Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #381
Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.
If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.
If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.
The founding fathers went to great pains to be specific in written law precisely to keep this type of bullshit from happening. They meant what they said when they wanted separation of powers. Judicial activism stealing power from the legislature is nothing but sedition. The fact that it's being done to forward a deviant sex cult's agenda on decent people who object to those values is a chunk of rock salt in that wound. That this agenda (for the first time in human history) legally separates children from either a father or mother for life as a new (illegal) institution is monstrosity beyond the pale.
No, I support protected people from discrimination. I would also not be in favor of forcing a Christian to bake a cake that says "heroin is the best!" or print postcards that say "throw up after you eat, stay slim!". Deviant addictive behaviors HAVE NO PROTECTION under the US Constitution.
A man and a man do not make a mother and father for children we anticipate (and always have) in marriage. A woman and a woman do not make a mother and father for children we anticipate in marriage. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? 85% of the Governed responding to that poll said they think that having both is important. So unless they are apathic monsters, they would extend that same regard for other children not just themselves.
I highlighted the mis-quoted paragraph above to illustrate your deceptive nature. Yes, I think you are a liar.
Last edited:
