Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,331]

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

CLAX1911 said:

Work on? What? I was just asking you to point out a strawman you claimed i made.

Are you saying I'm trying to trick you?

Click to expand...

Don't bother with LaylaWindu CLAX911. I think she is dimwitted or something. Perhaps just illiterate or on drugs. Regardless, she can't and won't make a coherent argument and just sits there like a crazy woman in a land of delusion thinking she is one upping someone due to the voices in her head. Just block her. Useless waste of time.

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

LibDave said:

I believe you read this before my next post, which was a follow on describing what happens when it isn't the government violating an individual's inalienable rights but what happens on the rare occasion when the inalienable rights of 2 individuals conflict. It rarely occurs surprisingly enough because the founders were fairly astute about what they chose. It normally comes up with no-brainers like "My religion tells me I have the right to kill someone." In fact the last one of these I remember was the case where the religious cult was beating their kids. It was horrendous. Like a freaking dungeon torture every day.

Click to expand...

The founders chose. That's a key phrase here because it recognizes that the founders chose which rights to deem "inalienable". Unfortunately for you, since that time, we have changed our views on rights and how inalienable they are because we recognize that there is a balancing to rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under civil righ

roguenuke said:

Please show where you simply refusing in a personal matter to accept anyone as a man or woman results in any criminal charges or has been suggested it should?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Ever since I learned that smoking a cigarette within twenty-five feet of a window that is designed to not open was a violation of the law, I've been cautious. Hate crimes progress to thought crimes without warning so I thought I should check.

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under civil righ

Patrickt said:

Ever since I learned that smoking a cigarette within twenty-five feet of a window that is designed to not open was a violation of the law, I've been cautious. Hate crimes progress to thought crimes without warning so I thought I should check.

Click to expand...

That's paranoia. There's a difference between restricting smoking (which even violating those laws are not even a misdemeanor but rather a fine) and restricting free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

roguenuke said:

The founders chose. That's a key phrase here because it recognizes that the founders chose which rights to deem "inalienable". Unfortunately for you, since that time, we have changed our views on rights and how inalienable they are because we recognize that there is a balancing to rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The People chose our inalienable rights. Much debate ensued prior to the ratification of the Constitution. In fact the original Constitution was rejected by the People and they insisted they go back and specifically add the inalienable rights. Our inalienable rights have never changed. They are in fact inalienable. The Founder's of course were well respected and were the ones who drafted the Constitution according to the wishes of The People. Helping to put the document together in the most coherent manner possible. My point is, although the Founder's get much credit (and they should) it is also a document of the people, by the people, and for the people. This fact alone gives great credit to the Founders for making sure it was such.

If you are referring to amendments to the Constitution then yes we have changed the Constitution, In several cases for the worse and possibly even outside the bounds of the original intent/agreement. We can always add new inalienable rights we cannot subtract them. Though even this has been circumvented on at least one occasion (income tax).

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

LibDave said:

The People chose our inalienable rights. Much debate ensued prior to the ratification of the Constitution. In fact the original Constitution was rejected by the People and they insisted they go back and specifically add the inalienable rights. Our inalienable rights have never changed. They are in fact inalienable. The Founder's of course were well respected and were the ones who drafted the Constitution according to the wishes of The People. Helping to put the document together in the most coherent manner possible. My point is, although the Founder's get much credit (and they should) it is also a document of the people, by the people, and for the people. This fact alone gives great credit to the Founders for making sure it was such.

If you are referring to amendments to the Constitution then yes we have changed the Constitution, In several cases for the worse and possibly even outside the bounds of the original intent/agreement. We can always add new inalienable rights we cannot subtract them.

Click to expand...

You said the founders chose them. And the people choose what the restrictions on rights are.

And yes we can subtract them whenever there is enough power in some movement to do so. I may not agree with such subtracting and you may not agree with such subtracting, but unless those who don't agree with it have enough power, either through number of voters or physical strength to overcome those in charge who subtracted, then tough toodlies.

And the SCOTUS rules on the interpretation of the Constitution, not you or others who think it says this or that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

roguenuke said:

You said the founders chose them. And the people choose what the restrictions on rights are.

And yes we can subtract them whenever there is enough power in some movement to do so. I may not agree with such subtracting and you may not agree with such subtracting, but unless those who don't agree with it have enough power, either through number of voters or physical strength to overcome those in charge who subtracted, then tough toodlies.

