren't. because protected classes PROTECT equal protection.

pissant

14th Amendment, Sec. 1.

Nematode waste product.

yes, you are, moron. the worst kind... one who doesn't know how stupid you are.

the states can't give fewer rights than the feds... EVERY. try the supremacy clause.

and you hacks lost the states' rights battle in the civil war.

again, pissant.

 

[jillian]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Government is your nanny and enforcer. That's not the purpose of our Constitutional government. Rights of the people do not come from government. That's why Americans are having a cultural civil war, misuse of government by the left.

your ilk has tried to destroy the federal government since the civil war. there IS no cultural civil war. there are what there always were... normal people and people like you who think only straight white Christian males should have any rights.

rights only exist if they are enforced by the government. ask the people of Nazi Germany.

 

[BS Filter]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Government is your nanny and enforcer. That's not the purpose of our Constitutional government. Rights of the people do not come from government. That's why Americans are having a cultural civil war, misuse of government by the left.

your ilk has tried to destroy the federal government since the civil war. there IS no cultural civil war. there are what there always were... normal people and people like you who think only straight white Christian males should have any rights.

rights only exist if they are enforced by the government. ask the people of Nazi Germany.

So confused, where do I begin. Demanding correct use of our Federal Government isn't trying to destroy it. There most certainly is a cultural civil war. Queers and sexually confused people have every right I have. You can't force people to submit to what they believe are freaks and perverts in the name of "rights". Take that game and use it on some naïve college kids.

 

[jillian]

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Government is your nanny and enforcer. That's not the purpose of our Constitutional government. Rights of the people do not come from government. That's why Americans are having a cultural civil war, misuse of government by the left.

your ilk has tried to destroy the federal government since the civil war. there IS no cultural civil war. there are what there always were... normal people and people like you who think only straight white Christian males should have any rights.

rights only exist if they are enforced by the government. ask the people of Nazi Germany.

So confused, where do I begin. Demanding correct use of our Federal Government isn't trying to destroy it. There most certainly is a cultural civil war. Queers and sexually confused people have every right I have. You can't force people to submit to what they believe are freaks and perverts in the name of "rights". Take that game and use it on some naïve college kids.

yes, I'm sure all great constitutionalists are confused too.... but uneducated trumpscum understand the system.



now, once more for the ignorant trumptard..... the STATES CANNOT GIVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

that is black letter law. you can't get away from that. feel free to live in iran if that's a problem for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

Minorities that don't need protection? Who? LGBT people?, Muslims? If you think that others, like ugly people need protection that we should expand the categories, not do away with them

 

[Tom Horn]

yes, you are, moron. the worst kind... one who doesn't know how stupid you are.

the states can't give fewer rights than the feds... EVERY. try the supremacy clause.

and you hacks lost the states' rights battle in the civil war.

again, pissant.

Jilly....I'm curious....are you in a mental institution by any chance?

 

[jillian]

yes, you are, moron. the worst kind... one who doesn't know how stupid you are.

the states can't give fewer rights than the feds... EVERY. try the supremacy clause.

and you hacks lost the states' rights battle in the civil war.

again, pissant.

Jilly....I'm curious....are you in a mental institution by any chance?

stop projecting. your fifth grade education is showing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

no. they aren't. because protected classes PROTECT equal protection.

pissant

14th Amendment, Sec. 1.

Nematode waste product.

yes, you are, moron. the worst kind... one who doesn't know how stupid you are.

the states can't give fewer rights than the feds... EVERY. try the supremacy clause.

and you hacks lost the states' rights battle in the civil war.

again, pissant.

Please make sense so that I can respond.

 

[Tom Horn]

stop projecting. your fifth grade education is showing.

I got a B.S. and Masters credits in cinematography...what's that got to do with how nuts you are?

 

[BS Filter]

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Government is your nanny and enforcer. That's not the purpose of our Constitutional government. Rights of the people do not come from government. That's why Americans are having a cultural civil war, misuse of government by the left.

your ilk has tried to destroy the federal government since the civil war. there IS no cultural civil war. there are what there always were... normal people and people like you who think only straight white Christian males should have any rights.

rights only exist if they are enforced by the government. ask the people of Nazi Germany.

So confused, where do I begin. Demanding correct use of our Federal Government isn't trying to destroy it. There most certainly is a cultural civil war. Queers and sexually confused people have every right I have. You can't force people to submit to what they believe are freaks and perverts in the name of "rights". Take that game and use it on some naïve college kids.

yes, I'm sure all great constitutionalists are confused too.... but uneducated trumpscum understand the system.



now, once more for the ignorant trumptard..... the STATES CANNOT GIVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

that is black letter law. you can't get away from that. feel free to live in iran if that's a problem for you.

You really want to talk about the Constitution and rights? Tell me what "free exercise thereof" means to you. You don't really want to talk about Constitutional rights. You want to deny rights and push your agenda.

 

[BS Filter]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

Minorities that don't need protection? Who? LGBT people?, Muslims? If you think that others, like ugly people need protection that we should expand the categories, not do away with them

Muslims treat queers much worse than Christians. Ya'll are going to have a lot of fun trying to keep your protected classes from murdering each other in the future.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

Minorities that don't need protection? Who? LGBT people?, Muslims? If you think that others, like ugly people need protection that we should expand the categories, not do away with them

Muslims treat queers much worse than Christians. Ya'll are going to have a lot of fun trying to keep your protected classes from murdering each other in the future.

Not in the US



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BS Filter]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

Minorities that don't need protection? Who? LGBT people?, Muslims? If you think that others, like ugly people need protection that we should expand the categories, not do away with them

Muslims treat queers much worse than Christians. Ya'll are going to have a lot of fun trying to keep your protected classes from murdering each other in the future.

Not in the US



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not yet in the US. Their goal hasn't been attained yet. It will, thanks to the democrats.

 

[dblack]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

Minorities that don't need protection? Who? LGBT people?, Muslims? If you think that others, like ugly people need protection that we should expand the categories, not do away with them

Yes. And how do we decide which new categories to add? Should we vote on it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Hey! When do the Irish get their museum on the Mall?

When, huh?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment; it really is our supreme law of the land.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And once again...

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation or gender identity are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

As a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law, beyond dispute, such measures neither violate the right to free speech nor the right to religious liberty.

 

[dblack]

As a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law, beyond dispute, such measures neither violate the right to free speech nor the right to religious liberty.

Beyond dispute, eh? I didn't realize. Alright everyone, stop disputing. C says so.

 

[BS Filter]

And once again...

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation or gender identity are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

As a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law, beyond dispute, such measures neither violate the right to free speech nor the right to religious liberty.

No such thing as "settled, accepted Constitutional law". Slavery was upheld in 1856 by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. How did that turn out? Remember when alcohol was illegal and that was repealed?