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

[Silhouette]

I voted no because, despite the practical effect of these laws, they're not intended to create protected classes of people. Some states have adopted them in that way, but it's a mistake to do so. Protected classes, as described by Federal civil rights legislation, are classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. If we define sexuality as one of those traits, any kind of sexual preference - including heterosexuality - would be banned as a basis of discrimination.

A trait is something that is innate, not something that is done. Bulimia by your definition could be a "trait". So could drug addiction. Where do we draw the line when the "trait" is a behavior and not something innate? I was under the impression in this country that human behaviors (as opposed to traits)were subject to local regulation by the majority.. Surely you can see a problem blurring that definition? Sodomites got Lawrence v Texas. Those behaviors got freedom from regulation by the majority in the privacy of their bedroom; but not as a public entity. Especially not when they haven't even sorted out their own behaviors and figured out what to call them or if they are changing from year ot year or decade to decade.

Giving this "class" special rights is none other than giving a cult a special class of rights. And we've seen this cult use that false bestowment of "traits" to gain "class" and then use that legal shoehorn not only to escape regulation by the majority as they make further inroads into our social fabric (without permission), but now also to shut down the 1st Amendment rights of a de facto religion that has been in this country far longer than the LGBT dogma has.

I think this goup calling itself 'LGBTQPRWYBVZKJ..." whatever needs a second look...legally speaking. We need a premise that fits them better than "trait" or "class". Because they are neither. They are in practice, a movement.

 

[Silhouette]

You're right, of course, that the "protected classes" of anti-discrimination laws aren't classes of people. They're classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. That's the letter of the law, and it was the argument used to give civil rights legislation a constitutional veneer. But it's clearly not the common perception of protected classes, and it's not how civil rights laws play out in society....Whether it's because of an inability to make such a subtle distinction, or simply a recognition of practical reality, most people today - on both sides of the debate - see civil rights laws as pro-active measures to ban specific unpopular opinions. Or at least to ban acting on, or promoting those opinions....There seems to be a growing awareness of the basic abuse of government power this represents. And every new "protected class" we create wakes more people up. We need to get back to government that protects our rights equally, rather than trying to tell us how to exercise those rights.

More specifically, it weakens our democratic form of government. It is actually eating away at and eroding it, this misconception that behaviors constitute a static class. I ask the question again, where do we draw the line? More importantly, once a false premise grows legal roots, HOW do we draw the line?

 

[dblack]

I voted no because, despite the practical effect of these laws, they're not intended to create protected classes of people. Some states have adopted them in that way, but it's a mistake to do so. Protected classes, as described by Federal civil rights legislation, are classes of traits that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. If we define sexuality as one of those traits, any kind of sexual preference - including heterosexuality - would be banned as a basis of discrimination.

A trait is something that is innate, not something that is done. Bulimia by your definition could be a "trait". So could drug addiction. Where do we draw the line when the "trait" is a behavior and not something innate?

It's irrelevant in my view. But let me ask you this - wouldn't religion be a 'behavior' by your reasoning? And by that logic, shouldn't it also be removed as a "protected class"?

I was under the impression in this country that human behaviors (as opposed to traits)were subject to local regulation by the majority.

Only to protect individual rights.

 

[Silhouette]

It's irrelevant in my view. But let me ask you this - wouldn't religion be a 'behavior' by your reasoning? And by that logic, shouldn't it also be removed as a "protected class"?..

"Should be removed" would be up to 2/3rds of Congress...if my poli-sci memories serve me still. But yes, it's the ONE class that is exempt from a static state and identifiable unchanging characteristics. Because our penal and civil code systems of majority-rule legislating are about regulating behaviors, any other would-be "class based on behaviors' applicants have the hurdle of democratic rule to clear.

Unless, they want to officially declare their dogma, evangelizing to young people and swift punishment of heretics "an official religion". Then this little chat would be over and done long ago.

 

[dblack]

It's irrelevant in my view. But let me ask you this - wouldn't religion be a 'behavior' by your reasoning? And by that logic, shouldn't it also be removed as a "protected class"?..

"Should be removed" would be up to 2/3rds of Congress...if my poli-sci memories serve me still. But yes, it's the ONE class that is exempt from a static state and identifiable unchanging characteristics. Because our penal and civil code systems of majority-rule legislating are about regulating behaviors, any other would-be "class based on behaviors' applicants have the hurdle of democratic rule to clear.

Unless, they want to officially declare their dogma, evangelizing to young people and swift punishment of heretics "an official religion". Then this little chat would be over and done long ago.

Your memory fails you. The protected classes of civil rights law have nothing to do with the first amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

It's irrelevant in my view. But let me ask you this - wouldn't religion be a 'behavior' by your reasoning? And by that logic, shouldn't it also be removed as a "protected class"?..

"Should be removed" would be up to 2/3rds of Congress...if my poli-sci memories serve me still. But yes, it's the ONE class that is exempt from a static state and identifiable unchanging characteristics. Because our penal and civil code systems of majority-rule legislating are about regulating behaviors, any other would-be "class based on behaviors' applicants have the hurdle of democratic rule to clear.

Unless, they want to officially declare their dogma, evangelizing to young people and swift punishment of heretics "an official religion". Then this little chat would be over and done long ago.

Your memory fails you. The protected classes of civil rights law have nothing to do with the first amendment.

But can mere behaviors outside religion have a class distinction bestowed upon them? Where would we stop with that? If behaviors seeking to undue the physical structure of marriage as society has understood that definition for thousands of years (man/woman father/mother) can tell the majority who find that act repugnant "tough shit", what other behaviors can tell the majority to go pound sand for (fill in the blank) reason? How could we possibly tell that behavioral-minority "no" if they organize and petition for their "rights"? Telling them "no" given your brand new precedent would then be discriminatory... Who are we to judge what's right or wrong? We're just the majority after all.

 

[dblack]

It's irrelevant in my view. But let me ask you this - wouldn't religion be a 'behavior' by your reasoning? And by that logic, shouldn't it also be removed as a "protected class"?..

"Should be removed" would be up to 2/3rds of Congress...if my poli-sci memories serve me still. But yes, it's the ONE class that is exempt from a static state and identifiable unchanging characteristics. Because our penal and civil code systems of majority-rule legislating are about regulating behaviors, any other would-be "class based on behaviors' applicants have the hurdle of democratic rule to clear.

Unless, they want to officially declare their dogma, evangelizing to young people and swift punishment of heretics "an official religion". Then this little chat would be over and done long ago.

Your memory fails you. The protected classes of civil rights law have nothing to do with the first amendment.

But can mere behaviors outside religion have a class distinction bestowed upon them? Where would we stop with that? If behaviors seeking to undue the physical structure of marriage as society has understood that definition for thousands of years (man/woman father/mother) can tell the majority who find that act repugnant "tough shit", what other behaviors can tell the majority to go pound sand for (fill in the blank) reason?

I think it's all bullshit. The government has no business telling people who they can or can't discriminate against, nor why. But your argument is inconsistent, and I've-got-mine hypocrisy. If someone's religious preference deserves protection from discrimination, there's no reason to exclude sexual preference, or mental health (bulimia).

 

[Silhouette]

I think it's all bullshit. The government has no business telling people who they can or can't discriminate against, nor why. But your argument is inconsistent, and I've-got-mine hypocrisy. If someone's religious preference deserves protection from discrimination, there's no reason to exclude sexual preference, or mental health (bulimia).

So any and all behaviors must be acceptable to all people, no matter what eh? That might get a little weird over time, dontcha think? I prefer the notion that majorities should regulate behaviors in their discreet communities.

 

[Silhouette]

Any bets on which part of Alphabet Soup (OP) will have its day in court next?

 

[Skylar]

Any bets on which part of Alphabet Soup (OP) will have its day in court next?

Did you notice that the court didn't even mention the 'static status' bullshit you made up? That it didn't play any role in their ruling? That your every prediction regarding what the court 'must' do, and what the court would do was wrong? That your pseudo-legal gibberish between 'behavior' and 'genetics' never played the slightest role?

Any bets that you still won't admit you were utterly wrong?

 

[Silhouette]

Did you notice that the court didn't even mention the 'static status' bullshit you made up? That it didn't play any role in their ruling? That your every prediction regarding what the court 'must' do, and what the court would do was wrong? That your pseudo-legal gibberish between 'behavior' and 'genetics' never played the slightest role?

Any bets that you still won't admit you were utterly wrong?

Yes but they created a new class anyway, regardless of what they were careful to not mention. And that's disallowed to the Court and only allowed by Congress. Remember separation of powers from poli-sci? I do. So there's going to be a re-hearing or an annulment of this illegal Ruling last week. You can bet on it.

The new class they illegally created and ADDED to the Constitution was "our favorite deviant sex behaviors only, but not others". In so doing they just gutted states' abilities to regulate any behavior. Because as you know, the statutes in the Constitution demanding that no persons be disenfranchised from rights others enjoy means that behaviors now are "rights". That's a BRAND NEW invention and ADDITION to the US Constitution. Which the Court is not allowed to do; whether or not they frame it up that way in their Ruling's wording.

 

[Skylar]

Did you notice that the court didn't even mention the 'static status' bullshit you made up? That it didn't play any role in their ruling? That your every prediction regarding what the court 'must' do, and what the court would do was wrong? That your pseudo-legal gibberish between 'behavior' and 'genetics' never played the slightest role?

Any bets that you still won't admit you were utterly wrong?

Yes but they created a new class anyway, regardless of what they were careful to not mention. And that's disallowed to the Court and only allowed by Congress. Remember separation of powers from poli-sci? I do.

Says you. Again, you're offering us your personal opinion about a topic you don't know anything about. Your every prediction, your every 'legal' interpretation, your every made up class was wrong.

When everything you've predicted and interpreted has been wrong, what possible value could more of your empty predictions and intepretations have?

Um, none.

So there's going to be a re-hearing or an annulment of this illegal Ruling last week. You can bet on it.

Says you. And you were perfectly wrong on the Obergefell decision. Your every prediction was wrong.

Making your assurances that THIS time your predictions of the future are accurate all the more laughably. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Says you. Again, you're offering us your personal opinion about a topic you don't know anything about. Your every prediction, your every 'legal' interpretation, your every made up class was wrong.

When everything you've predicted and interpreted has been wrong, what possible value could more of your empty predictions and intepretations have?

Um, none.

They must have some, given how fiercely you're putting up a fight against them by smearing them so others (hopefully) won't look at them seriously.

Meanwhile, I took poli-sci and unless some massive change has happened since then, the system of checks and balances applies. The Court may not legislate from the bench or create brand new amendment additions that are substantive in nature to the Constitution. That's the job of Congress, not the Court.

Creating a new "class" for "this Sitting SCOTUS' favorite behaviors" as "protected from the majority's regulation" is beyond overreach of the limits of their Office. It is a torpedo directly at the heart of democracy and how behaviors are the ONLY thing states were allowed to regulate. Now we have nothing. Now we have a gaping chasm into which any and all behavioral groups who erroneously assign themselves an identity based on their own diagnosis of themselves can waltz into the Court and demand they too be added to the "protected from majority regulation" list of Court favorites.

For the sake of the Court's future embarassment at least having to walk this thing back, the Congress should act. For the sake of the Court not being able to update the Constitution without Congress, Congress should act. Whether or not the GOP does anything to check this attack on our nation's founding principles will determine how I vote...as long as voting is still allowed. Maybe the Court will determine later that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate ANYTHING anymore. Then voting on substantive issues at least will all be up to the Court, or rather it seems, just King Kennedy..

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Again, you're offering us your personal opinion about a topic you don't know anything about. Your every prediction, your every 'legal' interpretation, your every made up class was wrong.

When everything you've predicted and interpreted has been wrong, what possible value could more of your empty predictions and intepretations have?

Um, none.

They must have some, given how fiercely you're putting up a fight against them by smearing them so others (hopefully) won't look at them seriously.

Nope. There is none. The 'fork' you've imagined is just more pseudo-legal babble. The conflict you've made up, your imagination. You simply don't understand the law.

And how am I smearing you? Remember, everything I'm saying is accurate.

Shall we compare your predictions about the Obergefell ruling with the actual ruling? Shall we compare the litany of supposed 'legal principles that the court was bound to according to you....that the court never even mentions? You were wrong, Sil. Not a little. But on every point you've offered us. Every prediction, every 'interpretation'.

So what value does all new baseless 'predictions' and pseudo-legal 'interpretations' have?

Zero.

Creating a new "class" for "this Sitting SCOTUS' favorite behaviors" as "protected from the majority's regulation" is beyond overreach of the limits of their Office.

Says you, citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about. Your 'behavior standard' is meaningless gibber jabber.

It is a torpedo directly at the heart of democracy and how behaviors are the ONLY thing states were allowed to regulate. Now we have nothing

Says you. Lawerence v. Texas contradicts you. More than a decade ago.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Says you. Lawerence v. Texas contradicts you. More than a decade ago.

You don't know what you're talking about.

To make the comparison a fair one, consider that even while drugs may be decriminalized, that doesn't mean kids are taught in schools that "drugs are OK", nor are they allowed for sale on the street. Just because the law was exhausted enforcing "no sodomy" in the PRIVACY of adult's bedrooms doesn't mean kids are taught in school "sodomy is good" and be allowed to be "sold" as such in "marriage" where kids would be deprived of either a mother or father thereby..

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Lawerence v. Texas contradicts you. More than a decade ago.

You don't know what you're talking about.

To make the comparison a fair one, consider that even while drugs may be decriminalized, that doesn't mean kids are taught in schools that "drugs are OK", nor are they allowed for sale on the street. Just because the law was exhausted enforcing "no sodomy" in the PRIVACY of adult's bedrooms doesn't mean kids are taught in school "sodomy is good" and be allowed to be "sold" as such in "marriage" where kids would be deprived of either a mother or father thereby..

You said the only thing states were allowed to regulate was behavior. As Lawerence v. Texas makes ludicrously clear.......there are limits to that authority.

And that limit is constitutional guarantees. You know, the constitutional guarantees that you ignored and omitted from virtually your every argument or citation of Windsor/ You know the constitutional guarantees the court affirmed in both Windsor and Obergefell.

You remember those, right?

 

[Silhouette]

You said the only thing states were allowed to regulate was behavior. As Lawerence v. Texas makes ludicrously clear.......there are limits to that authority.

And that limit is constitutional guarantees. You know, the constitutional guarantees that you ignored and omitted from virtually your every argument or citation of Windsor/ You know the constitutional guarantees the court affirmed in both Windsor and Obergefell.

You remember those, right?

Decriminalization in the privacy of someone's home is the venue of the privacy of one's home. One may do many anti-social behaviors in one's home as long as others don't get hurt. The minute that person steps outside their privacy arena and takes their behavior to the streets, that behavior is subject to local regulation. This distinction may have to be more clearly made in the upcoming Hearings on the Cult of LGBT vs Christianity/states' rights..

 

[Skylar]

You said the only thing states were allowed to regulate was behavior. As Lawerence v. Texas makes ludicrously clear.......there are limits to that authority.

And that limit is constitutional guarantees. You know, the constitutional guarantees that you ignored and omitted from virtually your every argument or citation of Windsor/ You know the constitutional guarantees the court affirmed in both Windsor and Obergefell.

You remember those, right?

Decriminalization in the privacy of someone's home is the venue of the privacy of one's home. One may do many anti-social behaviors in one's home as long as others don't get hurt.

Its a behavior. The state couldn't regulate it.

And 'poof'. Your entire line of pseudo-legal gibberish comes a'tumblin down.

Remember: you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

The behavior was decriminalized. That doesn't mean society is now forced to legitmize it outside the person's private venue. This is where you are going to see a legal line drawn in the sand. Otherwise, decriminalized drug users could say "it's now legal to use and sell drugs out in the open". See the flaws in your position? Yes, I know you do..

...and soon the Court will have no choice but to see those flaws too and act to correct the problem it created.

 

[Skylar]

The behavior was decriminalized. That doesn't mean society is now forced to legitmize it outside the person's private venue.

It certainly means that the state's authority to regulate behavior is limited by constitutional guarantees. And has been well before the Obergefell ruling.

You're a little late to the party.

So....how did ignoring constitutional guarantees work out for you?