• 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!

Feminism Lost

LowDown said:
"Feminism Lost" laments the New York Times, commenting on the election.

Well, no. Feminism was already dead. It died in 1998, according to Maureen Dowd, when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. From that point on it was nothing more than a subset of the Democratic Party's activist base. So Hillary's campaign was a rotten, stinking zombie stalking the earth. All that is left of that is a primal scream, which we will get to hear in the Women's March on Washington on January 21st.
Click to expand...

It ain't dead. For every Dianne Feinstein that wrinkles up and fades away, there are 10 more to replace her.
 
RetiredUSN said:
It ain't dead. For every Dianne Feinstein that wrinkles up and fades away, there are 10 more to replace her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the point is the Feinsteins are all fake feminists. They are nothing more than Democratic operatives.
 
joG said:
Nope. You are not a necessarily a patriot. You are only acting on conscience and exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

If people want to change that it is quite legitimate. But that means changing the Constitution. Calling on the state to act otherwise is rather ignorant of why it is good to enforce constitutiins in democratic systems of rule of law.
Click to expand...

I dont think you know what you're talking about. You are aware that our land is choke absolutely full of laws that are NOT in the Constitution. Not ever new law or restriction or rule requires a constitutional change. In fact, very very few do. So no.....anti-discrimination laws do not, in fact, require a constitutional change.
 
How did feminism lose? The first movement managed to get the rights they were after and the second movement managed to emasculate men. If anything men should have stopped the second movement in it's tracks and are now paying for their failure to do so. Men are getting closer and closer to being the second sex and it's largely their fault for not stopping feminists.
 
jimithyashford said:
I dont think you know what you're talking about. You are aware that our land is choke absolutely full of laws that are NOT in the Constitution. Not ever new law or restriction or rule requires a constitutional change. In fact, very very few do. So no.....anti-discrimination laws do not, in fact, require a constitutional change.
Click to expand...

They do actually. The claim by the supreme court is that such laws are constitutional because of the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. The problem comes in when you notice that anti-discrimination laws cover commerce taking place in one location and that businesses are quite clearly not states restricted by the fourteenth amendment.
 
jimithyashford said:
I dont think you know what you're talking about. You are aware that our land is choke absolutely full of laws that are NOT in the Constitution. Not ever new law or restriction or rule requires a constitutional change. In fact, very very few do. So no.....anti-discrimination laws do not, in fact, require a constitutional change.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right that not every law requires a change of the constitution. Where you seem to err is that it is not true that therefore laws that do contradict the Constitution should be allowed.
 
joG said:
You are absolutely right that not every law requires a change of the constitution. Where you seem to err is that it is not true that therefore laws that do contradict the Constitution should be allowed.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act and similar related act (Such as the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Housing Act, etc) are unConstitutional, or that the protections against discrimination based on Age, Race, Religion, Gender, and National Origin are fine, but adding "Sexual orientation" to that list is not fine?
 
Henrin said:
They do actually. The claim by the supreme court is that such laws are constitutional because of the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. The problem comes in when you notice that anti-discrimination laws cover commerce taking place in one location and that businesses are quite clearly not states restricted by the fourteenth amendment.
Click to expand...

And who are you? Where is your constitutional law degree from? Or am I just supposed to take your armchair assessment of constitutional law over half a century of civil rights legislation?
 
jimithyashford said:
Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act and similar related act (Such as the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Housing Act, etc) are unConstitutional, or that the protections against discrimination based on Age, Race, Religion, Gender, and National Origin are fine, but adding "Sexual orientation" to that list is not fine?
Click to expand...

If you think about it, you will notice that that is not, what i said.
 
joG said:
If you think about it, you will notice that that is not, what i said.
Click to expand...

Dude, that is why I asked for clarification, cause I can't tell what you meant, because you only reply in vague short non-committal replies.
 
jimithyashford said:
Dude, that is why I asked for clarification, cause I can't tell what you meant, because you only reply in vague short non-committal replies.
Click to expand...

