The Quickening: Mistaking Behaviors for Race Creates an American Legal Tsunami

[mdk]

We're up to 85% now.

I bet not even ten people voted in your poll. lol. The only person claiming gay is a race is you. Too funny.

Then if gay isn't a race of people and are behaviors instead, how would we prevent other behaviors in the minority that people find objectionable in the majority from gaining special protections from majority regulation? No, really, how? In the name of equal application of the new standard, how?

So nobody is claiming gay is a race but you!? We all know that already.

There is a reason why the lawyers that argued against gay marriage in court didn't use this standard you invited and that is b/c your batshit legal gibberish is irrelevant to the law.

 

[Silhouette]

We're up to 85% now.

I bet not even ten people voted in your poll. lol. The only person claiming gay is a race is you. Too funny.

Then if gay isn't a race of people and are behaviors instead, how would we prevent other behaviors in the minority that people find objectionable in the majority from gaining special protections from majority regulation? No, really, how? In the name of equal application of the new standard, how?

So nobody is claiming gay is a race but you!? We all know that already.

There is a reason why the lawyers that argued against gay marriage in court didn't use this standard you invited and that is b/c your batshit legal gibberish is irrelevant to the law.

I repeat, what minority repugnant behaviors that have organized will approach SCOTUS next for "special protection from majority regulation"? And how exactly will SCOTUS turn them away under the wide umbrella of "equality"? You haven't answered that question and frankly they can't answer it either..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We're up to 85% now.

I bet not even ten people voted in your poll. lol. The only person claiming gay is a race is you. Too funny.

Then if gay isn't a race of people and are behaviors instead, how would we prevent other behaviors in the minority that people find objectionable in the majority from gaining special protections from majority regulation? No, really, how? In the name of equal application of the new standard, how?

It's a false dichotomy. "Race" and "behavior" are not the only possible descriptors.

How about calling it a "trait"?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay is to race what redhead is to Christian...

 

[mdk]

We're up to 85% now.

I bet not even ten people voted in your poll. lol. The only person claiming gay is a race is you. Too funny.

Then if gay isn't a race of people and are behaviors instead, how would we prevent other behaviors in the minority that people find objectionable in the majority from gaining special protections from majority regulation? No, really, how? In the name of equal application of the new standard, how?

So nobody is claiming gay is a race but you!? We all know that already.

There is a reason why the lawyers that argued against gay marriage in court didn't use this standard you invited and that is b/c your batshit legal gibberish is irrelevant to the law.

I repeat, what minority repugnant behaviors that have organized will approach SCOTUS next for "special protection from majority regulation"? And how exactly will SCOTUS turn them away under the wide umbrella of "equality"? You haven't answered that question and frankly they can't answer it either..

There is nothing to answer as you are the only person making this 'gays are a race' argument. You and only you. Why would I answer a question about a legal standard that has no bearing on the law and one you've pulled out of your arse?

 

[mdk]

I don't even know why anyone bothers? Sil is the very soul of confirmation bias.

 

[Silhouette]

It's a false dichotomy. "Race" and "behavior" are not the only possible descriptors.

How about calling it a "trait"?

You mean like what drug addicts have? Or bulimics? It's also known as "a habituated *drum roll* BEHAVIOR"....stil just a behavior though and not covered under the 14th or any other Constitutional provision. There is no "Americans have a right to do any behavior, no matter how repugnant to the majority rule, as protected acts." That new classification was just added..by SCOTUS...without the Legislative Branch...

Gays marrying strips children of their innate right to both mother and a father in the marriage covenant. A fact left COMPLETELY OUT of the deliberations on gay marriage. Imagine that eh? The most important people involved in the atmosphere of marriage and they weren't even discussed as needing the original structural components of marriage to be preserved for their best benefit in marriage.

Just wow.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's a false dichotomy. "Race" and "behavior" are not the only possible descriptors.

How about calling it a "trait"?

You mean like what drug addicts have? Or bulimics? It's also known as "a habituated *drum roll* BEHAVIOR"....

Neither addiction, nor bulimia are "traits". They are both diseases.

 

[CremeBrulee]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A RACE.

