Today may be The Day for California!

[g5000]

We do that all the time when it comes to the right to associate with others of our choosing, why is this any different?

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

The justices said clubs with large membership rosters that serve meals regularly and that rent their facilities to outsiders are more like business establishments than intimate social groups. Therefore, these clubs have no right to escape anti-discrimination regulations that apply to businesses, the court said.

An individual club could still defend its exclusivity on individual grounds, said Milton E. Meyer, past president of the National Club Assn.

In 1984, the justices said the Jaycees were not a truely private organization and therefore could not exclude women as members, and last year the court applied the same principle to the more exclusive Rotary Clubs. In both opinions, the justices said that some private clubs may be so small and intimate that they are off limits to government regulation, but that larger clubs where business is transacted are not similarly immune.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe if you hadn't let all of those Catholics invade the state you'd have your law.

Unintended consequences.

 

[martybegan]

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

thats private, not government. Nice try.

Its a law, where we strip people of the right to ascociate with whom they choose. What part of your statement involved government vs. private as a qualifier?

Its amazing when people cant admit that they were proved wrong. Man (or Woman) up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

States have been issuing Civil Marriage licenses since the dawn of this country.

And no California didn't just wake up one day and start issuing Civil Marriage licenses, the State Supreme Court ruled based on the State Constitution - then the State started issuing Civil Marriage licenses without discrimination based on gender.

AFTER that, then those that opposed Civil Marriage for same-sex couples removed that right as recognized prior to November (IIRC) 6th 2008.


>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

thats private, not government. Nice try.

Its a law, where we strip people of the right to ascociate with whom they choose. What part of your statement involved government vs. private as a qualifier?

Its amazing when people cant admit that they were proved wrong. Man (or Woman) up.

The justices said clubs with large membership rosters that serve meals regularly and that rent their facilities to outsiders are more like business establishments than intimate social groups. Therefore, these clubs have no right to escape anti-discrimination regulations that apply to businesses, the court said.

Dude you are so wrong its just sad.

 

[mudwhistle]

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

States have been issuing Civil Marriage licenses since the dawn of this country.

And no California didn't just wake up one day and start issuing Civil Marriage licenses, the State Supreme Court ruled based on the State Constitution - then the State started issuing Civil Marriage licenses without discrimination based on gender.

AFTER that, then those that opposed Civil Marriage for same-sex couples removed that right as recognized prior to November (IIRC) 6th 2008.


>>>>

You're not talking to some idiot.

Just because the State Supreme Court made a ruling it doesn't become the law of the land. It has to withstand any legal challenges. It didn't. Now the rule of law will be established at the Supreme Court level.

 

[Plasmaball]

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

somebody is a liar.

 

[mudwhistle]

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

States have been issuing Civil Marriage licenses since the dawn of this country.

And no California didn't just wake up one day and start issuing Civil Marriage licenses, the State Supreme Court ruled based on the State Constitution - then the State started issuing Civil Marriage licenses without discrimination based on gender.

AFTER that, then those that opposed Civil Marriage for same-sex couples removed that right as recognized prior to November (IIRC) 6th 2008.


>>>>

You're not talking to some idiot.

Just because the State Supreme Court made a ruling it doesn't become the law of the land. It has to withstand any legal challenges. It didn't. Now the rule of law will be established at the Supreme Court level.

And I'm tired of hearing this "The Will of the People" when that will goes against them.

 

[martybegan]

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

An individual club could still defend its exclusivity on individual grounds, said Milton E. Meyer, past president of the National Club Assn.

In 1984, the justices said the Jaycees were not a truely private organization and therefore could not exclude women as members, and last year the court applied the same principle to the more exclusive Rotary Clubs. In both opinions, the justices said that some private clubs may be so small and intimate that they are off limits to government regulation, but that larger clubs where business is transacted are not similarly immune.

.

All well and good, but I also disagree with anti-discrimination laws for businesses, except in cases of interstate travel or nescessity. The government should be forced to be bias free, people and thier organziations should be able to be as biased as they want. Let the market decide to get rid of bigots, not the government.

 

[martybegan]

thats private, not government. Nice try.

Its a law, where we strip people of the right to ascociate with whom they choose. What part of your statement involved government vs. private as a qualifier?

Its amazing when people cant admit that they were proved wrong. Man (or Woman) up.

The justices said clubs with large membership rosters that serve meals regularly and that rent their facilities to outsiders are more like business establishments than intimate social groups. Therefore, these clubs have no right to escape anti-discrimination regulations that apply to businesses, the court said.

