• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

ernst barkmann said:
why? because then people are rejected, and hurt, the reaction to the get even, since this is not possible by physical force, a crime, they seek government to be there force, and get even.

as has been stated by some of the gay community, 'let it be a warning to people who feel they can discriminate"
Click to expand...

Their God will do all the even getting eventually.....I say just walk away and shake your head while baby Jesus cries.
 

Fact Sheet: New Mexico Human Rights Act

1. What is the New Mexico Human Rights Act?

The New Mexico Human Rights Act is a state civil rights law that, among other things, guarantees full and equal services and accommodations to all people regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex,sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.

http://www.cdd.unm.edu/ecspd/resour...ession_3/8_NM_Human_Rights_Act_Fact_Sheet.pdf
 
tecoyah said:
Why would ANYONE want someone who obviously hates them to be in charge of wedding pictures in the first place....I mean come one, she would probably do a lousy job on purpose or lose the pictures because her pure little Christian heart compels her to do so.
Click to expand...

First this was a state law. (This is where the states rights people get floundered) -

I think that was a rare case though. Two STOOPID things happened there.

The photographer (like most business owners in fields such as the photographer) can still discriminate if they like, they just have to be more creative about it.

Just say no. Too busy, booked, etc.., or refer her to another photographer - You don't even HAVE to give a reason. She did though, and quite vocally.

Second, the major unfortunate problem the photographer faced was: She said it to someone whose job it was to enforce discrimination laws.

The lesbian (radical, in my view) worked for the NM version of the EEOC. It was what she made her living doing. Yikes.

Bad Bad mistake. It was like telling the Liquor Commissioner you own a bar and serve booze to minors, or telling a cop you speed every day around a certain stretch of road (maybe not great analogies, but it's a slow-firing neuron day. lol) Not wise.

The photographer was nabbed in a very unfortunate situation, but it was state law.

My personal views are that art fields, including photography and such, are not something that should be open to Civil Rights Laws.

It is quite different than a general store, restaurant or hotel.
 
paperview said:
lol. You don't even know what number amendment the equal protection clause falls under.


Pssst: 14th.
Click to expand...

actully i cut you slack, and you didnt even see it.

The 14th pass by congress after the civl war incorporated the bill of rights , and made it apply to states, as where the bill of rights did not apply to states before the civl war.

The 5th was equal protection, becuase it restircts the government from creating any law which denies government from violating life, liberty, property without due process

by using the 14th you hurt yourself

it clearly states...." no state shall".....does not say no citizen or business shall, .....and it also states privledges and immunities, , ...it does not say rights.

In 1873 the ussc declared the 14th only applied to slaves, it has only been the in 20th century that descion was changed.

So using the 14th is not a smart move.
 
ernst barkmann said:
actully i cut you slack, and you didnt even see it.

The 14th pass by congress after the civl war incorporated the bill of rights , and made it apply to states, as where the bill of rights did not apply to states before the civl war.

The 5th was equal protection, becuase it restircts the government from creating any law which denies government from violating life, liberty, property without due process

by using the 14th you hurt yourself

it clearly states...." no state shall".....does not say no citizen or business shall, .....and it also states privledges and immunities, , ...it does not say rights.

In 1873 the ussc declared the 14th only applied to slaves, it has only been the in 20th century that descion was changed.

So using the 14th is not a smart move.
Click to expand...

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.


U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II said the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."

U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages


Happening all over the place now, buddy. Get used to it.
 
Paperview said:
(Reuters) - A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.


U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II said the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."

U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages


Happening all over the place now, buddy. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

marriage is a privilege because it is licensed by the state.....a government........ rights are not licensed.

since government dispenses that privilege, then It must treat all people equal and provide the privilege, ..unless they can show it is in the interest of the states not to give the privilege which Is difficult to do.

I think you should read the 14th before you cite it.
 
apdst said:
Oh! So everyone's rights aren't equal, after all?
Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means....... you didn't answer my question....
 
ernst barkmann said:
marriage is a privilege because it is licensed by the state.....a government........ rights are not licensed.

since government dispenses that privilege, then It must treat all people equal and provide the privilege, ..unless they can show it is in the interest of the states not to give the privilege which Is difficult to do.

I think you should read the 14th before you cite it.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled Marriage is a Fundamental Right.
 
Paperview said:
SCOTUS has ruled Marriage is a Fundamental Right.
Click to expand...

then if that was so, ...question?.. then how have state government passed. constitutional amendments, preventing it, states laws which prevent it, the government creating DOMA.

since it is a recognized right, this would have meant such laws would have never been on the books.


I am glad of one thing, ...you clearly stated, that the COURT, would be the one to rule if something is a right, congress or a state government, cannot create any right for the people by legislation.
 
ernst barkmann said:
then if that was so, ...question?.. then how have state government passed. constitutional amendments, preventing it, states laws which prevent it, the government creating DOMA.

since it is a recognized right, this would have meant such laws would have never been on the books.


I am glad of one thing, ...you clearly stated, that the COURT, would be the one to rule if something is a right, congress or a state government, cannot create any right for the people by legislation.
Click to expand...
Er, DOMA has been struck down by SCOTUS. Did you miss that?

Have you missed Federal judges all over the country striking down those laws that ban same-sex marriage as Unconstitutional?
 
Paperview said:
Er, DOMA has been struck down by SCOTUS. Did you miss that?

Have you missed Federal judges all over the country striking down those laws that ban same-sex marriage as Unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

well tell me then, when had the USSC declared marriage a fundamental right?.....because some states have had laws, amendments for years.

and I cant say I have heard the court rule on marriage, in the last several years.
 