And the SCOTUS rules on the interpretation of the Constitution, not you or others who think it says this or that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes I did say that. And I perhaps misspoke. The Founders are given credit and they should be. It was your response to that as if the people played no role which caused me to perhaps clarify that the Founders didn't come up with these inalienable rights in a vacuum. They did so at the behest of The People. Regardless of how it came about, it is the Constitution which is our agreed upon sacred contract with each other and the charter to the government strictly defining the bounds they must operate within. The Constitution is held dear by numbers far greater than radicals could imagine on both sides of the isle. Should the small minority of radicals attempt to cast off our sacred bond I have complete confidence they will rue the day. As for the SCOTUS, yes they often do attempt to INTERPRET the Constitution to suit their needs. This is something the electorate is vigilant of and very sensitive to. I myself am an originalist much like the late Antonin Scalia. Placing radical interpretationists on the bench may likewise result in the radicals writing a check their asses cannot cash. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

LibDave said:

Yes I did say that. And I perhaps misspoke. The Founders are given credit and they should be. It was your response to that as if the people played no role which caused me to perhaps clarify that the Founders didn't come up with these inalienable rights in a vacuum. They did so at the behest of The People. Regardless of how it came about, it is the Constitution which is our agreed upon sacred contract with each other and the charter to the government strictly defining the bounds they must operate within. The Constitution is held dear by numbers far greater than radicals could imagine on both sides of the isle. Should the small minority of radicals attempt to cast off our sacred bond I have complete confidence they will rue the day. As for the SCOTUS, yes they often do attempt to INTERPRET the Constitution to suit their needs. This is something the electorate is vigilant of and very sensitive to. I myself am an originalist much like the late Antonin Scalia. Placing radical interpretationists on the bench may likewise result in the radicals writing a check their asses cannot cash. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

No the founders didn't. They didn't start a poll or ask for input. They simply relied on their personal subjective observations and beliefs to determine which things many seemed angry or upset about.

And much of the public supports the SCOTUS and their decisions at higher levels than they do Congress or the President, especially lately. God had nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, that would still be people willing to fight for it. It is one of the reasons I want a much more reasonable, rational candidate instead of having to vote for assholes who either want to give people equal rights but take away guns, or protect guns and **** over everyone who doesn't fit the right mold, isn't some zombie.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

LibDave said:

1. Wow. There are two of them. Didn't realize that. I read through the Colorado case and evidently one of the links I pulled in were from Oregon and I missed the switch.
2. I wasn't referring to the Klein case. I'm not familiar with that one. No wonder I've been confused though. There are 2 of them. I think that has happened on earlier posts too. Sorry. I'll have to be more careful not to mix the information now that I know.
3. I'm sure you're right. Again I was referring to Colorado. I read one where it was going to the Supreme court and another where they were forced to pay 135,000 before appeals. It's sometimes hard with text as it isn't like you put all the details together and realize it's two different cases. Brain fart I guess. I'm sure I noticed it but for some reason my brain said it occurred in Colorado but the couple was from Oregon with their mother.
4. Again, honest mistake. I'll have to read up on the other one. Still, $135,000 because someone was rude? General take on it is still pretty much the same. The baker has a right to his religious beliefs and when the law violates his freedom of religion it is the law which must bend.

Click to expand...

So you read the Colorado Supreme Court Decision on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?



>>>>

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

WorldWatcher said:

So you read the Colorado Supreme Court Decision on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?



>>>>

Click to expand...

I scanned it briefly. This really isn't a thread which I feel is of the utmost importance to me. Browsing through I saw a post claiming sexual preference was from birth so it should be an inalienable right due to "All men are created equal" clause (much like race and gender). I merely clarified it wasn't genetic and next thing I know for whatever reason people keep replying. And I don't want to be rude and not respond to direct questions if possible. It really isn't much concern to me if I am being honest, but I did take the time to speed read through the case. What skills I have lie in genetics, history, the Constitution and engineering. i really don't have the time or inclination to bone up (no pun intended) on all the latest in the area of gay rights. I'm sure those closer to it are more familiar with the various cases at hand.

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

WorldWatcher said:

So you read the Colorado Supreme Court Decision on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?



>>>>

Click to expand...

LibDave said:

I scanned it briefly.

Click to expand...

How, the Colorado Supreme Court never heard the case, they rejected it. They didn't hear the case and there was no decision issued.



>>>>

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

WorldWatcher said:

How, the Colorado Supreme Court never heard the case, they rejected it. They didn't hear the case and there was no decision issued.



>>>>

Click to expand...

This just means it has passed this stage and now might be taken up by the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS won't take it up until they fill the vacancy. I did find it interesting scanning through the lower court ruling where they said "cannot use one's religious freedom to circumvent the law". This is bound to cause the lower court ruling some problems, since that is exactly what is meant by inalienable right. Fact is the main point of the Constitution is to insure inalienable rights cannot be infringed upon by law. In essence the lower court admitted the law infringed upon the inalienable right of the baker. It also won't help that they compared his act to that of the holocaust. Extremely prejudicial!

Laws must always bend to an individuals inalienable right with the rare exception when the law is defining preference between one individual's inalienable rights and the inalienable rights of another individual. This is of course decided based on the actionable party. For example if someone claimed their religion says they must kill gays. In this matter the two inalienable rights are in conflict (religion and the right to life) and the law may rule on it. In this case the actionable party is the one committing the act of murder and they go to the chair.

One interesting example of this was the Dr. Kavorkian case. Where the inalienable rights of an individual (right to make their own medical choices) conflicts with that same individuals right to life. They ruled the actionable party was of course the only individual involved. I found this odd and not sure what to make of that.

Re: Do you support protecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity under...[W:174,3

LibDave said:

This just means it has passed this stage and now might be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

No what it means is you were making references to decisions you couldn't have been referencing because they don't exist.



>>>>