The 14th Amendment only applies to the government.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t really laughing at you because you are wrong, Scylla. Everyone says something silly from time to time. I was mostly laughing because conservatives have generally fought against any expansion of anti-discrimination laws in the last forty years. Add to that the fact that conservatives are usually the first ones to defend the First Amendment right to discriminate based on the protection of free political expression (see, e.g., Boy Scouts v. Dale), and you can see why the attempt to insert being conservative as a protected characteristic is amusing in the context of the overall gestalt of the contemporary conservative movement.
Scylla, I think you’re conflating two different posts because of the timing of them. The 14th is, to my understanding (though IANAConstitutionalL), why a restaurant can’t kick someone out of a restaurant for being black or gay or whatever. I believeMarley was referring to my previous, more wordy post as to why Rush, or Republicans, or Democrats, or libertarians, or communists, are not in a protected class.
I see. While everybody else is talking about the 14th amendment, you are talking about state laws. Bait and switch a little?
And no, I’m not confusing state laws with the Constitution. These are federal laws that apply across all states. They include:
The civil rights act, The equal pay act, the age discrimination act, etc, and are commonly referred to as the EEOC.
State laws may also apply.
So, no. Nice try. I’m not confusing anything.
I do. Sadly, law may not fully recognize it, but I believe sexual orientation is covered.
Why do you find it “amusing?”
Perhaps you think being patronizing hides ignorance.
It’s hard to believe you’re so ignorant of the law when you apparently need to know it for your job. I mean, being wrong about some issue on a message board is one thing. Being wrong in your actual job is a little worse. Federal law does not prohibit private discrimination, in employment or any other context, on the basis of political belief. Period. If you believe otherwise, feel free to cite for us the federal law protecting political belief from discrimination.
Actually, most of the federal laws prohibiting private discrimination (the Civil Rights Act), were passed pursuant to the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, not the 14th Amendment. This is because, as Dio stated, the 14th applies to state action.
Moreover, we’re not talking about employment here - we’re talking about the sale of a business. The NFL is under no obligation to let anyone buy a team.
Ah. I see. As I said, IANACL.
Pretty stunning thread. Bunch of old, rich, white guys decide not to let another old, rich, white guy into their exclusive club, and this is illustrative how liberals are ruining America.
Huh. Learn something new every day.
I’m not. I’m talking about discrimination laws. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.
It was not because of a “media controvers” (and the media isthe entity that told a couple of the quotes were unverified), it was because players were saying they would refuse to play for him and a couple of owners were publicly saying they didn’t want to be in business with him. His investment group dumped him because he was poisoning their bid. He is poison not because your imaginary “liberal media” twisted his words or made shit up (they have done neither – the allegedly bogus quotes came from the internet, not from the “MSM”), but because he has built a career from decades of publicly villifying large swaths of the American public (and does so with no shortage of his own fabrications, lies and distortions of his own). It’s his own fault that nobody with any decency can stand him. The “media” has nothing to fucking do with it. He IS the fucking “MSM.”
First of all, it was a false representation of other people’s perceptions. No one else brought McNabb’s race into it but him, and his allegation that people only praised him because he was black had no basis in reality, especially since McNabb was already a multiple MVP at the time. McNabb’s praise was only on the basis of his on the field accomplishments. Black quarterbacks had ceased to be noteworthy in the sports media long before McNabb’s career blew up. Rush was the only one who even noticed what color McNabb was. He was the only one to bring up McNabb’s race. It’s funny how indignant you’re being about people making assumptions about what’s in Rush’s heart, but you pass off his asinine statements about what’s in other people’s hearts as objctive fact. It was a stupid, gratuitus, race-baiting statement that betrayed the race obsession that so often pervades his drug-addled ravings.
The reason people think he’s a racist is because he is a persistently race-baiting troll.
You believe the government should force people to accept business partners they want?
I already posted the link and the quote upthread. I didn’t say it was in your op-ed.
[url=http://www.bnd.com/sports/story/968190.htmHere[/ur]:
Do you agree or disagree with Limbaugh that him getting dumped by his own business partners is an example of “Obama’s America on full display?” Do you share his terror that “…Obama’s America is quite possibly going to include the National Football League, and pressure from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and other places might be brought to bear on the owners?”
That generalization is too vague to be useful. As a human being and a conservative, I support full equality for all my fellow human beings. One might argue that some anti-discrimination laws are actually discriminatory as they favor minorities over non minorities. I find those troublesome philosophically.
I fully admit that Conservatives (with the notable exception of the departed Goldwater) have set a poor example, and betrayed basic principles with their denial of gay civil rights.
The left talks a nice game, but I’ve never seen anybody elected do anything about it.
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. I don’t think anybody falsely attributed statements to the Boy Scouts and Dale.
Some people just want to see an old, rich white conservative do well as an NFL owner.
Dio:
What I said I agreed with 110% was the OP-Ed. It makes no sense that you would assume that 110% agreement expands to something else.
Rush wasn’t dumped because of false attributions of quotes, but there would be no law against that anyway.
Yiou also don’t seem to understand discrimination law. Federal law does not even include sexual orientation as a protected class, much less political orientation. Maybe your company does, but that would just be your own company policy, not federal law.
It sounded like you were saying you agreed 110% with Limbaugh, but whatever.
Regardless, do you agree with the “Obama’s America” stuff? Yes or no?
Neither. Don’t care. Would have to be interested, and would have to see it in full context, as I’m not particularly trusting of others quotations of Limbaugh.
Yes, I understand. That’s why I said " Sadly, law may not fully recognize it, but I believe sexual orientation is covered."
It’s covered constitutionally, IMO, but not recognized.
In 2007, Democrats in the House passed legislation adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited bases for discrimination, but it couldn’t get 60 votes in the 2007 Senate. It has been re-introduced and will hopefully pass this time around. And that’s just the federal level. Plenty of state-level democrats have passed legislation protecting sexual orientation. While the Democrats haven’t been perfect, the notion that no elected Democrat is fighting for gay rights is, frankly, absurd.
Among the reasons the federal government not only does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of political beliefs, but indeed cannot do so, is that the First Amendment protects the freedom of association. Indeed, the right to freedom of association is even strong to overcome the countervailing state interest in prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, hence the reference to Dale.
The full context is in the link. I think you just don’t have the guts to give an answer.
Let me ask it this way – did Barack Obama have anything to do with Limbaugfh getting dumped from the Rams. Do you believe (regardless of whether you want to admit that Rush said it), that Limbaugh’s ouster is an example of “Obama’s America on full display,” and do you believe that “Obama’s America is quite possibly going to include the National Football League, and pressure from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and other places might be brought to bear on the owners?”
No. I just really don’t care, buddy. I talk about one specific thing, and you’re all about this other thing.
I have no fucking clue.
I have no fucking clue. Define “Obama’s America on full display” faithfully as Rush defines it.
I don’t know what that means.