The Gaystapo takes a knockout blow

[Harpy Eagle]

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

Oh, bull shit. That is a cop out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

we have anti-discrimination laws in this country. we also have laws saying all people have to be treated equally under the law.

we don't codify bigotry anymore.

they keep saying they have the religious freedom to not serve certain people they don't like. that's false.

and like I said... they should go live elsewhere if they can't serve people because of their religion, color or sexual preference.

Yes, I know we do. That does not mean that they are in alignment with the Constitution. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating, there is nothing in it that gives the Govt the power to enforce that upon private individuals.

 

[g5000]

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

 

[jillian]

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

^^^^^^^^^^^

ding ding ding ding

we have a winner

 

[Harpy Eagle]

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection clause applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

 

[jillian]

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

they stopped buying that in the '50's. you might want to go have a look at the jim crow era cases.

maybe give a little look at brown v board of ed in honor of Ms. Brown who passed away this week.

but no, we don't marginalize people to make bigots happy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, such laws violate equal protection.

Wrong. This argument was lost long ago.

 

[jillian]

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

it kind of does. and you're not harsh. you're wrong and defending something indefensible.

you can choose who comes into your home. (where bigotry, although still stupid, is your right). you don't get to run a business licensed by the state and then refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. why are you even trying to defend that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

they stopped buying that in the '50's. you might want to go have a look at the jim crow era cases.

maybe give a little look at brown v board of ed in honor of Ms. Brown who passed away this week.

but no, we don't marginalize people to make bigots happy.

In the 50s the SCOTUS felt it was more important to try and bring racial unity than to follow the Constitution. So they allowed these laws to go forward.

 

[HappyJoy]

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

Can you give an example of this? It's illegal to discriminate against race. Not just blacks or Asians, race.

It's illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation (where such laws exist), not just homosexuals.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

it kind of does. and you're not harsh. you're wrong and defending something indefensible.

you can choose who comes into your home. (where bigotry, although still stupid, is your right). you don't get to run a business licensed by the state and then refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. why are you even trying to defend that?

I will say it again and see if you can regute it...

If certain classes are "protected classes" then they are receiving more protection from the Govt than classes that are not "protected". Thus there is not equal protection under the law.

Now, if you wish to say that having such laws are worth ignoring the Constitution then you might have a point. But you cannot have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, such laws violate equal protection.

Wrong. This argument was lost long ago.

Yep, by the same group of people that told us killing a baby was a matter of privacy.

 

[HappyJoy]

it kind of does. and you're not harsh. you're wrong and defending something indefensible.

you can choose who comes into your home. (where bigotry, although still stupid, is your right). you don't get to run a business licensed by the state and then refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. why are you even trying to defend that?

I will say it again and see if you can regute it...

If certain classes are "protected classes" then they are receiving more protection from the Govt than classes that are not "protected". Thus there is not equal protection under the law.

Now, if you wish to say that having such laws are worth ignoring the Constitution then you might have a point. But you cannot have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

This is incorrect. You simply can't refuse service for the color of one's skin. Regardless of the color.

 

[g5000]

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection clause applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

This is what I mean when I say pretend defenders of the Constitution have never read it. Your claim the equal protection clause does not apply to people is patently false.

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.


The State has enacted marriage laws which bestow cash and prizes upon married people. EVERYONE who enters into marriage is protected by those laws which define who can be married. Not just heterosexuals.

 

[g5000]

it kind of does. and you're not harsh. you're wrong and defending something indefensible.

you can choose who comes into your home. (where bigotry, although still stupid, is your right). you don't get to run a business licensed by the state and then refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. why are you even trying to defend that?

I will say it again and see if you can regute it...

If certain classes are "protected classes" then they are receiving more protection from the Govt than classes that are not "protected". Thus there is not equal protection under the law.

Now, if you wish to say that having such laws are worth ignoring the Constitution then you might have a point. But you cannot have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

If you stop discriminating against a class of people, they would not need protection.

But you keep ignoring this, of course.

 

[jillian]

it kind of does. and you're not harsh. you're wrong and defending something indefensible.

you can choose who comes into your home. (where bigotry, although still stupid, is your right). you don't get to run a business licensed by the state and then refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. why are you even trying to defend that?

I will say it again and see if you can regute it...

If certain classes are "protected classes" then they are receiving more protection from the Govt than classes that are not "protected". Thus there is not equal protection under the law.

Now, if you wish to say that having such laws are worth ignoring the Constitution then you might have a point. But you cannot have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

they are "protected classes" because they are targets of discrimination, harassment or violence.

that causes them to NEED protection -- from the very bigots who whine about the fact that they are protected. yet who try to divest them of their rights

 

[Harpy Eagle]

General welfare.

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection clause applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

This is what I mean when I say pretend defenders of the Constitution have never read it. Your claim the equal protection clause does not apply to people is patently false.

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.


The State has enacted marriage laws which bestow cash and prizes upon married people. EVERYONE who enters into marriage is protected by those laws which define who can be married. Not just heterosexuals.

It is you that has trouble reading...what you just posted prohibits the STATE from doing those things. The STATE shall not deprive...the STATE shall not deny....

 

[g5000]

equal protection

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection clause applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

This is what I mean when I say pretend defenders of the Constitution have never read it. Your claim the equal protection clause does not apply to people is patently false.

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.


The State has enacted marriage laws which bestow cash and prizes upon married people. EVERYONE who enters into marriage is protected by those laws which define who can be married. Not just heterosexuals.

It is you that has trouble reading...what you just posted prohibits the STATE from doing those things. The STATE shall not deprive...the STATE shall not deny....

And the state provided equal protection to the gays by making the bigots give them a wedding.

See how that works?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, such laws violate equal protection. Anti-discrimination laws are based upon "protected classes", which by the very definition of means they get more protection than other classes of people...thus there is no equal protection.

As long as there are protected classes, there can be no equal protection.

As long as one class is discriminated against, there can be no equality.

The equal protection clause applies to the Govt, not people. There is no guarantee of equal treatment by me and you, just by the Govt.

I know it is harsh and sounds terrible to your sensibilities, but it is a fact.

This is what I mean when I say pretend defenders of the Constitution have never read it. Your claim the equal protection clause does not apply to people is patently false.

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.


The State has enacted marriage laws which bestow cash and prizes upon married people. EVERYONE who enters into marriage is protected by those laws which define who can be married. Not just heterosexuals.

It is you that has trouble reading...what you just posted prohibits the STATE from doing those things. The STATE shall not deprive...the STATE shall not deny....

And the state provided equal protection to the gays by making the bigots give them a wedding.

See how that works?

But the state is not forcing bigots to give a wedding to the man and his two wives, so they do not have the same protection...thus nothing is equal

See how that works.