The Gaystapo takes a knockout blow

[g5000]

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.

The State has not made a law protecting bigamists.

See how that works?

Equality does not apply to those practices which are harmful to society, like bigamy and pedophilia.

 

[jillian]

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....

this is settled law, chief.

 

[jillian]

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.

state licenses businesses. those businesses provide accommodation to the public. you can set standards that are uniform for all people -- such as 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' because they apply to everyone.

you can't refuse to serve people because you're a freaking bigot.

 

[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.

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

But you do agree they are getting more protection? Right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

state licenses businesses. those businesses provide accommodation to the public. you can set standards that are uniform for all people -- such as 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' because they apply to everyone.

you can't refuse to serve people because you're a freaking bigot.

Why should shirtless people not get the same protection as other classes?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The State has not made a law protecting bigamists.

Thank you for proving my point for me! The state protects some classes more than others (some not at all).

Thus there is not equal protection.

There cannot be "equal" when one group gets more than another.

 

[g5000]

The State has not made a law protecting bigamists.

Thank you for proving my point for me! The state protects some classes more than others (some not at all).

Thus there is not equal protection.

There cannot be "equal" when one group gets more than another.

Again, equality does not apply to practices which are harmful to society, like bigamy and pedophilia.

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

 

[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....

this is settled law, chief.

Lots of things are settled law, does not mean I agree with them.

It is settled law that killing your baby is your right, I do no personally agree with that law either.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The State has not made a law protecting bigamists.

Thank you for proving my point for me! The state protects some classes more than others (some not at all).

Thus there is not equal protection.

There cannot be "equal" when one group gets more than another.

Again, equality does not apply to practices which are harmful to society, like bigamy and pedophilia.

There are those that argue that homoseualay is harmful to society, just like you do with bigamy. I think you are both bigots and wrong.

Who are you to tell 3 consenting adults they are not allowed to get married?

pedophilia is separate issue as it does not involving consenting adults.

 

[jillian]

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....

this is settled law, chief.

Lots of things are settled law, does not mean I agree with them.

It is settled law that killing your baby is your right, I do no personally agree with that law either.

so again, you think posting signs on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays" is ok?

we should go back to the jim crow era?

yes, some settled laws are bad... like heller, like citizens united, like dred scott, like korematsu.

this isn't that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

 

[g5000]

The State has not made a law protecting bigamists.

Thank you for proving my point for me! The state protects some classes more than others (some not at all).

Thus there is not equal protection.

There cannot be "equal" when one group gets more than another.

Again, equality does not apply to practices which are harmful to society, like bigamy and pedophilia.

There are those that argue that homoseualay is harmful to society

And they are wrong.

, just like you do with bigamy. I think you are both bigots and wrong.

Polygamy inevitably and invariably leads to the exploitation of women, and quite often leads to pedophilia.

 

[jillian]

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.

state licenses businesses. those businesses provide accommodation to the public. you can set standards that are uniform for all people -- such as 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' because they apply to everyone.

you can't refuse to serve people because you're a freaking bigot.

Why should shirtless people not get the same protection as other classes?

you can put on a shirt.

you can't be not gay, not black and not a jew. (well, you can be not a jew, but why would one do that?)

 

[g5000]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

I am intimately familiar with Libertarians, having been around them my entire adult life. I am a Bill Buckley conservative, after all.

I just have more common sense and a better understanding of human nature than the average Libertarian.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

so again, you think posting signs on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays" is ok?

we should go back to the jim crow era?

yes, some settled laws are bad... like heller, like citizens united, like dred scott, like korematsu.

this isn't that.

You are confusing two things, "ok" and "constitutional".

I do not personally think that such a thing is ok and I would never choose to give my money to someone that did such a thing.

But the Constitution does not care what I think is "Ok" or not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

I am intimately familiar with Libertarians, having been around them my entire adult life. I am a Bill Buckley conservative, after all.

A yet you accuse me of drinking the kool aid of FoxNews for holding Libertarian views. Why is that?

 

[jillian]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

libertarianism under goldwater never said be a bigot and never said tolerate bigots. in fact, the opposite... it said TOLERATE everyone because THAT is what a libertarian is. Today Goldwater would be a liberal.

but today's version of libertarian is a bunch of foot-stomping angry people who hate rules ... even those that keep society decent.

 

[jillian]

so again, you think posting signs on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays" is ok?

we should go back to the jim crow era?

yes, some settled laws are bad... like heller, like citizens united, like dred scott, like korematsu.

this isn't that.

You are confusing two things, "ok" and "constitutional".

I do not personally think that such a thing is ok and I would never choose to give my money to someone that did such a thing.

But the Constitution does not care what I think is "Ok" or not.

the constitution is not a literal document.... well, except to rightwingnuts.

if those things are not ok then the law needs to protect against them. I understand that rules aggravate certain people. but what aggravates people more is seeing people humiliated for what they were born to satisfy a bunch of bigoted creeps.

 

[g5000]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

I am intimately familiar with Libertarians, having been around them my entire adult life. I am a Bill Buckley conservative, after all.

A yet you accuse me of drinking the kool aid of FoxNews for holding Libertarian views. Why is that?

Because you are not supporting the Constitution and the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

so again, you think posting signs on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays" is ok?

we should go back to the jim crow era?

yes, some settled laws are bad... like heller, like citizens united, like dred scott, like korematsu.

this isn't that.

You are confusing two things, "ok" and "constitutional".

I do not personally think that such a thing is ok and I would never choose to give my money to someone that did such a thing.

But the Constitution does not care what I think is "Ok" or not.

the constitution is not a literal document.... well, except to rightwingnuts.

if those things are not ok then the law needs to protect against them. I understand that rules aggravate certain people. but what aggravates people more is seeing people humiliated for what they were born to satisfy a bunch of bigoted creeps.

Well yes, the constitution is a literal document, it very clearly lays out the power of the Fed Govt. It is not a suggestion or a rough outline.

It is not about being aggravated, it is about personal liberty. Every rule the Govt puts into place takes away from one's personal liberty.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Gays are not getting more than heterosexuals. I know Fox News has convinced you of this, but it's bullshit.

I love it when morons like you accuse me of this while in a dozen other threads i am the far left liberal.

Libertarianism takes a basic level of intelligence to understand...that is why it confuses you so much

I am intimately familiar with Libertarians, having been around them my entire adult life. I am a Bill Buckley conservative, after all.

A yet you accuse me of drinking the kool aid of FoxNews for holding Libertarian views. Why is that?

Because you are not supporting the Constitution and the equal protection of the laws.

You yourself openly admitted that some groups get more protection than others, thus there is no equal protection.

You cannot have "more" and "equal" at the same time, it has to be one or the other.