A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group.
This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to everyone, were deemed discriminatory. Nowhere in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group.
This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so.
If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example).
You stated it was discrimination against women. Women constitute the entirety of the class women. Therefore, when you said it discriminated against women, you were referencing the entire class women, or ALL women. If you intended on saying it discriminated against “some” women, I assume you would have been able to express it in those or similar terms.
Once again, the error is on your part. Or are you saying you never said it was discriminatory towards women.
Poll taxes were deemed discriminatory to minorities.
Literacy tests for voting were deemed discriminatory to minorities.
Of course among minorities there were plenty who could afford to pay the poll tax and plenty who could read.
You are being pedantic.
Indeed this could lay greater claim to being discriminatory to all women since any woman may run afoul of it. At least a minority who can read will always be able to do so or if they can’t they could learn. There is no way a woman can get around this short of never needing contraceptives (which are prescribed for medical reasons in addition to birth control so any woman may require them).
This thread is full of cites and rational as to why your discrimination argument fails. You’ve refused to accept those citations, or grasp the rational presented proving your point invalid merely because you don’t agree with it. That’s your right. However, it changes nothing.
*“A law, even if not explicitly targeted at a group, can be deemed to discriminate against a group.”
*
Is that true or not true?
“This is why literacy tests and poll taxes, despite applying to everyone, were deemed discriminatory. Nowhere in those laws did they mention it applying to only one group.”
Is that true or not true?
“This law affects only women that I have seen. If you care to point out where men are being denied service under the same law I (again) invite you to do so.”
Is that true or not true? If not true did I miss where you pointed to examples of it affecting men?
“If the law has the effect to ONLY inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group. It does not matter that, in theory, it applies to everyone. It does not matter that the intent can be “claimed” to be non-discriminatory (see poll taxes and literacy tests as an example).”
Again you say that poll taxes were “deemed” discriminatory.
Could you explain, please, who “deemed” them discriminatory?
This is a legal claim. You’re not trying to say what the law should be, here, are you? You’re laying out the specific claim that this is how the law works: that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group.
Or am I misreading you? Are you simply saying that this is how the law SHOULD work?
We’ve already spend 3+ pages burying your invalid discrimination argument. You refused to accept the facts and the citations that have been presented. I assume you’re going to continue to refuse to accept the facts and citations. That’s your right. I don’t see the need to revisit that discussion.
So you’re admitting you simply made up a claim that anybody stated it was discrimination against “all” women. Thank you.
Likewise you’re admitting you simply ignored a factual refutation that pointed out that even if you’re only discriminating against blacks who “don’t know their place”, you’re still discriminating against blacks. Thank you.
That’s funny, given the facts above.
Even funnier that you then respond with the same fallacy that if something is discrimination against women, it must be discrimination against absolutely all women. Restrict service for “uppity negroes”, not racism in Morgenstern’s book. The Virtue Police beating women and forcing them back into a raging inferno if they’re not properly covered up? Not discrimination against women since, after all, all they had to do was put on a veil and the veiled women weren’t beaten anyways.
(And look at that! You’re citing the actual law. I may faint.)
But since the states ratified the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964, I was kinda hoping you’d focus on that move, since it was the action of legislators, not judges.
But you’re right. The 24th amendment reached federal elections only, and Harper covered all elections, so your point is absolutely correct.
That’s true.
But Harper wasn’t the last word on the subject. The Court also analyzed a law that affected everyone, and upheld it. I’m talking of course about Crawford v. Marion County, where the court upheld a law that requires voters to have a photo ID to vote, even though the argument was made that voters without a birth certificate would have to travel, and pay money, to get replacement documents.
In deciding Crawford, the Court discussed Harper at length:
But despite that heavier burden, the Court upheld the law.
How does that square with your idea that if the law has the effect to only inconvenience one group then it is discriminating against that group? I mean, here we obviously have a law that has the effect of only inconveniencing one group, right?
This shouldn’t be rocket science so I’ll try it again here.
You stated it discriminated against women.
Women is a class. It comprises all members of the human race who are not men. The entirety of the class women are, by whatever definition, … women.
You did not exclude any women from your claim that it discriminated against women.
Therefore. If we give your statement fair meaning, you have said it discriminates against women. You excluded no one from the group women, which by the way, might have given your argument a little validity that it lacked as presented.
So yes, your statement that something discriminates against women is inclusive of all members of the class* women*
Now why not go ahead and state that the men’s room in Dodger stadium discriminated against women. Clearly the men’s room has urinals and the woman’s room does not. The women are forced to walk a little further to another facility where they can sit comfortably while pissing. It’s inconvenient and it applies to all women. I wonder what would happen in an emergency where there wasn’t time for the extra steps?
The word “discriminatory” has both a general meaning and a more focused meaning.
If I prefer chocolate over strawberry, I may discriminate against strawberry ice cream. Any law is “discriminatory” if it favors something over something else. A law against jaywalking is discriminatory against those who don’t cross the streets in crosswalks.
So if you mean that sense of “discriminatory,” then of course I agree. The CC law discriminates in favor of pharmacists and against some pharmacy patients.
But the word is also used as a descriptive term to describe a law that impermissibly creates classifications.