Gay rights isn't a State's rights issue

[Lesh]

Wrong again as usual. The USSC did NOT outlaw abortion. Liberals lie like a rug.

And yet in a shitload of (red) states...women have lost abortion rights.

Like that 10 year old rape victim in Ohio

 

[Lesh]

There was never a right to an abortion.

For 50 years...there were

And now?

Republicans have taken away that right and they're not done yet

 

[eagle7-31]

For 50 years...there were

And now?

Republicans have taken away that right and they're not done yet

Wrong again. No rights were banned by the USSC.

 

[Lesh]

Wrong again. No rights were banned by the USSC.

Can women get an abortion under the same circumstances that they could prior to the Roe ruling IN EVERY STATE?

Of course not.

In Texas if someone helps you leave the state to get an abortion they can now be sued

In Ohio if you're a ten year old rape victim you have to leave the state (if you can) to get an abortion

And on and on.

Women are not fooled by your bullshit.

 

[AMart]

For 50 years...there were

And now?

Republicans have taken away that right and they're not done yet

Wrong again loser. There has never been a right to an abortion. You can't even marginally understand what a constitutional right is. You are a ******* leftist idiot.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Then slavery is a state's rights issue. Can't wait to get a slave in Florida.

Contact the Mexican Cartel or the Russian in Miami and they will hook you up.

They could get you a gay one if you want…

Now being serious Gays should have the same right to be as miserable as Heterosexuals…

 

[Missourian]

Calling gay rights a state's rights issue is like saying the first amendment is a state's rights issue. States should not be able to determine is they are going to give people free speech on a case by case basis. States should not be able to decide if they are going to give gay people equal rights on a case by case basis; states shouldn't be able to decide if they can purchase African slaves on a case by case basis.

States should not be able to infringe on Second Amendment Gun Rights?

Go ahead...you can say it.

 

[Missourian]

Then slavery is a state's rights issue. Can't wait to get a slave in Florida.

Isn't there a Constitutional Amendment that makes that a federal issue?

 

[Missourian]

Cool, so let's just write amendment for gay rights, instead of touting this state's rights issue, which is what the conservative judges want.

Hop to it.

 

[Dragonlady]

What rights do gay people not have that others do?

There are 27 states where public anti-discrimination laws don't cover gays. The don't have the right to rental housing or jobs protections.

There are only 21 states where the there are anti-discrimination laws in place to fully protect gays.

LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination in 29 States

 

[Dragonlady]

Then slavery is a state's rights issue. Can't wait to get a slave in Florida.

Slavery was always a state's rights issue. Not all states allowed slavery.

 

[AMart]

There are 27 states where public anti-discrimination laws don't cover gays. The don't have the right to rental housing or jobs protections.

There are only 21 states where the there are anti-discrimination laws in place to fully protect gays.

LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination in 29 States

And those same states don't protect heterosexuals. How can an employer or a landlord know if someone is gay or normal? Heterosexuals are not fully protected from discrimination in 29 states.

 

[kyzr]

It's a HUMAN rights issue.
Republicans almost to a man feel otherwise

There is no "LEGAL" "human rights" issue, duh.

Rights are either in the Constitution, or its a State legal issue.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no "LEGAL" "human rights" issue, duh.

Rights are either in the Constitution, or its a State legal issue.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons....."

 

[Lesh]

There is no "LEGAL" "human rights" issue, duh.

Rights are either in the Constitution, or its a State legal issue.

Nonsense… but arguing with homophobes is pointless

 

[flacaltenn]

If its not in the US Constitution, its a State issue, duh. I don't see gay rights in the US Constitution.

Separation of Powers Under the Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Introductory essays about the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

http://www.mrsoshouse.com/puzpro/statepowers.pdf

Supreme court has repeatedly rejected discrimination against gays. Both on theory of "freedom of association" as in the Bill of Rights and also on prohibition of sex discrimination. Some STATES try to claim that their "public accomodations" laws prevail and have failed.

Freedom of Association

The Supreme Court has recognized expressive association and intimate association under the First Amendment. It has also recognized the right not to associate.

mtsu.edu

First Amendment protects two types of associative freedom
There are two types of freedom of association: the right to expressive association and the right to intimate association.

Additionally, the First Amendment protects a right to associate and a right not to associate together.

Intimate association refers to right to maintain private associations without interference​

The right to intimate association refers to the right of individuals to maintain close familial or other private associations free from state interference. Such rights include the right to marriage, the rearing of children, and the right to habitate with relatives.

Some courts place the right to intimate association under the Due Process Clause, but others place it under the ambit of the First Amendment.

Freedom of association often conflicts with anti-discrimination law
A key aspect of freedom to associate is the ability of a group to associate with like-minded persons. Some freedom of association cases have proven difficult to navigate for the courts, because the freedom to associate or not associate often runs headlong into a state public accommodation or anti-discrimination law.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the associational rights of the Boy Scouts of America in excluding James Dale, an assistant scoutmaster, because he was gay. The Court ruled 5-4 in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) that the state “interests embodied in New Jersey's public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts' rights to freedom of expressive association.”

 

[Lesh]

Supreme court has repeatedly rejected discrimination against gays.

For 50 years it upheld Roe.

How'd that go?

 

[flacaltenn]

For 50 years it upheld Roe.

How'd that go?

Roe is NOT about freedom of association or the 4th amendment. That's why Ruth Ginsburg even admitted that ruling was "on shaky ground". Sexual orientation is close enough to sex discrimination so as to be federally over-riding.

The problem with Roe is -- it did not really address the questions that medical science ask in terms of considering abortions. They PUNTED in that decision and the ball landed on "fetal viability". Which of course got earlier and earlier over 50 years BECAUSE of medical science.

AND BOTH TRIBAL TEAMS ran in opposite directions with the ball for 50 years CREATING A MESS that isn't suited for the SupCt or the Constitution. Leftists took it to the BIRTH yard line and Right ran to opposite goal of "damn near if not conception".

So -- best to have the PEOPLE ENGAGE in the discussion on a state by state level.

The "gay" red herring is still free range. Won't get netted and canned.

 

[Lesh]

Roe is NOT about freedom of association or the 4th amendment.

The Supreme Curt can rule any way they want to .

And they will obviously

 

[flacaltenn]

The Supreme Curt can rule any way they want to .

And they will obviously

As a tribal warrior troll -- you can HOPE for that. it's what tribal warrior trolls do.

I wont support it. Even if it IS kicked back to the states. It's a MUCH clearer issue compared to drawing a line at what is a baby.

And the SupCt justices KNOW this. They HAD to get out of the abortion biz. It was stifling public discussion and that discussion IS NECESSARY now. They did the country a great favor by forcing folks to THINK about the complexities of the abortion issue.