# North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351 "2012-05-09T02:33:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/221 "2012-05-10T03:47:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Please cite a supreme court case on point. Well, here’s what the Court said in _New Orleans v. Dukes_, 427 U.S. 297 (1976): > [@](#): > > Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, _ **religion,** _ or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Emphasis added.) Of course, that’s no surprise given that in _Carolene Products_ Footnote Four itself, the origin of strict scrutiny, and the citation given long ago above, Justice Stone wrote: > [@](#): > > Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular _ **religious,** _ or national, or racial minorities. Whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. (Internal citations omitted; emphasis added.) That is to say, at the creation of strict scrutiny, religious minorities were, in fact, given as the prime example of the kind of “discrete and insular minorities” that might be due this more searching judicial inquiry. Recall, _Carolene Products_ passed on the question as unnecessary for reaching a decision. But it is clear that by _New Orleans v. Dukes_, _supra_, the Court had indeed determined that statutory distinctions in point of religion were suspect classifications. _Accord_, _Larson v. Valente_, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (“In short, when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality”). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/222 "2012-05-10T04:01:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It was enough that the law made that distinction and that Mildred and Richard were perceived that way by the person who refused to allow them to marry. Tiny nitpick: Mildred and Richard got married in another state and then were prosecuted when they came back to Virginia for being a mixed-race married couple. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/223 "2012-05-10T04:14:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Please cite a supreme court case on point. Argh…I was writing a response and **Kimmy\_Gibbler** beat me to it and did a far better job of it too (post #221). You are free to argue why it is dumb but religion (among other things) is a suspect class deserving of heightened scrutiny by the court. Now given your previous posts I would like to know how you can identify (say) Catholics while standing on a busy street corner. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/224 "2012-05-10T04:14:49Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > The only fabric mixture forbidden by the Bible is wool and linen. Well that prohibition is perfectly reasonable then. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/225 "2012-05-10T05:32:33Z")
The Tao’s Revenge: > [@](#): > > Well that prohibition is perfectly reasonable then. It doesn’t have to be reasonable in your eyes. The point is that people who purport to follow the Bible but wear polyester-cotton clothing aren’t being hypocrites. The larger point is that the link to an “oh-so-clever” retort against Doctor Laura Schlessinger is written by someone whose actual level of Biblical knowledge is rather low, and people who have genuinely learned the Bible and have a place for it in their lives beyond snarkiness to religious folks, could easily rebut it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/226 "2012-05-10T06:06:34Z")
So we are helpless, like boys to wanton flies? Were I to be convinced of the existence of such a stupid, arbitrary and demanding Being, I would probably seek out the nearest Satanist recruiting office. I do not worship bullies, however transcendent. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/227 "2012-05-10T10:19:32Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > The only fabric mixture forbidden by the Bible is wool and linen. Actually, it’s “divers sorts” in the KJV version of Deuteronomy 22:11 with wool and linen being merely examples. Unless you have a more accurate translation? Edit: Oh and I assume you have no problem with homosexuals that don’t lie on specific beds like they lie with women, right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/228 "2012-05-10T11:03:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > LHOD, you know absolutely nothing about how equal protection analysis works. You are embarrassing yourself. Please hire a lawyer to help you in this thread (you’ll have to look for someone besides Bricker, it looks like he’s given up). I’ll clearly want to stay away from tax lawyers, too, since they don’t even know enough to be embarrassed. Or haven’t you noticed how all the other lawyers in the thread are disagreeing with you and saying the same thing as me? ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/229 "2012-05-10T11:26:50Z")
Why does it matter what the Bible says? The Bible is a Christiian book. I am not Christian. Why should laws be passed requiring me to follow Christian standards? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/230 "2012-05-10T11:36:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The whole idea of having g the suspect class analysis is that people shouldn’t be harmed based on characteristics they cant control. Wrong. Suspect classes have nothing to do with that criterion. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/231 "2012-05-10T11:46:08Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > If I fire you because I think you are black, you don’t have to prove you are black to be in the protected class. If we lived in an alternate universe where **Rand Rover** ’s argument made sense, the anti-discrimination laws would need to have a clear explicit criterion (the “one drop” rule? one-sixteenth? one-eighth? what?) criterion for “black”, and yet in the real world no such clauses are to be found. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/232 "2012-05-10T11:56:13Z")
gamerunknown: > [@](#): > > Actually, it’s “divers sorts” in the KJV version of Deuteronomy 22:11 with wool and linen being merely examples. Unless you have a more accurate translation? I know Hebrew. I don’t need a translation. Wool and linen is not an example, it’s a definition of the term [Shaatnez](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaatnez) that the KJV does its best to translate as “divers sorts.” > [@](#): > > Edit: Oh and I assume you have no problem with homosexuals that don’t lie on specific beds like they lie with women, right? “Specific beds”? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/233 "2012-05-10T12:14:49Z")
Well, I’ll bow to your scholarship on the matter: what’s a direct translation of Leviticus 20:13? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/234 "2012-05-10T13:14:37Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > Many of you already know that I’m gay, but I’ll say it again here. > > It pains me to say this, but I believe Terr may be onto something with his arguments. > > In Loving v Virginia, the parties involved were arrested and charged with a crime. It wasn’t just that Virginia didn’t RECOGNIZE interracial marriages from other states (or ceremonies performed in their own state), but that it was actually illegal to have it done at all and be in Virginia. > > Right now I could go get married to my boyfriend in another state, or another country, or even here in Texas, and go around flaunting my certificate and shouting it that I had gotten “gay married” somewhere. Am I going to be thrown in prison? No. > > I am definitely not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but I think Terr might be at least somewhat correct. > > Perhaps Bricker or Rand Rover could correct my misunderstandings, but as I see it, the current laws banning gay marriage and gay civil unions are not on the same level as anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws actually resulted in prosecution for violating them, whereas the anti-gay laws of today only prevent state-level recognition of gay marriage and civil unions. > > I certainly hope I’m wrong. > > Also, to keep on topic, North Carolina… 60% of you guys who voted suck. But I won’t let a mostly republican turn-out skew my opinion of the state overall. I have learned that moving from Oregon to Texas, you can’t just paint an entire state with a broad brush. There are plenty of good people living everywhere, including the most homophobic states. Yes, you’re wrong. That is… you’re correct in saying that the penalties discussed in _Loving_ are more serious than the penalities in play here, but that alone does not insulate the government from scrutiny. When the government passes a law that burdens a suspect class, regardless of whether the burden is jail time or inability to receive a marriage license, then the law must survive scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/235 "2012-05-10T13:20:35Z")
> [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > Why does it matter what the Bible says? The Bible is a Christiian book. I am not Christian. Why should laws be passed requiring me to follow Christian standards? Because this simple concept you plainly stated is completely beyond the understanding of many people. Maybe most people. I try to point that out to people, and sometime make the analogy of saying it would be like Jews and Muslims trying to make pork illegal for everybody. Then I get responses like “But they’ll never be the majority so it can’t happen” and absolutely nobody getting the actual point of why it is wrong. I have given up trying to make people understand that religious freedom also includes not forcing people not of your particular religion into its practices and beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/236 "2012-05-10T13:26:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Tiny nitpick: > > Mildred and Richard got married in another state and then were prosecuted when they came back to Virginia for being a mixed-race married couple. Even tinier nitpick upon the nitpick: The Lovings married in the District of Columbia. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/237 "2012-05-10T13:31:07Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Religion cases invoke strict scrutiny based on the fundamental right implicated, not based on religious persons as a suspect class. The concept of race as a suspect class is rooted in a animmutable concept of race that J’s definitely different than the concept of race asserted by some people now, but that current difference doesn’t change the EP analysis–it is still premised on there being such a thing as race that a person cannot change about themselves. Kimmy\_Gibber’s post 221 is incorporated herein by reference. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/238 "2012-05-10T13:37:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Kimmy\_Gibber’s post 221 is incorporated herein by reference. Id. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/239 "2012-05-10T14:04:42Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Actually, it’s “divers sorts” in the KJV version of Deuteronomy 22:11 with wool and linen being merely examples. Unless you have a more accurate translation? > > Edit: Oh and I assume you have no problem with homosexuals that don’t lie on specific beds like they lie with women, right? I ought not, in fact cannot, speak for Orthodox Jews, but it’s my understanding that in their conception of sin, “being gay” in the sense in which gay people claim that “it is not a choice” – i.e., having a romantic/sexual attraction to another person or persons of the same sex – is not in and of itself a sin. Possibly a temptation to sin, but not in and of itself a sin. That bit is a Christian add-on, derived from the New Testament, principally Romans 1:26-27. The actual sin for a Jew is in breaking Leviticus 18:22, which presumably references intromissive anal sex – coupled with the sort of behavior for which the men of Sodom were condemned – and note Ezekiel 16:49-50 along with the account in Genesis 18-19 in understanding exactly what this was. A celibate-but-horny gay evangelical Christian is arguably sinning _by his faith’s standards_; a celibate-but-horny gay Jew is not. Chaim, do I have this correct? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/240 "2012-05-10T14:07:15Z")
Look, I’m not going to keep repeating myself, and I realize that I cant argue you guys onto being smarter. The simple fact of the matter is that sexual orientation is not currently a suspect classification. Of you think it should be, then fine, you are free to have your opinion. If you think that the current suspect classifications support treating sexual orientation as a suspect classification, you are wrong because of the immutability issue. Religious affiliation as a suspect classification is not a counterpoint to the immutability issue because it rests on different underpinnings (ie, the fundamental nature of the right to free exercise of religion) . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=13)