• 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!

Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down For Miami Area

It is absolutely not that simple, nor do you seem to even understand the legal definitions of discrimination against individuals. Prohibiting skydiving doesn't discriminate against skydivers. Prohibiting human sacrifice doesn't discriminate against cultists from R'lyeh.

For further reading, I recommend you start with a textbook on constitutional law, or at least this: Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause. After that, at least try to get through the wikipedia pages on the three levels of scrutiny. Surely this will aid you in your endeavor to get through law school in only two years, rather than three.

You don't seem to understand the difference between rules, regulations and standards...

Hell it was once a standard that blacks drink out of their own drinking fountains...... That was discrimination via Law/government, just as it is discrimination telling smokers they cant smoke x,y or z...... Discrimination is singling out a specific group...

Treating individuals as second class citizens for a trait or aesthetic reasons is discrimination...

Now if private business owners want to make their own rules that is fine but for the state to legislate laws that discriminate against individuals - yea well that is wrong - that is Jim Crow.
 
Oh it most certainly does - it's called precedent. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Your ignorance on the topic is correctable. I would suggest starting your research with levels of scrutiny, which designate when it is legal to discriminate.

To highlite why you are wrong here, a simple question: all criminal cases of the same type are judged under the same legal standard. Does that mean all cases should have the same outcome?
 
Your ignorance on the topic is correctable. I would suggest starting your research with levels of scrutiny, which designate when it is legal to discriminate.

To highlite why you are wrong here, a simple question: all criminal cases of the same type are judged under the same legal standard. Does that mean all cases should have the same outcome?

Yeah OK whatever you want....

You and your ilk still don't get it....... You're still in the progressive world where the law doesn't matter and anyone you don't agree with can be discriminated against - you're in ****ing Obamaville..

Yeah well your little quack of a president will be out of office in a couple of years and Holder will certainly be in prison in the next 6 years so..

You don't know what the hell scrutiny means....

I think the problem here is that you want to justify your bias and resentment towards another as moral and just - you're looking to rationalize your discrimination.

I should sue you just for your post... lol
 
Yeah OK whatever you want....

You and your ilk still don't get it....... You're still in the progressive world where the law doesn't matter and anyone you don't agree with can be discriminated against - you're in ****ing Obamaville..

Yeah well your little quack of a president will be out of office in a couple of years and Holder will certainly be in prison in the next 6 years so..

You don't know what the hell scrutiny means....

I think the problem here is that you want to justify your bias and resentment towards another as moral and just - you're looking to rationalize your discrimination.

I should sue you just for your post... lol

Nice diversion from your failure to understand EPC.
 
Nice diversion from your failure to understand EPC.

LOL, yeah ok. Now you're trying to justify discrimination...

DO you know the difference between criminal and civil law or do I have to sue you for your avatar terrorizing children?
 
That is not discrimination against adults.... Yeah you have to be 18 to smoke too and 21 to drink....

Those are called STANDARDS, however smoking is LEGAL hence you cannot discriminate against an individual partaking in a LEGAL activity - THAT is discrimination.

The government banning smoking in certain places is DISCRIMINATION...

I know it's too complicated for you to understand.

You like every progressive want's your opinion to be law or factual hence everyone else is wrong and the law only works for you not against you.

It's not too complicated, you're just making up definitions as you go.

You can smoke, just not in certain public buildings. It's an air quality standard.

Smoking bans would survive an equal protection challenge because they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

but feel free to put your money where your mouth is. Hire a lawyer and challenge a smoking ban on equal protection grounds.

I like how you believe I am the one deciding how equal protection works to suit my beliefs. I'm not the one who decided this, dude. The Supreme Court did.
 
It's not too complicated, you're just making up definitions as you go.

You can smoke, just not in certain public buildings. It's an air quality standard.

Smoking bans would survive an equal protection challenge because they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

but feel free to put your money where your mouth is. Hire a lawyer and challenge a smoking ban on equal protection grounds.

I like how you believe I am the one deciding how equal protection works to suit my beliefs. I'm not the one who decided this, dude. The Supreme Court did.

Haha.... they would only stand up because you want them to.

Smoking bans are discriminatory.......

I could care less anyways because everywhere I go I can smoke but that still doesn't change how I feel about this topic...

I feel the same way about calories in food products..

I have to eat at least 10,000 calories a day to keep my weight up because I have a hyper thyroid? yet the Fat Nazi's make that damn near impossible.

So basically I have to eat butter because progressives are obsessed with fat people and want to ban this and that that is high in calories...

You people don't think before you act...

Do you really think I enjoy shoving my face with low calorie food?
 
LOL, yeah ok. Now you're trying to justify discrimination...

DO you know the difference between criminal and civil law or do I have to sue you for your avatar terrorizing children?

Well, they say you can elad a horse to water, but can't make him drink. I am going to show you some water. What you do to it is up to you.

Rational Basis | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Rational basis is the most lenient form of judicial review, as both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are considered more stringent. Rational basis review is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.

Notice that it does not say the government cannot discriminate(It can and does). It explains what areas the government can discriminate in. Areas where the state has a legitimate interest in such discrimination, such as age requirements, and perfectly legal under the constitution. Now you know a little bit about our constitution!
 
I'd absolutely take these rulings against these bans - you know why? because they're setting nothing but precedent to strike down every tyrannical ban progressives want.

There will be no more banning of anything anymore...

In 5-years I will be back in the bar smoking my cigarettes and blowing the smoke in progressives faces..

We can play the discrimination game all damn day long...

You don't understand the law and if you blow smoke in the face of progressives you will find yourself on the sidewalk.
 
Haha.... they would only stand up because you want them to.

No, because the Supreme Court has set up particular mechanisms set up to decide these things. This isn't arbitrary, dude, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make that fact go away. But you don't want to even acknowledge those mechanisms.

yet the Fat Nazi's make that damn near impossible.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that eating too many calories in the United States is difficult? That is...****ing comical. We subsidize corn growing so much that food companies shove corn syrup into everything. It's in bread. You can get 64 oz soft drinks at gas stations for like a dollar. (which is like 800 calories by itself) One ****ing city institutes a big soda ban and now it's impossible to get fat? :lamo
 
Any ban that discriminates against an individual is unconstitutional...

It's really that simple...

I can use your logic against your ****ed up tyrannical bans...

Nope. That isn't how the law works.

Levels of scrutiny. What the law is in place and how it affects those people is only a small part of it. In fact, how it discriminates is a small part of it only. The major part of the argument is going to be what reasoning the government has for the law being in place, what specific state interest does this law further, if any.
 
Oh it most certainly does - it's called precedent. You can't have your cake and eat it.
I love when you make posts that prove you are unaware of how things work and what the facts are, it cracks me up

please add precedent to the list

if you disagree PLEASE by all means simply show how equal rights on marriage precedents FACTUALLY relates to the fantasy world you are talking about
 
Back
Top Bottom