Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

Incorrect.

Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end – and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts.

This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people.

That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

Incorrect.

Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end – and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts.

This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people.

That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.

 

[Seawytch]

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time following the thread. I'll help you out.

protectionist: God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.

C Clayton Jones: Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.

Quantum Windbag: It does? Where?

So then I proceeded to point out where the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti miscegenation laws and used the "unnaturalness" of the interracial marriage as justification. Following so far?

The Supreme Court of the United States rejected that argument and struck down anti miscegenation laws basing their decision on the 14th Amendment. Are you clear now?

And, no, there is no "compelling state interest" in keeping "queers" out of anywhere.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.

A decade ago there was a hay day of bans instituted against Same-sex Civil Marriage. A decade ago there were zero, zip, nada States that recognized SSCM. Today there are now 17 states and DC which have Marriage Equality. The vast majority of which were passed either legislatively or at the ballot box by direct referendum:

California – Judicially - 2013
Connecticut – Judicially - 2008
Delaware – Legislatively - 2013
District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009
Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013
Illinois – Legislatively - 2013
Iowa – Judicially - 2009
Maine – Ballot – 2012
Maryland – Ballot - 2012
Massachusetts – Judicially - 2004
Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009
New Jersey – Judicially - 2013
New Mexico – Judicially – 2013
New York – Legislatively - 2011
Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013
Vermont – Legislatively - 2009
Washington – Ballot - 2012

In addition there is pending litigation/appeals in Oklahoma/Texas/Utah/Virginia where their ban has been ruled unconstitutional, Kentucky where SSCM won in court for recognition of out of state licenses and Ohio which requires SSCM recognition on death certificates.




In what world is "0" States at the beginning of 2004 to 18 entities (17 states + DC) in 2014 "more BANNING it, not less."?


>>>>

 

[dblack]

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

Incorrect.

Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end – and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts.

This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people.

That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.

More with your pompous 'corrections'? From someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a liberty and a demand on someone else's services? Riiiiight.

The whole premise of 'protected classes' (even the accurate version that you don't understand) is a gross violation of equal protection.

Yeah, it is the same philosophy, because each of you assumes the needs of the state are prime. Each of you is willing and eager to use the coercive power of government to tell people how to live, and each of you fails to comprehend that the will of the state is not the same as the will of the people.

 

[Gadawg73]

You don't know much. Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.

Not for long...

Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.

Same-sex marriage in the United States

I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

Nonsense.

Measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law completely lack a proper legislative end, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. Such laws seek only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else, which the states are not allowed to do (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

And your notion of ‘keeping gays out of the classroom’ is an example of the sole motive behind denying gay Americans their civil liberties: hatred of homosexuals.

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

 

[Infidel]

You don't know much. Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.

Not for long...

Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Doesn't matter, gays can still marry, have children... AAAWWWWW, too bad!.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

Your claim that hating people for their sexual orientation being different than hating people for their race is absurd.
Hate is hate and discrimination is discrimination.
But I admire you for admitting you make that distinction on who you believe is okay to discriminate.
There is nothing illegal about homosexual behavior.
Your claim there is and they should be punished for it is false.
So go find someone else that has behavior you do not like to discriminate against because you HAVE LOST YOUR WAR with homosexuals.

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexuals are the new *******.
I grew up in the deep south and saw it first hand.
Of course it is NO WHERE NEAR AS BAD as what African Americans endured. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
But the mentality is EXACTLY THE SAME.
Separate but equal. We must make sure that homosexual "behavior" is not tolerated and even if it is make damn sure we do not allow them in the military, that whopper of lies was proven false, and make sure we do not let them get married because if we do:
THEY WILL TEACH ALL THE KIDDIES TO BE QUEERS TOO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Gadawag's got it.

 

[kaz]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.

 

[kaz]

Homosexuals are the new *******.
I grew up in the deep south and saw it first hand.
Of course it is NO WHERE NEAR AS BAD as what African Americans endured. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
But the mentality is EXACTLY THE SAME.
Separate but equal. We must make sure that homosexual "behavior" is not tolerated and even if it is make damn sure we do not allow them in the military, that whopper of lies was proven false, and make sure we do not let them get married because if we do:
THEY WILL TEACH ALL THE KIDDIES TO BE QUEERS TOO.

As for socons, I don't get either why of all the terrible things people do to each other in the world, they are so transfixed on victimless relationships between consenting adults as being one of the greatest issues in humanity.

The problem that those of us have in the middle on this is we're stuck between socons and your side who aren't satisfied with gays being left to live alone and even though we have no problem with their choices, we don't get your militant gay agenda focused on government validation, party gifts and forced exposure to gay lifestyle.

 

[kaz]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.

Actually, I claim to be a libertarian. With all the discussions we've been in, I'm thinking you're suffering from retarded mental capacity.

I've also never used the argument homosexuality is a choice, I think they are born that way. And I've opposed all discrimination.

In fact what I have repeatedly argued to you is to go to the legislature, not the courts. You're really not very bright. If after all the discussion we've had on the subject, you can't remotely remember my positions, that explains why you go nowhere.

 

[protectionist]

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time following the thread. I'll help you out.

protectionist: God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.

C Clayton Jones: Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.

Quantum Windbag: It does? Where?

So then I proceeded to point out where the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti miscegenation laws and used the "unnaturalness" of the interracial marriage as justification. Following so far?

The Supreme Court of the United States rejected that argument and struck down anti miscegenation laws basing their decision on the 14th Amendment. Are you clear now?

And, no, there is no "compelling state interest" in keeping "queers" out of anywhere.

It looks like we're all clear, and have been all along. That you have NO statement of the US Supreme Court or decision from them, referring to natural or unnatural, or with any connection to homosexuality. The only connection Ive seen between those 2 is the one I've posted here in this thread, must be a dozen times now, regarding classifications (ex. homosexuals) which can be discriminated against if states feel there is a compelling interest to do so. And to protect the American people (especially children) from the cancer of homosexuality, and its eagerness to spread, there could be few greater compelling interests, possible, hence the prevelance of 34 states who don't permit the lunacy of same sex marriage.

 

[protectionist]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.

I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist. Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative. His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.

 

[protectionist]

Yup, Gadawag's got it.

Homosexualitis ?

 

[kaz]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.

I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist. Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative. His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.

Reagan Neocon? Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant. Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.

What was even his military use that justifies the label? Grenada? OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government. He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it. He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack. He wrecked the USSR financially.

You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?