Neither are disabled people, women, or Christians. Many if not most homosexuals believe in some god or other. Isn't denying them the right to marry infringing upon their religious liberties?

 

[Skylar]

Probably best that this legal aspect is discussed here relevant to the "Mistaking Behaviors for Race" focus instead of who is sitting in jail right now...

There is no reason to hold her once she no longer holds the office, so she won't be. When her term is up, she's out, if she doesn't fold before then, which she will...

I don't think she will. The longer she stays in that jail, the more the jury will award her when this is all said and done.
Did you expect there would be no civil disobedience? Are you in support of the people who married gays in California anyway while Prop 8 was law (still is when they impeach Ginsburg & Kagan and retry the case)? If you were in support of that, you are in support also of Kim Davis' refusal on principle. You have your principles, she has hers. Only, she's sitting in jail because of hers. But that's better than eternity in the slammer.

If she loses her job because of her passive but firm religious objections, she is going to FLEECE the state of Kentucky. That's a given. Anyone wishing to retire early might choose to do exactly what she's doing, matter of fact.. In order for the jury to find against Ms. Davis they would have to find that the 1st Amendment no longer is a working amendment and that a person can be discriminated against based on their religion.

See, I told y'all that mistaking behaviors for race was going to cause a legal logjam and unraveling of American Law . But NOOOOOObody wanted to listen. Now we are right in the thick of it, what, not even four months after June's Judicial coup?

Behaviors are what Christains cannot promote. The Anne Heches of this waffling cult whose only binding trait seems to be utter rejection of the missionary position between heterosexuals, cannot demand that Christians abdicate their faith to accomodate the new rainbow religion.

Repeat after me:

"Homosexuality is NOT a race"..."Homosexuality is NOT a race"...."Homosexuality is NOT a race"...ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your turn "Homosexuality is NOT a race"...judges, your turn "Homosexuality is NOT a race"...now Congress, "Homosexuality is NOT race"... State attorneys general, now you: "Homosexuality is NOT a race"..

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A RACE. The mistaken premise is already tearing away at the Constitution. Loosely knit, temporally-shifting organized deviant sex behaviors were NEVER given Constitutional protection. Behaviors are regulated locally at the state level.

I love the cheeky judge who refused to divorce those two people because he said that since his state cannot define what marriage is, then they are also too ignorant to define what marriage isn't. He's leaving that divorce up to the US Supreme Court...lol.. Go judge! Drive that unravelling constitutional issue over the home plate. Tenn. judge refuses Straight Couple's divorce because of Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one has said that homosexuality is a race. Making your entire post more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither addiction, nor bulimia are "traits". They are both diseases.

They don't hurt anyone but the addict/bulimic. Who are you to judge? Maybe they're feeling like they're tired of being shoved in "the closet" for their substance and eating orientations; and want to come out and take over an APA convention, knocking over booths, siezing microphones and infiltrating the ranks so their "diseases" can be rewritten and taken off the DSM too?

Isn't that how repugnant behaviors get themselves off the diseased list and into the mainstream? Did I get anything wrong there? Seems pretty historically accurate...

 

[Skylar]

We're up to 85% now.

I bet not even ten people voted in your poll. lol. The only person claiming gay is a race is you. Too funny.

Then if gay isn't a race of people and are behaviors instead, how would we prevent other behaviors in the minority that people find objectionable in the majority from gaining special protections from majority regulation? No, really, how? In the name of equal application of the new standard, how?

So nobody is claiming gay is a race but you!? We all know that already.

There is a reason why the lawyers that argued against gay marriage in court didn't use this standard you invited and that is b/c your batshit legal gibberish is irrelevant to the law.

Exactly. No one has argued that homosexuality is a 'race'. Its the same gibberish that Silo normally offers. And as consistently irrelevant to the law.

 

[Silhouette]

No one has argued that homosexuality is a 'race'. Its the same gibberish that Silo normally offers. And as consistently irrelevant to the law.

Then for purposes of precise legal classification which will give homosexuals dominant ground over a Christian objecting to promoting them "marrying", what would you tell a jury homosexuals are exactly?