The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

[dblack]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land expressly for this issue:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Piss off, troll.

 

[danielpalos]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land expressly for this issue:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Piss off, troll.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the (Constitutional) law.

 

[johnwk]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

View attachment 501327
So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

You and DBlackare the ones spewing unsubstantiated assertions.

What unsubstantiated assertions have I made. Please quote my words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

I already did! Deal with it

In what post numbers did I post unsubstantiated assertions, and what specifically was unsubstantiated, i.e., quote my words which you assert are unsubstantiated.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[johnwk]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

What the poster, TheProgressivePatriot, ignores is, there has never been a delegation of power in our Constitution, authorizing Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" with regard to "sex", other than the 19th Amendment, and that amendment simply forbids the right to vote to be denied based upon "sex".

In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress lists five protected classes; sex, race, color, religion and national origin. However, and with regard to "sex", the only delegation of power authorizing Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" with regard to "sex" is the 19th Amendment, and that amendment reads as follows:

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The simple truth is Congress added "sex" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act without constitutional authorization.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[johnwk]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land expressly for this issue:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Piss off, troll.

I'm believe you hit the nail on the head with that description . . . nothing but wise crack remarks, obfuscations, and deflections from the poster.

JWK

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

View attachment 501327
So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

You and DBlackare the ones spewing unsubstantiated assertions.

What unsubstantiated assertions have I made. Please quote my words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

I already did! Deal with it

In what post numbers did I post unsubstantiated assertions, and what specifically was unsubstantiated, i.e., quote my words which you assert are unsubstantiated.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

OK Lets start with this screed from you post #169

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane.1} You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

2) Everyone should be guaranteed the right, with no need to justify their decisions to the state, to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, who they will do business with and who they will avoid.

The bold type! You made that shit up 1) The government is not "going around" doing any such thing and would not be beacause of the equality act and 2) Every one does indeed have that right. That statement is just a deflection from the actual issue that you won't deal with.

You have also intimated, althought not in so many words, that only members of a protected class ( such as blacks/ gays) are protected by laws against discrimination which iis clearly not the case. Laws that state the dicrimination basd on race, sexual orientation and so on protect everyone, but can't seem to grasp that, or at least will not admit it.

Then ther is all of your crap about fat and ugly people which is just another red herring intended to derail the topic.

Have a good evening

 

[dblack]

OK Lets start with this screed from you post #169

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane.1} You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

2) Everyone should be guaranteed the right, with no need to justify their decisions to the state, to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, who they will do business with and who they will avoid.

The bold type! You made that shit up 1) The government is not "going around" doing any such thing and would not be beacause of the equality act ...

Well, if they don't intend to enforce the law, why pass it in the first place? But of course they will enforce it. Guess you don't understand how laws and police and stuff like that works.

and 2) Every one does indeed have that right.

No, the laws you're defending infringe on that right. That's why we're discussing it. Pull your head out.

You have also intimated, althought not in so many words, that only members of a protected class ...

I've "intimated" no such thing. A "protected class" doesn't refer to a group of people. There are no "members of a protected class". A protected class, in civil rights law, is a class (a type) of discrimination (racial, religious, political, etc... ). You should read up on this shit if you're going to waste time defending it.

Then ther is all of your crap about fat and ugly people which is just another red herring intended to derail the topic.

It's not derailing anything. I'm just proving the glaring inequity of the supposed "Equality Act". It doesn't do what you pretend. Such criticism is directly relevant. Sorry it bothers you so much.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, if they don't intend to enforce the law, why pass it in the first place? But of course they will enforce it. Guess you don't understand how laws and police and stuff like that works.

What the hell are you blathering about now? How does that in any way relate to my point? I uhderstand quite well how laws work. Apparently you do not. Laws are there to be used when required, not as a tool for a witch hunt as your paranoid ass seems to think

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, the laws you're defending infringe on that right. That's why we're discussing it. Pull your head out.

Bullshit! You are not making any sense. How does the civil rights act or the equality act infringe on the right, for anyone to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, ? That is absolute and moronic bullshit!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've "intimated" no such thing. A "protected class" doesn't refer to a group of people. There are no "members of a protected class". A protected class, in civil rights law, is a class (a type) of discrimination (racial, religious, political, etc... ). You should read up on this shit if you're going to waste time defending it.

Thank you for proving my point. A white or straight , or Christian is protected by laws against discrimination in the same way the a minority is .

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not derailing anything. I'm just proving the glaring inequity of the supposed "Equality Act". It doesn't do what you pretend. Such criticism is directly relevant. Sorry it bothers you so much.

More bullshit. The equality act codifies gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, That is the poingt that you are denying.

Fat and ugly people are another issue but you seem to be implying that I am some soert of hypocrite for not supporting those causes. ThT is just another of your numerous logical fallacies. Actually this is my favorite one:

Appeal to hypocrisy (also known as tu quoque, which is Latin for, ‘you also’) is an informal logical fallacy that tries to discredit the validity of the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion (s).

Appeal to hypocrisy | The Logical Place​

yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/appeal-to-hypocrisy/

 

[dblack]

More bullshit. The equality act codifies gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, That is the poingt that you are denying.

When/where have I denied that??? Prove it, or STFU.

Fat and ugly people are another issue but you seem to be implying that I am some soert of hypocrite for not supporting those causes.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that these laws don't do what you claim. They don't ensure that businesses treat everyone equally. You don't seem interested in defending the claim, so it sounds like you know it's bunk too.

 

[dblack]

I've "intimated" no such thing. A "protected class" doesn't refer to a group of people. There are no "members of a protected class". A protected class, in civil rights law, is a class (a type) of discrimination (racial, religious, political, etc... ). You should read up on this shit if you're going to waste time defending it.

Thank you for proving my point. A white or straight , or Christian is protected by laws against discrimination in the same way the a minority is .

That's not your point. That's a strawman that you're stroking. What I'm objecting to is your bullshit claim that these laws ensure everyone is treated equally. That's just nonsense. The authors of the laws don't even make claim. Because it's bogus.

 

[dblack]

Laws are there to be used when required, not as a tool for a witch hunt as your paranoid ass seems to think

Bake the cake? Ostrich much?

 

[johnwk]

OK Lets start with this screed from you post #169

What did I post in #169 that is a "screed" or is unsubstantiated. Or did you just make that accusation to deflect as you usually do?

Why do you have such a problem with people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Well, if they don't intend to enforce the law, why pass it in the first place? But of course they will enforce it. Guess you don't understand how laws and police and stuff like that works.

You are absolutely correct about the force of government being used to enforce "protected class legislation", a case in point is the 19th Amendment. But unlike the 19th Amendment, which was agreed to by the American people via our Constitution's amendment process, the Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

More bullshit. The equality act codifies gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, That is the poingt that you are denying.

And the point you deny and ignore is, Congress has never been delegated the power to adopt appropriate legislation to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex, excluding of course the 19th Amendment.

The only "bullshit" is, you pretend Congress has been delegated power to forbid, by appropriate legislation, distinctions being made, based upon sex, when the 19th Amendment is the only amendment granting such power, but is limited to the right to vote being denied or abridges based upon "sex".

So, tell us, Mr. Smarty Pants, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt legislation forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex, other than the 19th Amendment?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

 

[Sinajuavi]

See: NEW POLL: 7 In 10 Voters Support the Equality Act


March 17, 2021

“In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination by guaranteeing the same federal anti-discrimination protections that other Americans have enjoyed for decades.The Equality Act is supported by a bipartisan majority of voters, the business community, faith and civil rights leaders, and communities in virtually every corner of the nation. It’s time for the Senate to catch up to the American public and finally pass the Equality Act so that all Americans can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.”

Perhaps the support for the “Equality Act” is high because some who support it do so to be socially accepted in certain circles, rather than on its merits which would open a Pandora’s box and allow government force to be used to dictate almost every aspect of our social and commercial activities.

The truth is, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with creating, under law, a privileged protected class with the government’s muscle behind it.

Keep in mind, when the same type of legislation was advanced as a constitutional amendment in the 1980s ___ the Equal Rights Amendment ___ it was rejected by the people of the United States, and for good cause, as they knew it would open a Pandora’s Box with countless unintended consequences, both disruptive and dangerous to a freedom loving people.

In fact, if adopted, the Equality Act would subvert the people’s right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, both of which are fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.

And here we are again today, but this time the Democrat controlled House has decided to ignore our Constitution’s required amendment process ___ a process required to lawfully adopt the “Equality Act” ___ which is the same kind of legislation rejected by the American People when they rejected the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s.

Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution.

Let us recall the wisdom put forth by one of our Supreme Court Justices: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Now, with regard to the unintended consequences of such legislation __ legislation using the force of government to meddle in and control our lives with respect to a "protected class” ___ and the Pandora’s Box it would open, the Americans with Disabilities Act serves as a wonderful example and a warning.

It was predicted by some, including me, that the Act would most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers. And was this prediction accurate?

See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV

Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …

And especially see:

The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act

“The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”

The bottom line is, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the “Equality Act” ought to be referred to as another Lawyers Full Employment Act and an outright attack on allowing people to be free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations, and that includes their daily social and commercial activities.

Be careful of what you ask for!

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness. ___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

Republiklan voters only feel free if they can discriminate against someone... anyone!

 

[Sinajuavi]

Your business does not. If you don't want to do business with gays or Mormons or blacks, then you have the option to close your business down and find something else to do for a living.

So, according to you, the inalienable right to mutually agree in one's contracts and associations may only be exercised in one's closet and not in public social gatherings or public commercial activities, essentially rendering the right meaningless.

Of course, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, would in fact create a priviledged protected class who could, under law, deny "inclusiveness' in our society to those wishing to not associate with them in their social or public commercial activities. Seems the advocates of this legislation may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need for the muscle of government to succeed in society.

In any event, those promoting this intrusive legislation apparently support the mantra . . . inclusiveness for me, but not for thee.

The same argument was used against the Civil Rights Act. You're "free" only if you can discriminate. Well, guess what... you will NOT discriminate, or you will pay the price, you will indeed be excluded, and you will be treated as a pariah as you deserve.

Stop thinking that your freedom depends on stifling that of someone else, fool!

 

[Sinajuavi]

What is this Republican Brain disease that those with money and power need to be protected from the rest of us?

The very point of the Equality Act is to create, under law, a privileged protected sexual deviant class with the government’s muscle behind it.

With all the hate, juvenile and venomous comments coming from those in our sexual deviant community who want to use government force to compel others to engage in contracts and associations with them, is it not obvious they are suffering from an inferiority complex?

Aside from that, I cannot imagine why there is such an outcry and vocal demanding by some to use government force to compel others who may feel uncomfortable associating with them, to force them into unwanted contracts and associations. I thought we were a society which supports "inclusiveness" and freedom of choice in ones intercourse with others. But it appears there is a segment in our society which would deny "inclusiveness' to those wishing to not associate with them.

JWK

That's right. I deny inclusiveness to all bigots such as you. I boycott their businesses. I dirty-trick them. I shun them, I out them, and I urge others to ostracize them.

Your arguments are full of bigotry, and are the same crap we heard from segregationists in the 60's.

Since you can't handle freedom, move to Russia now.