Dude you are so wrong its just sad.

I disagree with the court on its ruling. A club is a club. Why do people have to force it (by law) to accept members that it doesnt want? Why should a business that doesnt affect interstate commerce of provide a nessasasry service be forced to serve or hire people it doesnt want to?

Anti-bias laws should be limited to government and interstate trade/nessasary buisinesses. let the people via the market sort out the rest.

And you still wont admit I found a law. You are a gutless asshole.

 

[jillian]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

the people can't act unconstitutionally to violate the constitutional rights of others.

what if the majority will was to outlaw mormonism?

would you think it ok to overturn the will of the people.

depravity is what's in YOUR mind.

normal people don't care.

 

[WorldWatcher]

For one thing, you're misrepresenting my position.

For another I think I'm being more honest than the people here that are against Prop 8.


It's impossible to strip a right you never had. States and cities just started granting marriage licenses without the right to do so. Then the state put the issue to the voters and let them decide.

Sorry you lost, but that's how it goes sometimes.

States have been issuing Civil Marriage licenses since the dawn of this country.

And no California didn't just wake up one day and start issuing Civil Marriage licenses, the State Supreme Court ruled based on the State Constitution - then the State started issuing Civil Marriage licenses without discrimination based on gender.

AFTER that, then those that opposed Civil Marriage for same-sex couples removed that right as recognized prior to November (IIRC) 6th 2008.


>>>>

You're not talking to some idiot.

I'm not the one that said states had just started granting Civil Marriage licenses without the right to do so.

Just because the State Supreme Court made a ruling it doesn't become the law of the land.

When it's a California statutory law as measured against the State Constitution, then ya - their ruling makes it the law in California unless there is a federal issue.

It has to withstand any legal challenges. It didn't. Now the rule of law will be established at the Supreme Court level.

The re:Marriages ruling was the result of legal challenges and resulted in Same-sex Civil Marraige being recognized under State law by the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution.

And I'm tired of hearing this "The Will of the People" when that will goes against them.

Personally I think the gay community made a big fuck-up by challenging Prop 8 in the courts. The vote was very close but the demonstrations after it's passage lost them a lot of political capital. If they had taken the same track as Maine and accepted the passage of Prop 8 with humility and grace and immediately started an outreach campaign like Maine's, then Prop 8 would have been repealed at the ballot box in either 2010 or by this year.

Winning California at the ballot box would have been a HUGE deal in terms of national acceptance. The likely narrow ruling that will result from the court challenge, not so much of an impact on future votes to establish Civil Marriage equality.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

the people can't act unconstitutionally to violate the constitutional rights of others.

what if the majority will was to outlaw mormonism?

would you think it ok to overturn the will of the people.

depravity is what's in YOUR mind.

normal people don't care.

Well then you would be in violation of the first amendment, which prohibits impinging on the free practice or Religion. Its explicit, not the mental doublethink you have to pull with equal protection.

Next example please.

 

[Plasmaball]

Its a law, where we strip people of the right to ascociate with whom they choose. What part of your statement involved government vs. private as a qualifier?

Its amazing when people cant admit that they were proved wrong. Man (or Woman) up.

The justices said clubs with large membership rosters that serve meals regularly and that rent their facilities to outsiders are more like business establishments than intimate social groups. Therefore, these clubs have no right to escape anti-discrimination regulations that apply to businesses, the court said.

Dude you are so wrong its just sad.

I disagree with the court on its ruling. A club is a club. Why do people have to force it (by law) to accept members that it doesnt want? Why should a business that doesnt affect interstate commerce of provide a nessasasry service be forced to serve or hire people it doesnt want to?

Anti-bias laws should be limited to government and interstate trade/nessasary buisinesses. let the people via the market sort out the rest.

And you still wont admit I found a law. You are a gutless asshole.

you disagree? who gives a fuck if you disagree with the ruling. It shows you to be wrong.

You are one of those the details dont matter people. I can't wait till you type of people are just gone, out of the political picture.

 

[martybegan]

Dude you are so wrong its just sad.

I disagree with the court on its ruling. A club is a club. Why do people have to force it (by law) to accept members that it doesnt want? Why should a business that doesnt affect interstate commerce of provide a nessasasry service be forced to serve or hire people it doesnt want to?

Anti-bias laws should be limited to government and interstate trade/nessasary buisinesses. let the people via the market sort out the rest.

