A Legal Fork for SCOTUS: How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class.

[Billy_Kinetta]

Jesus, but the stupid is strong in this one.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

We were not discussing AA, racial quotas or any state programs; we were discussing laws that ban discrimination.

Indeed. Actually, we were discussing protected classes.

Are you so dense you do not understand that a law that states that it is "illegal to discriminate on the basis of race" means that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race?

And yet, the federal government and many state governments discriminate every day on behalf of protected classes.

What is the problem?

Too funny. Your cognitive disabilities are another matter altogether.

 

[paddymurphy]

Jesus, but the stupid is strong in this one.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

We were not discussing AA, racial quotas or any state programs; we were discussing laws that ban discrimination.

Indeed. Actually, we were discussing protected classes.

Are you so dense you do not understand that a law that states that it is "illegal to discriminate on the basis of race" means that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race?

And yet, the federal government and many state governments discriminate every day on behalf of protected classes.

What is the problem?

Too funny. Your cognitive disabilities are another matter altogether.

Billy, your mother and father must have been too closely related. That would explain your diminished mental capacity. Laws that ban discrimination based on protected classes; i.e. race, etc. Federal and state governments do not discriminate on behalf of protected classes. That is illegal. But, with your stunted intellect, I would not expect you to understand any of this.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The "right" , you moron, is the right to not be denied equal protection of the law and the right to liberty; to be able to make important decisions about your personal life without government intrusion.

And yet you seek to intrude upon the beliefs of certain individuals and organizations and force acceptance and in fact participation in what is to them unacceptable.

How very interesting. Pushme-Pullyu.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Federal and state governments do not discriminate on behalf of protected classes.

Funniest thing I've read all week. Thank you.

Your myopia is surpassed only by the weakness of your powers of comprehension.

 

[paddymurphy]

The "right" , you moron, is the right to not be denied equal protection of the law and the right to liberty; to be able to make important decisions about your personal life without government intrusion.

And yet you seek to intrude upon the beliefs of certain individuals and organizations and force acceptance and in fact participation in what is to them unacceptable.

How very interesting. Pushme-Pullyu.

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

 

[Silhouette]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static. Muslims are an identifiable religion. Women are a static gender. But if you read the OP (which I hope you do before you start debating here), "LGBG..Q..etc.???" isn't even aware of who itself is. Yet based on a shifting, fluid largely self-applied/diagnosed "identity", that is in no way static, they are claiming rights that other static groups have.

If they can ever make themselves into a viable church, instead of just a deviant sex cult, and get tax-exempt status, then they might be entitled as a recognizable group with defined attributes in order to claim "rights and priveleges". But so far, all they are is a minority group of behaviors the majority finds repugnant in the arena of marriage. Especially true when you consider their proposed-redaction to marriage includes stripping children in marriage (who every state anticiptes to arrive in one form or another and why states are involved in incentivizing marriages at all by losing money on tax breaks) of either a mother or a father as an institution!

We'd better nail the premise down before we start drawing conclusions off of it that will stand to unravel the social fabric we've known for millenia. If these are just behaviors, how can they be exempt from regulation by the majority? That starts to edge dangerously close to unravelling the foundation of just all American law in general. Behaviors don't have rights and priveleges. The people doing them are generally protected but their behavior doesn't have a right to dictate to the majority. Where would we stop? What behaviors would or would not be protected in the future that the majority finds unacceptable?

 

[Skylar]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static. Muslims are an identifiable religion. Women are a static gender. But if you read the OP (which I hope you do before you start debating here), "LGBG..Q..etc.???" isn't even aware of who itself is. Yet based on a shifting, fluid largely self-applied/diagnosed "identity", that is in no way static, they are claiming rights that other static groups have.

Your 'static status' requirement is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have never used it. And they've never had a problem protecting gays. As the Romer decision demonstrates elegantly:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

And done. None of your imaginary requirements obligate anyone to do anything.

As you're nobody.

 

[Syriusly]

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.

This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.

I like the soup analogy better than an umbrella though. Trying to nail down what exactly an 'LGBT...??' person is is like trying to eat soup with a fork. Have fun parsing out all the lawsuits in the future!

You sure do have a hate on for anyone who isn't straight.

 

[Syriusly]

Just another of Silhouette's "hate the gays" threads.

 

[paddymurphy]

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.

This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.

I like the soup analogy better than an umbrella though. Trying to nail down what exactly an 'LGBT...??' person is is like trying to eat soup with a fork. Have fun parsing out all the lawsuits in the future!

You sure do have a hate on for anyone who isn't straight.

