That is not how the Supreme Court works. Never heard of stare decisi? But I suppose in theory it is possible Clinton would appoint extreme homophobic, racist and sexist judges who would ignore the principles of court and rule of law. You have quite a low opinion of women.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be dovetailing with the Trump downward derp spiral
PS: I have indeed heard of star decisis and it's not as simple as you would like us to believe . For one thing, it generally applies to lower courts following the precedent set by higher courts. Secondly, it is not an absolute and there are circumstances where it does not apply. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm In the Obergefell decision, the court specifically overturned Baker v. Nelson, long held out by anti gay marriage people as the fire wall against a ruling in favor of marriage equality.
ProgressivePatriot....... in your opinion..... am I DennisTate / Dennis Tate..... mostly sincere in my appeal for greater cooperation between the LGBT community with Christians and Conservatives, especially here in Canada....... or do you discern that I am 90% or more just trying to gain some publicity? (For the record.... I regard that I personally tend to regard my own motives as probably being somewhat more altruistic than they probably are...... I am not saying that my motives are 100% pure..... and entirely devoid of self-interest but...... I really would like to think that my motives are significantly more sincere than perhaps 80% of Canadians interested in becoming the National Leader of Canada's Conservative Party)?! You and I have participated in some of the same discussions over the past few years....... and I believe that you have done at least something of a psychological profile of DennisTate........ we all do this of others to some degree?! http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ristian-cooperation-decrease-persecution.html LGBT and Christian cooperation to decrease persecution.... .... http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...tional-leader-canadas-conservative-party.html Dennis Tate for National Leader of Canada's Conservative Party.
Thank you for providing the links to two good articles. Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article95330042.html#storylink=cpy This statement in the article though........ is not so logical...... just because The Donald hangs around with Christian ministers...... does not in any way mean that he personally would not want to see Christian pastors take some genuine steps toward the LGBT community........ I have read articles that assert that children raised in a household of two Gay parents can be very happy............. but...... that doesn't necessarily mean that children might not be five percent happier in a home with a male father and female mother...... if only for the reason that their classmates at school might pick on them less???! For the record.... I am of the belief that a greater acceptance of adoption by Gay parents can begin to reduce the incidence of abortions........ by expanding the range of Choice..... .for mothers who are considering having an abortion. We humans......(including The Donald).... can have complicated opinions and we cannot be nailed down as being politically left or right on all issues....... .just by our stance on one topic or question. http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...tion-gay-community-can-prevent-abortions.html Adoption by Gay community can prevent abortions. Near death experiencer Christian Andreason was shown that the Ancient of Days the Father and the Ancient of Days the Mother (The Holy Spirit) have plans for the LGBT community. Many long term stable Gay couples could inspire dozens of heterosexual couples to be willing to become adoptive parents in the near future when Gay couples are more free to adopt a child.
I have no reason to believe that you are not sincere on this just as I believe that you were sincere on you proposal about adoption by LGBT people to reduce abortions. As far as a psychological profile goes, I can't say that I have a handle on you from afar. Arm chair analysis is tricky- even when you can see a person on live TV. However, you are certainly more rational and intelligent than the average PF member- particularly the bigots and RWNJs here . And no ones motives are pure.
One must first ask what are "lgbt rights?" Are they the same rights everybody else has or are they special protections? Often times I find it means special protections. The most important rights are the those listed in the first amendment. Second are the ones listed in the second amendment, and so forth. If they said the rights in the constitution don't apply to you because you are homosexual or trans than we'd have an issue.
Really? Special protections? Can you give any examples of what those special protections are? Is marriage equality, the expectation of being treated the same as other in places of public accommodation, being protected from discrimination in housing and employment " special protections" . And this is coming from a heterosexual, cisgender, 69 year old white guy. All rights that we all enjoy are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.
Well I've heard people saying there should be protections against discrimination in housing and business. Like the civil rights act protects race religion and so forth. This would be special protection. No. Yes. Well I'm a gay 34 year old mixed race guy. I want equality, not special treatment. True, but rights are negative in nature.