And you still wont admit I found a law. You are a gutless asshole.

you disagree? who gives a fuck if you disagree with the ruling. It shows you to be wrong.

You are one of those the details dont matter people. I can't wait till you type of people are just gone, out of the political picture.

Still wont admit I found a law than answered your question.

And since I am part of "the people" my opinon should matter alot more than it does now. Just because you feel comfortable giving over your rights to a judicial oligarchy doesnt mean I have to follw along.

and just wishing people like me were gone as opposed to actually trying to counter my arguments by "I like something else, therefore my way should happen irregardless of process, neenerneener" shows how weak your argument really is.

And I know you have more rep than me and negging you is pointless. Ill take the point loss to stick it to a gutless hack such as yourself any day of the week.

FOAD.

 

[mudwhistle]

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

In 1984, the justices said the Jaycees were not a truely private organization and therefore could not exclude women as members, and last year the court applied the same principle to the more exclusive Rotary Clubs. In both opinions, the justices said that some private clubs may be so small and intimate that they are off limits to government regulation, but that larger clubs where business is transacted are not similarly immune.

.

All well and good, but I also disagree with anti-discrimination laws for businesses, except in cases of interstate travel or nescessity. The government should be forced to be bias free, people and thier organziations should be able to be as biased as they want. Let the market decide to get rid of bigots, not the government.

Yeah, those anti-Christian bigots need to fucken go.

 

[mudwhistle]

States have been issuing Civil Marriage licenses since the dawn of this country.

And no California didn't just wake up one day and start issuing Civil Marriage licenses, the State Supreme Court ruled based on the State Constitution - then the State started issuing Civil Marriage licenses without discrimination based on gender.

AFTER that, then those that opposed Civil Marriage for same-sex couples removed that right as recognized prior to November (IIRC) 6th 2008.


>>>>

You're not talking to some idiot.

I'm not the one that said states had just started granting Civil Marriage licenses without the right to do so.



When it's a California statutory law as measured against the State Constitution, then ya - their ruling makes it the law in California unless there is a federal issue.

It has to withstand any legal challenges. It didn't. Now the rule of law will be established at the Supreme Court level.

The re:Marriages ruling was the result of legal challenges and resulted in Same-sex Civil Marraige being recognized under State law by the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution.

And I'm tired of hearing this "The Will of the People" when that will goes against them.

Personally I think the gay community made a big fuck-up by challenging Prop 8 in the courts. The vote was very close but the demonstrations after it's passage lost them a lot of political capital. If they had taken the same track as Maine and accepted the passage of Prop 8 with humility and grace and immediately started an outreach campaign like Maine's, then Prop 8 would have been repealed at the ballot box in either 2010 or by this year.

Winning California at the ballot box would have been a HUGE deal in terms of national acceptance. The likely narrow ruling that will result from the court challenge, not so much of an impact on future votes to establish Civil Marriage equality.


>>>>

I agree.

 

[Plasmaball]

I disagree with the court on its ruling. A club is a club. Why do people have to force it (by law) to accept members that it doesnt want? Why should a business that doesnt affect interstate commerce of provide a nessasasry service be forced to serve or hire people it doesnt want to?

Anti-bias laws should be limited to government and interstate trade/nessasary buisinesses. let the people via the market sort out the rest.

And you still wont admit I found a law. You are a gutless asshole.

you disagree? who gives a fuck if you disagree with the ruling. It shows you to be wrong.

You are one of those the details dont matter people. I can't wait till you type of people are just gone, out of the political picture.

Still wont admit I found a law than answered your question.

And since I am part of "the people" my opinon should matter alot more than it does now. Just because you feel comfortable giving over your rights to a judicial oligarchy doesnt mean I have to follw along.

and just wishing people like me were gone as opposed to actually trying to counter my arguments by "I like something else, therefore my way should happen irregardless of process, neenerneener" shows how weak your argument really is.

And I know you have more rep than me and negging you is pointless. Ill take the point loss to stick it to a gutless hack such as yourself any day of the week.

FOAD.

But you didn't. The law states that they can't discriminate either.

The difference like i said is Private you should be able to where in the government all are equal. Government being in the Marriage business must treat everyone fairly.

I know you don't like this and would prefer there to be a second class of citizens, but for the most of us we prefer to achieve something better.

 

[Si modo]

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

The will of the people of California said yes.

Not commenting on it being right or wrong, but that IS the will of the people in CA.

The SCOTUS needs to refuse to hear this. It's a CA issue.