He hates people who get blow jobs, or hand jobs or whose sexual act is not "man on top, get it over with quick". Any sex act that is not all about the actual biological functions of the parts involved is, to this sad thing, "deviant."

 

[Silhouette]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static. Muslims are an identifiable religion. Women are a static gender. But if you read the OP (which I hope you do before you start debating here), "LGBT..Q..etc.???" isn't even aware of who itself is. Yet based on a shifting, fluid largely self-applied/diagnosed "identity", that is in no way static, they are claiming rights that other static groups have.

If they can ever make themselves into a viable church, instead of just a deviant sex cult, and get tax-exempt status, then they might be entitled as a recognizable group with defined attributes in order to claim "rights and priveleges". But so far, all they are is a minority group of behaviors the majority finds repugnant in the arena of marriage. Especially true when you consider their proposed-redaction to marriage includes stripping children in marriage (who every state anticiptes to arrive in one form or another and why states are involved in incentivizing marriages at all by losing money on tax breaks) of either a mother or a father as an institution!

We'd better nail the premise down before we start drawing conclusions off of it that will stand to unravel the social fabric we've known for millenia. If these are just behaviors, how can they be exempt from regulation by the majority? That starts to edge dangerously close to unravelling the foundation of just all American law in general. Behaviors don't have rights and priveleges. The people doing them are generally protected but their behavior doesn't have a right to dictate to the majority. Where would we stop? What behaviors would or would not be protected in the future that the majority finds unacceptable?

And done. None of your imaginary requirements obligate anyone to do anything.

As you're nobody.

That's it? That's all you got? Is that what you're closing argument would be to the Justices? "Your Honors, my opposition is "a nobody". I rest my case!."

 

[paddymurphy]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static. Muslims are an identifiable religion. Women are a static gender. But if you read the OP (which I hope you do before you start debating here), "LGBT..Q..etc.???" isn't even aware of who itself is. Yet based on a shifting, fluid largely self-applied/diagnosed "identity", that is in no way static, they are claiming rights that other static groups have.

If they can ever make themselves into a viable church, instead of just a deviant sex cult, and get tax-exempt status, then they might be entitled as a recognizable group with defined attributes in order to claim "rights and priveleges". But so far, all they are is a minority group of behaviors the majority finds repugnant in the arena of marriage. Especially true when you consider their proposed-redaction to marriage includes stripping children in marriage (who every state anticiptes to arrive in one form or another and why states are involved in incentivizing marriages at all by losing money on tax breaks) of either a mother or a father as an institution!

We'd better nail the premise down before we start drawing conclusions off of it that will stand to unravel the social fabric we've known for millenia. If these are just behaviors, how can they be exempt from regulation by the majority? That starts to edge dangerously close to unravelling the foundation of just all American law in general. Behaviors don't have rights and priveleges. The people doing them are generally protected but their behavior doesn't have a right to dictate to the majority. Where would we stop? What behaviors would or would not be protected in the future that the majority finds unacceptable?

And done. None of your imaginary requirements obligate anyone to do anything.

As you're nobody.

That's it? That's all you got? Is that what you're closing argument would be to the Justices? "Your Honors, my opposition is "a nobody". I rest my case!."

You would have been hauled out of court by the bailiff halfway through your ignorant rant.

 

[mdk]

Right, we seek to force restaurants to not ban blacks; for hotels to not ban Muslims; for employer to not refuse to hire women. How tyrannical of the people of this country to outlaw such harmless practices.

The whole issue with this is an issue of premise. Blacks are an identifiable group, static. Muslims are an identifiable religion. Women are a static gender. But if you read the OP (which I hope you do before you start debating here), "LGBT..Q..etc.???" isn't even aware of who itself is. Yet based on a shifting, fluid largely self-applied/diagnosed "identity", that is in no way static, they are claiming rights that other static groups have.

If they can ever make themselves into a viable church, instead of just a deviant sex cult, and get tax-exempt status, then they might be entitled as a recognizable group with defined attributes in order to claim "rights and priveleges". But so far, all they are is a minority group of behaviors the majority finds repugnant in the arena of marriage. Especially true when you consider their proposed-redaction to marriage includes stripping children in marriage (who every state anticiptes to arrive in one form or another and why states are involved in incentivizing marriages at all by losing money on tax breaks) of either a mother or a father as an institution!

We'd better nail the premise down before we start drawing conclusions off of it that will stand to unravel the social fabric we've known for millenia. If these are just behaviors, how can they be exempt from regulation by the majority? That starts to edge dangerously close to unravelling the foundation of just all American law in general. Behaviors don't have rights and priveleges. The people doing them are generally protected but their behavior doesn't have a right to dictate to the majority. Where would we stop? What behaviors would or would not be protected in the future that the majority finds unacceptable?

And done. None of your imaginary requirements obligate anyone to do anything.

As you're nobody.

That's it? That's all you got? Is that what you're closing argument would be to the Justices? "Your Honors, my opposition is "a nobody". I rest my case!."

You would have been hauled out of court by the bailiff halfway through your ignorant rant.

That is once the uproarious laughter subsided.

 

[Silhouette]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

 

[paddymurphy]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

My people? Straight, white middle aged men? I thought we we're talking about gay people.

 

[mdk]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

Oh cry me a river! Your nonsensical points have been refuted by numerous posters and on numerous threads. You say the same delusional shit day in and out. We get it already...you really hate gays. You have started dozens and dozens of threads on your irrational hate. You're mentally ill Sil and at this point I simply just pity you.

 

[Silhouette]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

Oh cry me a river! Your nonsensical points have been refuted by numerous posters and on numerous threads. You say the same delusional shit day in and out. We get it already...you really hate gays. You have started dozens and dozens of threads on your irrational hate. You're mentally ill Sil and at this point I simply just pity you.

I am pretty much the lone voice on the opposition to your cult. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. Cults are bad for countries. I took ancient civilization in college; and current civilization studies. I paid attention in class while the rest of my classmates were hung over or paid someone else to take the class for them.

When another poster who has taken up the torch on the "T" membership of your crazy-train cult brought up the link in this OP, I went to it and read it. I saw that your membership doesn't even understand itself. So, having a logical brain, I asked myself "how the hell then can they claim to be an actual static group deserving of rights and privileges etc. etc. if they shift around from year to year and don't even understand who they are?"

Then I made a thread about that. It's all perfectly logical. You're the one who rants, belittles others and bullies on a regular basis...

 

[mdk]

Two ad hominems and no substantive rebuttal to the points about your own people admitting you aren't a static group and that you don't even know yourselves.. Yet you want special rights and privileges...based on ...what was that again?...

Oh cry me a river! Your nonsensical points have been refuted by numerous posters and on numerous threads. You say the same delusional shit day in and out. We get it already...you really hate gays. You have started dozens and dozens of threads on your irrational hate. You're mentally ill Sil and at this point I simply just pity you.

I am pretty much the lone voice on the opposition to your cult. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. Cults are bad for countries. I took ancient civilization in college; and current civilization studies. I paid attention in class while the rest of my classmates were hung over or paid someone else to take the class for them.

When another poster who has taken up the torch on the "T" membership of your crazy-train cult brought up the link in this OP, I went to it and read it. I saw that your membership doesn't even understand itself. So, having a logical brain, I asked myself "how the hell then can they claim to be an actual static group deserving of rights and privileges etc. etc. if they shift around from year to year and don't even understand who they are?"

Then I made a thread about that. It's all perfectly logical. You're the one who rants, belittles others and bullies on a regular basis...

Too bad you didn't take any logic courses in college.

Spare me your haughty chiding Sil. You call gays mentally ill, liken them to child predators, drunks, bulimics, cults, and a whole host of other nastiness nonsense. You lie, twist, ignore, and misrepresent everything concerning gays to prop up your bigoted narrative. All you do is belittle people and it is having the opposite effect. You've done more to help usher in gay rights in this nation then hinder. Your nonsense turns people away from your crusade, so for that I thank you dearly.

 

[dblack]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

NO. Mostly because there should not BE any "special classes" to begin with.

Yep. But that means a level playing field. And those who already have their special privileges don't want them revoked.

We seem to be giving up on the idea that government's primary responsibility is the protection of universal, individual rights. People today seem to see government, more and more, as a means of distributing power to interest groups. Collective rights are what our government is preoccupied with now, and what determines any person's legal rights is the identity group they belong to, and how effectively they can wield political influence.

 

[Anathema]

Yep. But that means a level playing field. And those who already have their special privileges don't want them revoked.

We seem to be giving up on the idea that government's primary responsibility is the protection of universal, individual rights. People today seem to see government, more and more, as a means of distributing power to interest groups. Collective rights are what our government is preoccupied with now, and what determines any person's legal rights is the identity group they belong to, and how effectively they can wield political influence.

Yes it would mean equality across the board, and the special interests have no desire to ever see that, since it would mean they would required to make their own way.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Rights. Especially as we see them in the US now. I believe there need to be Responsibilities and Duties attached to Rights, even if that makes them Privileges instead of Rights. If you fail to live up to the Responsibilities/Duties, the Right/Privilege would be revoked.