Kansas lawmakers pass adoption bill against gay couples

[Aba Incieni]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

Manipulate the abortion laws so they apply equally to everyone.

 

[dblack]

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is odd how some actually cry that they are being persecuted for their religion when they are NOT allowed to discriminate against their fellow citizens.

It's not odd at all. Discriminating is how we express our values in society. What's 'odd', and actually quite dangerous, is the desire to, instead, force our values on society via government.

So. you are one of the ones crying that we don't allow you to discriminate against your fellow citizens anymore?

Not really, but I do think government deciding these things is really dangerous. It makes personal values a matter of state mandate. Not the kind of government I want.

What kind of government do you want?. A government that allows people to run amok and discriminate against any group that they disapprove of, for any reason?

Sans the 'run amok'(?), yes, people should allowed to discriminate according to their personal preferences, without having to justify those preferences to the state.

What would that look like in every day life?? Rather chaotic I would guess.

I guess you could look at it that way. Groupthink IS more orderly.

We'll never agree on that.

 

[dblack]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

 

[Unkotare]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

The law has nothing to do with the rights of gays to adopt children. This is about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate, something we should be protecting rather than attacking.

They let them give up the tax $$$ damn it! THAT is what this is about

Sure... that's the point of getting people on the dole in the first place, right? - to twist arms. That's the scam of the welfare state. Make everyone dependent on government and government controls everyone.

You'll have to explain to me how this became about welfare, Or I'll have to call a red herring fallacy on you.

You brought it up. You were justifying government interference in the operation of the adoption agency based on the presumed fact that they receive government money.

If they do...they cannot discriminate. However if they wish to forego government money, they can certainly do as they wish.

Tell that to certain bakers.

 

[dblack]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

It really is an utterly insane conception of equal rights. By their reasoning, every woman who refuses to sleep with me because I'm fat, bald and ugly is violating my civil rights!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

Laws against discrimination go a long way in doing that. Tossing laws like the one in Kansas that discriminate is another.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

Of course they don't hold people to the same standard. As we've already pointed out, people who want to get married to multiple partners are forbidden to do so. That isn't discrimination ? Not in the minds of the left. As long as they get what THEY think (and I use that term loosely) is right (which means good for them).

Enforced equality is bullshit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally.

That is not what laws against discrimination say......but that is not what we are talking about here. If you want to talk about privilege , how about the privilege of being treated equally by others and the government. All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

You really mean that you insist all outcomes must be the same. You can manipulate those words but in the end, the meaning is the same.

It really is an utterly insane conception of equal rights. By their reasoning, every woman who refuses to sleep with me because I'm fat, bald and ugly is violating my civil rights!

Arrest them !!!!!!

 

[Geaux4it]

If fags wanted kids, they should marry the opposite sex.

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Every gay person who wants to adopt through an agency is victimized because they do not have the full choices available to others.

No, they're not. Refusing to accommodate the wishes of another person is not victimizing them.

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally. Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

Wrong.

When government acts it must do so in accordance with Federal law and the Constitution – that includes private sector partners of the state that are funded by tax dollars.

Private sector partners of the government can no more discriminate based on sexual orientation than government agencies.

Again, as already correctly noted, if a private sector government partner has a problem with complying with Federal law and the Constitution, they’re at liberty to end that partnership and end the public funding, and discriminate against gay parents wishing to adopt.

 

[dblack]

It really is an utterly insane conception of equal rights. By their reasoning, every woman who refuses to sleep with me because I'm fat, bald and ugly is violating my civil rights!

Arrest them !!!!!!

I'm circulating a petition!

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

Can't bring myself to read past there, C. Can't you drop the pompous blowhard bit for at least one thread?

 

[Geaux4it]

Every gay person who wants to adopt through an agency is victimized because they do not have the full choices available to others.

No, they're not. Refusing to accommodate the wishes of another person is not victimizing them.

This is the same old argument - namely the conflation of equal rights with equal privilege. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to treat everyone else equally. It means the law has to treat everyone equally. Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

Wrong.

When government acts it must do so in accordance with Federal law and the Constitution – that includes private sector partners of the state that are funded by tax dollars.

Private sector partners of the government can no more discriminate based on sexual orientation than government agencies.

Again, as already correctly noted, if a private sector government partner has a problem with complying with Federal law and the Constitution, they’re at liberty to end that partnership and end the public funding, and discriminate against gay parents wishing to adopt.

Everyone treated equally under the law? Are you serious? You actually think that happens? Hillary is proof the elite class is above the law. SO save me the BS on equal rights under the law

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

Wrong again.

That’s what civil courts are for – when government seeks to discriminate based on sexual orientation citizens so disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts to compel the government to comply with Federal law and the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

Wrong again.

Yes. You covered that earlier.

 

[Geaux4it]

All should enjoy the same privilege or there is no equality.

Your conception of equality is insane. How would you even begin to enforce this??

Wrong again.

That’s what civil courts are for – when government seeks to discriminate based on sexual orientation citizens so disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts to compel the government to comply with Federal law and the Constitution.

Screw the government and their almighty sword of justice. Lady justice is R.I.P.

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your confusion would be innocent enough, but it's driving real policy, and it actually inverts the original concept of equal rights. A government preoccupied with making sure everyone is treating each other equally must, by design, treat people unequally.

I'm not at all confused. The government is holding everyone to the same standard. The only difference is that those who would discriminate feel the heat. To bad.

Well, only in very narrow circumstances. Most discrimination is fine, even encouraged. This is really about suppressing certain discrimination the current government doesn't like. The main thing is - it's not what you keep pretending. It's NOT "equality".

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The laws that prohibit government from discriminating based on sexual orientation have been enacted at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because the people wish their government to serve all citizens equally, and afford all citizens equal protection of the law.