Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.
No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discrimination
There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discrimination
So, just as I predicted. You pick and choos who the XIV covers and does not cover according to your own feelings about who should be covered. If you can say that it isn't discrimination because no non-citizen can vote, then I can say banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination because no one, regardless of orientation, can marry a person of the same sex. What if you called the team, "the cis-women's team? Then it isn't discrimination, right? Your party cannot even define "woman," but you can insist that transwomen are women? How does that work? All persons are clumps of cells, so that silliness doesn't work.Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child
The problem with your line of reasoning is exactly what I said:
Remember the relevant part says "any person," not "whoever TheProgressivePatriot decides deserves equal protection on certain issues."