And, the most recent ruling from Virginia, drew upon Loving v Virginia.


"Crowds gathered as oral arguments got underway Tuesday morning in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. The case challenges Virginia’s amendment that bans same-sex marriage.


In 2006, 57 percent of Virginians voted in favor of the Virginia Marriage Amendment that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Inside the courthouse



Ted Olson and David Boies presented the plaintiffs’ side.


Olson said Virginia, “erects a wall around gay and lesbian citizens.” He added that marriage is a fundamental right of an individual, and not of the state, citing previous Supreme Court rulings. Boise asked what motivates the supporters of the ban other than maintaining the status quo.


Newly-elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced last month, he would reverse Virginia’s stance on the issue and would not defend the amendment in court.

Virginia’s Solicitor General Stuart Raphael argued Attorney General Herring’s position in court on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Raphael said the case is legally indistinguishable from Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a ban on interracial marriage in 1967. He said the idea that there is “no traditional right to same sex marriage” is a major flaw.​


Ruling could ‘change the basic concept of marriage’ in Virginia | WTVR.com
 
Paperview said:
And, the most recent ruling from Virginia, drew upon Loving v Virginia.


"Crowds gathered as oral arguments got underway Tuesday morning in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. The case challenges Virginia’s amendment that bans same-sex marriage.


In 2006, 57 percent of Virginians voted in favor of the Virginia Marriage Amendment that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Inside the courthouse



Ted Olson and David Boies presented the plaintiffs’ side.


Olson said Virginia, “erects a wall around gay and lesbian citizens.” He added that marriage is a fundamental right of an individual, and not of the state, citing previous Supreme Court rulings. Boise asked what motivates the supporters of the ban other than maintaining the status quo.


Newly-elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced last month, he would reverse Virginia’s stance on the issue and would not defend the amendment in court.

Virginia’s Solicitor General Stuart Raphael argued Attorney General Herring’s position in court on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Raphael said the case is legally indistinguishable from Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a ban on interracial marriage in 1967. He said the idea that there is “no traditional right to same sex marriage” is a major flaw.​


Ruling could ‘change the basic concept of marriage’ in Virginia | WTVR.com
Click to expand...

your case.....1967

if declared a right then, how were laws passed , amendments passed which allowed the outright violation of a right?
 
Here, I'll break it down for you.

Legislatures write laws.

They are passed by Majority.

Signed by Executives.

Sometimes Amendments are added to State Constitutions.

Somebody challenges that law or Amendment.

Sometimes they are found Unconstitutional.

S u r p r i s e !

moreyouknow.jpg
 
clownboy said:
Well then I suppose thank god for the internet. There's a way out of it with brick and mortor too - limited membership buyers clubs.

If the government wants to run my business from soup to nuts, what's the point? Let them do the work.
Click to expand...

LOL....can you be any more of a drama queen? Requiring businesses not to practice bigotry is not the big bad "govment" running your business from soup to nuts.
 
ernst barkmann said:
I asked you what right. you wish to cite federal laws, ..well federal laws cannot create rights for the people, only rights recognized in the constitution or rights recognized by the USSC are rights.

the court has never stated you have a right to not be discriminated against, by a citizen or business.

constitutional law states that governments cannot discriminate against the people....because constitutions only apply to government they never limit people.

so again what right per constitutional law, was violated by the business owner.


p.s. since the couple was on the business owners property at the time, the couple has no exercisable rights to speak of
Click to expand...

geeeez i thought yout at least try, yes i refered to LAWS and rights heres actually what i said
AGENT J said:
so are you claiming this is a big conspiracy theory? all those laws and rights and court cases and the usages of the 14 and civil rights all these years is all wrong . . only your opinion is right?

and be clear, i have ZERO interest in discussion your opinions and philosophies im asking you fro FACTS that prove all that stuff wrong

what FACTS do have that prove the facts above and the law and established rights and court cases wrong?
Click to expand...

and then i asked you to present ONE fact that disprove all that, ONE and you came back with a post that amounts to "nu-huh" and ZERO facts that go against what was already stated . . . thats hilarious!

let me know when you can do this ill check back lol

facts win again
 
Henrin said:
What rights did you list above? I don't see anything.
Click to expand...

of course YOU dont LMAO this further helps prove the facts i already listed

lets just ignore the the facts, rights, the law and court cases/precedence and the 14th and civil rights that all come together and establish this stuff in favor of your opinion. LMAO
no thanks

facts win again
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nope thats just your OPINION and nothing else, in FACT many human rights groups support the 14th and civil rights :lamo
2.) yep seems i have to keep educating you and proving your posts wrong lol
people and private orgs are not allowed to break the law and illegally discriminate
if you disagree by all means PLEASE factually prove otherwise, i cant wait to read this humor


facts win . . . AGAIN lol
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment does not supprot your argument and groups are meaningless once again the facts prove you wrong uninformed

I stated facts you give nebulous opinion
 
P
CriticalThought said:
I have heard that there are plenty of LGBT groups that would love to be a part of drafting new versions of these bills so that religious liberties can be protected and incidents like the Cake Shop Owner and Wedding Photographer will not happen in other states. Instead of being adversarial, why not include gay rights folks so that we can have legislation that genuinely seeks to secure religious liberty rather than just trying to strip gay rights under the guise of religion? Freedom of association should be a public discussion, not a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

Not 100% what "rights" are being protected though. You don't own another man's property or labor. No one seems to be able to argue how they came into rightful possession of others' property and labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom