Granting protection to homosexuals is not granting them special protection.
EP law does not grant blacks special protection. The protection covers everyone. You cannot be discriminated against based on the color of your skin be it white, black or whatever.
Saying you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation does not grant special status to homosexual people. Such a law would protect both homosexual and heterosexual people. That the reality has been homosexuals have been the oppressed class and heterosexuals have not had a problem does not change that.
Right. So that law sets up a special class: race. Me, you, the KKK member, or the Black Panther who owns a restaurant can’t refuse service based upon race. That is special treatment for all of the reasons I outlined in my above post. Again, I agree with the special treatment. We have evolved to where discrimination based upon race should be eliminated from society. But it still creates rights above and beyond all of the other things that the particular restaurant owner might refuse service because of.
You might say that it applies to blacks and whites alike, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, but so would every discrimination law. A protection against the status of pedophile would apply equally to pedophiles and non-pedophiles alike, just as the discredited anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to everyone marrying outside of his or her race. Is it your contention that since it prohibits discrimination equally, then there are no special rights? Then why is the converse simply not discrimination?
I understand your point, but it is as thin as a razor. Sure there are some celibate homosexuals and heterosexuals, but if I told you that I was a homosexual, what kind of odds would you need for me to show that I wasn’t sticking a dick in a guy?
Respectfully, you are missing the point. His “test” is not one at all. If you ignore all of the reasons and simply declare that the law is based upon animus, then all laws can be invalidated. e.g. You won’t sell liquor on Sundays. You are showing animus towards liquor drinkers who don’t go to church. Law is based upon animus and is invalid.
Never mind any other reasons. I said “animus,” so I win. Neener, neener, neener.
@Jimmy Chitwood. Slave owners are denied their right to be protected under the 13th amendment. Sure, they are evil and we don’t want slavery, but so what? Constitutions make value judgments along with moral and legal ones.
How is it a special right when EVERYONE gets it? EVERYONE is given the right not to be discriminated against based on race, or sexual orientation, or whatever. The law is by its very nature not setting up special classes, as it applies equally to all. (ADEA is interesting, by the way).
So answer this - who in the restaurant example is afforded rights over and above anyone else?
It is not thin as a razor. It’s fundamental. We don’t judge in criminal law based on what we think it is likely people are doing, but instead based on what we prove they do. Criminalizing homosexuality is criminalizing thoughts, and flies directly in the face of the constitution. That you seem unable to separate a homosexual as a human being from homosexual acts speaks volumes about your position on this issue.
Race isn’t a class. Race is a classification that can be applied to every person to the same degree. Who is getting special treatment if we say there’s a rule that nobody can be discriminated against based on race?
I don’t understand what your point is in the post directed at me. Slave owners isn’t a racial classification. If Will Smith tries to put my ass on a plantation, I’m calling in the feds.
Are you talking about SCOTUS judges? They are confirmed by the Senate and while they do have life tenure, I can’t figure out how you’d be able to separate them from ruling on legislative functions, eg, law.
A handful of judges in my state weren’t retained for voting the way they did re: SSM.
As noted though this does not grant any one group special rights. You cannot be discriminated against (as a legal matter) based on the color of your skin regardless what color your skin might be.
Except your quote talks of race based classifications. The point is that while an individual race is a class, race isn’t. Because everyone has a race (according to the law).
It depends on how broadly you look at it. Laws against miscegenation apply equally to blacks and whites. EVERYONE is treated the same!
I’m not saying that you can criminalize thoughts. What I am saying is that you can surely say “No protection in law for people who identify with a group whose purpose is to commit criminal acts.”
And, again, with respect, don’t try to tell me how I think about people, homosexual or otherwise. This is a debate thread about a current issue. Your statement makes no sense. It’s like lecturing someone to don’t assume that someone who identifies as a baseball fan is someone who likes baseball. Sure, he might not play baseball, attend games, or have watched one on TV recently, but is it not fair to make the connection between baseball fan and baseball?
As I said above, if you can criminalize the act, you can refuse to give protection to those who identify with the act. Of course you can’t criminalize homosexuality anymore than you could criminalize thoughts of pedophilia.
But if you had a workplace and an applicant told you that he dreamed day and night about fucking 8 year olds, but he never actually did it, would you expect a lecture about how there is a difference between the pedophile as a human versus acts of pedophilia?
Still, judges should rule on constitutionality of legislative functions, not this “rational basis” nonsense that is a function of a democratically elected body.
Apparently ruling on the constitutionality of a law under this is not now ruling on the constitutionality of legislative functions, despite it being, you know, ruling on a legislative function (such as passing a law) based on the constitution of the United States.
Not to mention the country was setup to have a balance of power. The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches. Checks and balances and all that jazz.
What each does is pretty clearly spelled out.
It is the JOB of the Judicial branch to make the kinds of rulings jtgain is upset about.
In short he is mad that they are doing their job as spelled out in the Constitution.
Interestingly enough, you are wrong. If you look at the text of the law struck in Loving, you will find the following:
I believe some anti-miscegenation laws did treat people equally, but this one certainly didn’t.
So, even if we have a “neutral” anti-miscegenation law, what then. Well, there are different ways of looking at a law. A law can be facially discriminatory, or it can have discriminatory effects. “No black person may vote” is an example of the first. “No descendant of slaves may vote” is an example of the second. “No person who cannot pass a literacy test may vote, unless their grandfather could also vote” was also an example of the second.
I don’t need to tell you or anyone how you think about gay people. You are doing a damn good job of that yourself.
Is there a difference between a pedophile and a child abuser? Absolutely. But remember, it was you who seemed to think it relevant that because Colorado could criminalize sodomy, it could pass a law banning anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals. It doesn’t. That child abuse can be criminalized doesn’t impact whether a law could be passed banning anti-discrimination laws protecting pedophiles. The government cannot criminalize pedophilia or homosexuality. The government could pass anti-discrimination laws protecting pedophiles. There’s nothing requiring them to at all, though. But none of this has anything to do with whether child abuse is legal or illegal.
Not true. When it comes to a suspect classification, then they should step up. But they, by their own words, state that sexual orientation is not such a class.
If you will read up, you will see that I only disagree with the Court passing judgment on whether a law is “rational” or not. THAT is the job of a legislature, not a court.
Villa.I’d like to continue this, but I think that it is getting too personal. I’m trying to have a reasoned discussion, but you keep impugning motives to me that aren’t there.
Marbury v. Madison means they can decide if any law is constitutional. If they want rationality to be one of the tests, it can be. The end.
And, yes, when people choose to interpret the constitution one way over another, it very often has to do with their own biases on how things should be. You have not clearly articulated why one thing is acceptable but another is not.
Oh, and if anyone cares about the original topic: legality usually follows morality. If polygamy gets accepted, as society trending towards, the necessary legal changes will be made. There is no coherent moral argument that homosexuality is acceptable but polygamy is not. Both pass the “consenting adults” test that the Western modern consensus morality seems to be based upon.