It would have helped, had you not been so negative. I lost interest at that point.
 
joG said:
It would have helped, had you not been so negative. I lost interest at that point.
Click to expand...

I don't tend to "play nice" with people who are endorsing discrimination. You should probably get used to that. I will interfacing meaningfully with your points and have a good faith conversation, but I will not mask my contempt for the idea of discriminating against gay people.
 
jimithyashford said:
I don't tend to "play nice" with people who are endorsing discrimination. You should probably get used to that. I will interfacing meaningfully with your points and have a good faith conversation, but I will not mask my contempt for the idea of discriminating against gay people.
Click to expand...

Then you should bite your tongue as you are propagating discrimination of the worst kind. You are supporting breaking the Constitutional rights of citizens. That is not only vile and contemptible. It is criminally irresponsible.
 
joG said:
Then you should bite your tongue as you are propagating discrimination of the worst kind. You are supporting breaking the Constitutional rights of citizens. That is not only vile and contemptible. It is criminally irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I had no idea that you were a constitutional lawyer. Imagine my shock to discover that I am in a conversation with someone who is a well educated authority on the subject...

Yes, that's sarcasm.

I have invited you to explain how/why/if the Civil Rights act is unconstitutional, and if it is not, when why would adding Sexual Orientation to those protections not be ok?

I am intensely curious as to what the rationale here is. I would dearly love for your to explain it.

Or I could tell you to bite your tongue because you're discriminating against people based on who they love...the worst kind of discrimination.....

But that's not productive.
 
jimithyashford said:
And who are you? Where is your constitutional law degree from? Or am I just supposed to take your armchair assessment of constitutional law over half a century of civil rights legislation?
Click to expand...

A motel does not engage in interstate commerce, but commerce from one location. The commerce clause only deals with commerce among states as the amendment makes clear, so when the courts ruled that a motel is bound by federal law dealing with commerce because of the commerce clause they ignored the very language and meaning of the clause.

If you ever read the equal protection clause you would notice that it only restricts the behavior of states, while leaving all private individuals unbound by the amendment. This means that while the amendment might force states to treat people equally it does not force businesses to do the same. What the courts did was add business to the amendment and in the process ignore the intent and wording of the amendment in question.
 
jimithyashford said:
I don't tend to "play nice" with people who are endorsing discrimination. You should probably get used to that. I will interfacing meaningfully with your points and have a good faith conversation, but I will not mask my contempt for the idea of discriminating against gay people.
Click to expand...


No one is endorsing discrimination. Please read more carefully and calm down.
 
Henrin said:
No one is endorsing discrimination. Please read more carefully and calm down.
Click to expand...

I believe (unless I am reading him wrong, his replies are extremely vague) that JOG there earlier in this conversation said that business owners should have the right to refuse service to gays. What possible definition of Discrimination would not include that behavior?
 
Henrin said:
A motel does not engage in interstate commerce, but commerce from one location. The commerce clause only deals with commerce among states as the amendment makes clear, so when the courts ruled that a motel is bound by federal law dealing with commerce because of the commerce clause they ignored the very language and meaning of the clause.

If you ever read the equal protection clause you would notice that it only restricts the behavior of states, while leaving all private individuals unbound by the amendment. This means that while the amendment might force states to treat people equally it does not force businesses to do the same. What the courts did was add business to the amendment and in the process ignore the intent and wording of the amendment in question.
Click to expand...

So says you, but obviously the Supreme Court disagrees or did not warrant the objection you see as carrying the weight you are placing upon it.

So, it could be that you are just incredibly clever and see what all of these other law makers and justices and experts did not. It could be that they see it too but due to knowledge they have that you do not, they understand that objection to not be substantive. Or it could be that the supreme court and the congress and the presidencies of the last half a century have been conspiring to pull a fast one and get minorities some protection, those sneaky bastards.

You probably, I am guessing, believe the latter to be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom