CDZ Can Govt impose one Culture on another Culture against their beliefs?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by emilynghiem, Nov 18, 2017.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,293
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,093
    OK so my bullring thread to NYcarbineer didn't get anywhere on the issue of LGBT definition of gender as cultural.

    Can we explore the question of whether govt can impose on Culture on another against their beliefs?

    Here is the last post on the original thread where I got stuck with NYcarbineer
    California: There are three genders.

    Can we take a similar example of differences in standards or culture,
    and debate how do we decide when govt can or cannot impose when individuals BELIEVE otherwise?

    ==================================================
    EXAMPLE:
    Here's a case out of Texas. A woman and her husband displayed a LARGE bumper sticker on their truck, like the size of an advertisement, that contained the F word considered obscene. A Sheriff got complaints from people, that this was causing a breach or disturbance of the peace. The Sheriff publicized the truck sticker to ask help to contact the owner to resolve the grievances and complaints to PREVENT disturbance or "disorderly conduct" (similar to warning people NOT to cuss out people in a public restaurant but to resolve the conflict civilly to STOP the disturbance).

    Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


    But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”


    In this case, don't the people in THAT district exposed to the obscene bumper sticker
    have the right to complain of disruption of the peace, and distraction to drivers that could trigger road rage, accidents or other unsafe confrontations.

    Just because in a CALIFORNIA CASE IN A COURTROOM the person's obscene statement was ruled lawful and not disruptive, does that mean ALL such cases must be treated the same???
    =========================================

    In the case of transgender recognition and accommodation:
    Can't it be left to individual cases if people AGREE with those LGBT beliefs about culture?
    If clubs in the Montrose area of Houston AGREE to accept cross dressing and all kinds of
    wild costumes and adult wear in public, does that mean this "must be accepted" in all facilities?

    Why can't culture be relative especially if NYcarbineer argues it should be recognized and tolerated
    for LGBT definitions of gender?

    Why can't it be locally decided if people know someone personally when they yell "FU I'm going to strangle you if you don't STFU" and don't mean a REAL death threat that is otherwise a felony.

    If someone is TRULY transitioned from one gender to another in opposition to what their birth certificate
    says, why can't the community around that person make the decision to be okay with that and NOT impose it "in every other case" where someone is CLAIMING to be transgender by cultural identity and not genetics.

    Can we discuss or debate where to draw the line?
    I would prefer to finish the conversation with NYcarbineer, but if anyone else can help us, then thank you!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. MarathonMike
    Offline

    MarathonMike Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Thanks Received:
    1,978
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    The Southwestern Desert
    Ratings:
    +11,035
    I don't see your examples as government imposing one culture on another. In the various examples you cited, the common theme was someone expressing a contrarian view in public either with words or their attire. The government response was not IMO to impose the norms of one culture on another. The contrarian culture is free to express their views but it is reasonable to draw the line at public expression that could likely lead to a conflict. It would be the same if someone wore a "F-k the Fags" jacket in public.
     
  3. Billy_Kinetta
    Offline

    Billy_Kinetta Paladin of the Lost Hour Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    23,127
    Thanks Received:
    4,462
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +26,672
    Personally, I'm of a mind to see a number of things imposed against the Progressives.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    43,031
    Thanks Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,911
    The Constitution acknowledges and protects the right of individual liberty and self-determination, where citizens are free to make personal, private decisions absent unwarranted interference from government – whether to have a child or not, whom to marry, and how to present oneself to society concerning gender identity. (see Lawrence v. Texas (2003))

    This has nothing to do with ‘culture,’ nothing is being ‘forced’ on anyone by government or any other entity.

    Indeed, it’s perfectly appropriate and consistent with the Constitution for government to acknowledge and safeguard the right of individual liberty and self-determination with regard to gender identity.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    68
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +27
    The fourteenth amendment accounts for a lot of the uniformity of the laws. I believe the effect of it has been that if the federal government makes a law, it needs to be applied uniformly across the nation. If a state makes a law (that is independent of any federal law), it still needs to be applied uniformly across the state where it applies.

    Because of the first amendment, “speech laws” definitely interact with federal jurisdiction, so I’d expect a great deal of uniformity across the nation in terms of speech rights. I believe LGBT marriage got tangled up with the feds, because the federal government has laws which interact with “marriage”, so it was decided that because of “equal protection of the laws” the federal government had to make marriage an equal protection issue.

    Civil rights protection is another area where the federal government can interfere at the local level. I’m interested to see how the supreme court rules in “Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission”. I believe some people don’t think being gay is really a “protected class”, and the law surrounding it seems a little fuzzy, so it may end up as something of a landmark case.

    Some schools of thought view civil rights laws that are applied to private businesses as oppressive because the view is that they use statist mechanisms to inhibit peoples’ liberty to discriminate. The US federal government derives its constitutional authority to do this from powers vested by the Commerce Clause.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,293
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,093
    Dear MarathonMike
    The ORIGINAL context and issue
    was actually addressing GENDER IDENTITY,
    which NYcarbineer argued was culturally based and relative,
    not fixed by genetic science. So I was trying to argue, then why
    not respect BOTH approaches as equally a cultural choice of people without imposing either one through govt?

    Now this Free Speech vs disorderly conduct example I injected
    was meant as a comparison on how we ADDRESS the conflict here.

    Some people's cultural or personal background may see more HUMOR
    and not disorderly conduct in the language and presentation.

    So some communities may not have complained but allowed the sticker and owner to be as is.
    In the case of the truck sticker, people complained and the Sheriff followed through to resolve the conflict. In the case of the Courtroom in CA, there was a conviction but it was dropped on appeal. The truck sticker case didn't go that far. And I'm arguing that neither should gender cases have to go further than just that community making a decision among its members how to manage the expression that people are arguing over, based on their different "beliefs" (whether you call that cultural or personal or whatever, I was just trying to treat both sides equally, where if one is considered culturally included then so should the other be respected.)

    I was trying to compare this RELATIVITY and ALLOWANCE
    of each community to make its OWN decisions
    to the situation, case by case, with gender identity that
    NYcarbineer was arguing as "cultural."

    I don't see why it is necessary to try to "legislate nationally" for all such cases
    where I argue it is better to address them individually and locally with the people affected.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  7. ScienceRocks
    Online

    ScienceRocks Democrat all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    58,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,859
    Trophy Points:
    1,900
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +24,044
    There's hundreds of different cultures living together in America.

    Why should fundie Christianity be forced on anyone?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,293
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,093
    Thank you ScienceRocks
    my point exactly!
    If we are saying Govt should not incorporate Christian exercise and expressions
    into public policy, that's where I argue neither should LGBT beliefs
    about orientation or identity be incorporated into law, but policies
    should remain NEUTRAL and neither "prohibit nor establish" one side over another.

    If we don't allow this for Christianity
    why should govt allow this for LGBT beliefs about identity and orientation?
     
  9. OnePercenter
    Offline

    OnePercenter Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    15,770
    Thanks Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,054
    It's all diversionary tactics by the right to keep voters from a real issue such as middle class wages.
     
  10. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,155
    Thanks Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +949
    At the end of the day it must be understood that rights do not come as groups. Rights come as Individuals.

    Additionally, America is a haven for all religions.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page