OK, so in your view marriage is a right but the expectation of being treated the same as other in places of public accommodation, being protected from discrimination in housing and employment " are special protections"? You know, of course that generally we are on the same side here and I hope that you will consider me an ally, at least on the issue of LGBT rights, but there are things about you that I don’t get. Saying that these things are “special rights” echoes the rhetoric of the anti-gay bigots that we encounter daily. I contend that they are not at all special. For one thing, laws against discrimination do not read in a way that singles out any particular ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation for protection. They prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation (among other things at times) So, they prohibit gay people from discriminating against straight people etc. , in the same way that they prohibit the kind of discrimination that we usually think of. Secondly, non minority people are rarely the targets of discrimination while various minority people often are. The laws do nothing more than level the playing field for the minorities so as they can enjoy the same treatment that others take for granted. That is not “special” All rights are negative? Perhaps. That view supports what I’m saying. Negative rights oblige the inaction of not discriminating.
It would only be a special protection if it protected only specific religious beliefs, specific races, or persons of a specific sexual orientation. But that is not what anti-discrimination laws say, and not what they should do. The problem with this idea, that people should be able to discriminate against anyone they please, is that we don't live in a society where all demographics are perfectly balanced in numbers, economic power, and political power. Allowing everyone to discriminate against any groups they don't like doesn't cure this - it just makes things worse for those who are already economically and politically disadvantaged, usually because they are members of minority populations, or are mired in poverty (an economic status that is often the longstanding, hard to cure result of past discrimination.) The idea that we should allow everyone to discriminate against anyone they please is rooted in idealism. I am not a fan of idealism, because we don't live in an ideal world. The ideological pursuit of such 'golden ideals' is therefore not founded on the reality of the world in which we live, but requires that we ignore these inequalities that exist within our society. It is as though people think the ideal that we are all "created equal" somehow means that we all actually experience equality (or would if government would get out of the way.) It is founded on a completely false premise - that we all start from an equal place in life. The plain fact is that if we take away protections, the only people who will experience 'equality', power, and wealth are those who already have it in some form - those who are privileged by the circumstances of their birth into the right groups, or right families, for example Of course there are exceptions - people who manage to overcome adverse conditions. But let us not lose sight of the fact that they are exceptions, not the rule. This is why I cannot bring myself to sign on to libertarian ideology. The end result is that the rich and powerful become more rich and more powerful. It is not that I begrudge anyone their achievements. I simply adhere to the belief that with great power comes great responsibility. But instead we live in a society where they get theirs, and screw the rest of us. People have adopted the ideology that each person is responsible only to themselves, and for themselves alone. Such extreme individualism spells death to a functioning society. We must instead find a balance that supports the rights of individuals against the overbearing interest of "the State", without complete abandonment of the idea that we're ultimately all in this together. So, I am not a statist or authoritarian, either. I have seen first hand what happens when the rich and powerful manipulate the State to preserve their own misplaced sense of superiority. The State is not our savior. But that doesn't mean it has no role whatsoever to play in the shaping of our society, either. To think otherwise requires aspirations to anarchy and ultimately chaos. Our founders knew the dangers of despotic authoritarianism - they lived under it. But they did not abandon us to anarchy and chaos. They recognized the need for a functional government, and the limited role of the State in shaping our society. So I take the somewhat murky middle ground. The State has its role to play, but we should be wary of those who attempt to manipulate it to unbalance things in their favor, and we should not cede all control over our own lives and destinies to the State. Nonetheless, I conclude: Anti-discrimination laws still have their place in all of this. They must be generalized, favoring no specific race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. - but protecting those the State serves from undue examples of discrimination that target such differences where they have no relevance. Do not mistake this however for a different form of idealism. I do not hold any illusions about creating a perfect society where everyone just loves each other and gets along without any friction. Nay, it's because I don't subscribe to such idealism that I do see a place for anti-discrimination laws.
No marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. One the judiciary shouldn't have established as a right. They could have struck down all of doma and marriages that occurred in states that have it would have been covered by interstate commerce. You also don't have the right to be free of discrimination. That is an entitlement. So? If it's right it's right. I value the right of the business owner to deny customers for whatever reason he wants over the right to be a customer. One right exists in the constitution the other does not. One right is negative the other is not. So if i visit a Jewish painter and I'm a Nazi, they have to paint my house? No, I think it should be the prerogative of the business owner to say who they serve. Laws against discriminating are wrong. Everyone is a member of a minority group, and everybody is a member of a majority group. One way or another. Nobody needs special protections we all need to be treated equal. No it doesn't. What you ate saying is that people have the right to not be discriminated against. That's horse manure. We discriminate all the time. We discriminate against youth with the purchase and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. We also discriminate against age in issuing drivers license and age of consent. Also purchase of fire arms and homes entering contracts. So forth. We discriminate against men by creating a women's bathroom gyms discriminate against men and sometimes there are women only gyms. Airlines discriminate against fat and large people, so do car manufacturers roller coasters ands such. Amusement parks discriminate against people who are short. Discrimination is perfectly acceptable. In many cases it's wise. Businesses must have that ability.
Good lord. We don't need anti discrimination laws. It's not endemic. Some people just need to grow thicker skin. If someone doesn't want to serve you go somewhere else.
What if no one in a city will serve you? Move? How about we hold for profit open to the public business to that standard.
No,then we adress it, locally What standard? Thay anybody walking into your place has the right to your business? No. How about the market be free and we only impose these extremely obstructive laws when absolutely necessary.
The "right to marry" has two components: 1) The right of individuals to enter into agreements with each other. 2) The right of individuals to enjoy equal access to their government without undue discrimination. Are you telling us that neither right exists? Read on: This isn't to say that there's a right to enter into an agreement whose execution would deprive others of their rights. Rights are not unlimited; they have to be balanced against each other, for them to be the least bit meaningful at all. It is the nature of law, and therefore of government, to discriminate between individuals who fit the purpose of the law, and those who do not. Arguments over marriage ultimately reach a particular point of disagreement - the purpose of the law and government recognizing marriages. However: If a government recognizes marriages, and bases the provision of certain benefits, protections, and establishment of certain responsibilities upon that recognition, then it stands to reason that individuals who marry, because they have a right to equal access to their government without undue discrimination, likewise have a right to the recognition of their marriages, absent some clear reason to bar them. What some people argue to be the purpose of government recognition of marriage is not codified in our current law as its express purpose. There likewise seems to be no due cause to bar some of the things they wish to bar. I am not interested in empty declarations that "marriage is not a right", or that it is merely a "privilege", etc. If you think marriage isn't a right, then explain to us why it cannot be, without this extraneous noise. Which asks us to ignore the fact that undue discrimination is at odds with the concept of equality. Again, we aren't talking about "special protections"; we are talking about what the actual law is. It does not provide protections specific to anyone's race, etc. Except you apparently refuse to recognize the difference between discrimination that serves a reasonable purpose, versus discrimination that focuses on perceptions about a person for reasons wholly irrelevant to the particular situation. We have no obligation to join you in such willful blindness.
As a small business owner I can say with 100% certainly that equal accommodation is not an extremely obstructive law. Licensing requirements - maximum bidding awards - 200 page legal documents are obstructive, not having to treat all customers equally.
I'm not reading all that (*)(*)(*)(*). No it's not a right. If you have to have a license it isn't a right. - - - Updated - - - I'm not reading all that (*)(*)(*)(*). No it's not a right. If you have to have a license it isn't a right.
Well good for you. I still think it's a problem to say people have the right to commerce with someone. You don't have a problem with it. But your business is not all businesses. Others may. Who are you to tell them who they should serve?
I disagree, they agreed to the requirements of the municipality that issues their license, "If you have to have a license it isn't a right". If they disagree with those requirements they can open a private club or open in an area that aligns with their principals. No one is telling them they have to serve anyone - just that they have to serve the public if they open a business (with a license).
Really? Ask an amosexual gun nut who has a license to purchase and own if having guns is a right or not.
Fine, you're free to allow yourself to be inconvenienced, humiliated and demeaned while the bigots feel emboldened and victorious. Other feel differently and you cannot decide that for everyone.
