• 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!

States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

Read OP:


  • Total voters
    25
No, the FedGov has no authority to make anti-discrimination laws that apply to individuals and businesses.

Of course they have done just that - but there is no constitutional foundation for it - it is the government acting outside the bounds of its power. The courts rubber stamped it, and the people cheered - but make no mistake, it is an example of the government acting lawlessly itself - which of course is far more dangerous than an individual acting like a bigot.

Once the citizenry accepts that the government can operate with open-ended, unaccountable power, it is only a matter of time before that government swallows the rights and liberties of all the citizens.

I wrote this and you said no, it's not wrong.

So then ending Jim Crow laws was wrong?

And yet, federal anti-discrimination laws drove changes in those states to remove Jim Crow.

So....I am confused at any point you are trying to make.
 
Yes there is - the 10th amendment; and the very foundation of our Constitution which spells out the "enumerated powers". The FedGov has no such "enumerated power".

Try reading the Commerce Clause

That is, if you care about the constitution as much as you claim to
 
It should be obvious that the bans on gay marriage, whether enacted by voting or legislation, singled out homosexuals. Though supporters of these bans have claimed that gays should have settled for "civil union", the reality is that some of these amendments also banned civil unions with gays in them. That said, people have claimed that the recent Obergefell ruling was unconstitutional. Which leads me to present this question:

Does the constitution give states the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

I have provided two answers to this:

A) Yes.
B) No.

The reason for this is clear. If you believe that these bans were constitutional, then states do have the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don't believe they were, then it's clear that states don't. There are no maybe's and others in most of my polls. They assume you understand the topic enough to make a decision based on what you know.

The Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the law of the land. No State has a Constitutional right to defy the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court has given same-sex marriage the protection of the Constitution, the several States are required to obey.
 
I wrote this and you said no, it's not wrong.



And yet, federal anti-discrimination laws drove changes in those states to remove Jim Crow.

So....I am confused at any point you are trying to make.

Again, the Jim Crow laws were improper b/c they originated from government.

Whom a business chooses to do business with is not a concern of the government; hence any law which seeks to mandate some participation by any party is not Constitutional. The law itself is unconstitutional.

As for the business or individual - they can engage, or not to engage, in commerce with anyone they so choose; again, it is not a governmental matter.
 
Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.

accept there are millions of Christians that support equal rights/SSM and allowing equal rights doesn't impact my Christianity (or religious rights or freedoms) in any way but denying then equal right does CLEAR impact them. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage, this fact will not change. Your persona subjective opinion based definition of marriage is meaningless to legal marriage and whats nice is you are also allowed to have you opinion of it at the same time. Thats tolerance. Thats live and let live.
 
1.)A civil union would do the same thing
2.) but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman.
3.) Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony.
4.) Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.

1.) olease stop with this lie. first off states tried to ban civil unions/ Civil unions are not equal to legal marriage which is actually a specific type of civil union.
2.) any other marriages other than legal are free to be how ever people want them so theres no worry here
3.) please stop these lies LMAO one both side would not be happy with a lesser civil union, secondly honest people on this issue that support equal rights are not unhappy with equal rights, lastly the majoirty of the christian community supports equal rights and we are topically educated enough to understand the fact that legal marriage has nothing to do with our religion. THe majority already have social harmony but thats not need on the topic of rights anyway, just like with interracial marriage.
4.) the bigots and hate mongers already lost to equal rights so we arent worried about them.

deeply held beliefs dont matter to law and equal rights'
my religious rights and freedoms as a christian have not been violated in anyway what so ever by ssm nor are they by anti-discrimination laws. disagree list the rights i lost.
 
Whom a business chooses to do business with is not a concern of the government; hence any law which seeks to mandate some participation by any party is not Constitutional. The law itself is unconstitutional.

As for the business or individual - they can engage, or not to engage, in commerce with anyone they so choose; again, it is not a governmental matter.

The Commerce Clause in the Constitution disagrees with you
 
Again, the Jim Crow laws were improper b/c they originated from government.

Whom a business chooses to do business with is not a concern of the government; hence any law which seeks to mandate some participation by any party is not Constitutional. The law itself is unconstitutional.

As for the business or individual - they can engage, or not to engage, in commerce with anyone they so choose; again, it is not a governmental matter.

Not all, they were often just local...they werent fed or all states would have had to incorporate them.
 
Not all, they were often just local...they werent fed or all states would have had to incorporate them.

The point is, no governmental entity - Fed, State, or local can deny a citizen his basic rights protected under the Constitution.

That is why Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, and that is why the SC all of sudden "discovering" that they have the power to deny one parties rights in the supposed pursuit of enforcing the rights of another also doesn't fly - b/c afterall, the government is then denying someone their Constitutional rights.

Don't know why this is so complicated for Americans to understand. This used to be U.S. Government 101.

Since the Establishment has succeeded in flipping the courts and rendering the Constitution nothing more than a useless rag to be spat upon - not surprisingly, everyone's rights are up for grabs; the social and cultural fabric is tearing at the seams; the treasury has been looted; posterity has been bankrupted; and we are all now under the abusive control of a cruel master, i.e. a centrally controlled, all-powerful government that is controlled by an oligarchy.

Our Founding Fathers wrote tomes about this stuff trying to give us ample warning - but of course the Establishment saw to it that those teachings were erased from the pages of history and replaced with the importance of pop icons like Madonna.

It's no wonder most Americans haven't the first clue that they are being subjugated under and all-powerful tyranny - they're incapable of recognizing what is being done to them.
 
The point is, no governmental entity - Fed, State, or local can deny a citizen his basic rights protected under the Constitution.

That is why Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, and that is why the SC all of sudden "discovering" that they have the power to deny one parties rights in the supposed pursuit of enforcing the rights of another also doesn't fly - b/c afterall, the government is then denying someone their Constitutional rights.

Don't know why this is so complicated for Americans to understand. This used to be U.S. Government 101.

Since the Establishment has succeeded in flipping the courts and rendering the Constitution nothing more than a useless rag to be spat upon - not surprisingly, everyone's rights are up for grabs; the social and cultural fabric is tearing at the seams; the treasury has been looted; posterity has been bankrupted; and we are all now under the abusive control of a cruel master, i.e. a centrally controlled, all-powerful government that is controlled by an oligarchy.

Our Founding Fathers wrote tomes about this stuff trying to give us ample warning - but of course the Establishment saw to it that those teachings were erased from the pages of history and replaced with the importance of pop icons like Madonna.

It's no wonder most Americans haven't the first clue that they are being subjugated under and all-powerful tyranny - they're incapable of recognizing what is being done to them.

I want so much to disagree, but more and more I agree with what you just said.
 
No, the FedGov has no authority to make anti-discrimination laws that apply to individuals and businesses.

Of course they have done just that - but there is no constitutional foundation for it - it is the government acting outside the bounds of its power. The courts rubber stamped it, and the people cheered - but make no mistake, it is an example of the government acting lawlessly itself - which of course is far more dangerous than an individual acting like a bigot.

Once the citizenry accepts that the government can operate with open-ended, unaccountable power, it is only a matter of time before that government swallows the rights and liberties of all the citizens.

If "the people cheered" then that is apparently something "the people" agree with.
 
If "the people cheered" then that is apparently something "the people" agree with.

Then properly going thru the amendment process shouldn't have been a problem - should it??

But that isn't what the Establishment was after. They don't want to abide by the terms of the Constitution, they want to ultimately destroy it; so, from their perspective the best course of action is to change the meanings of phrases and clauses of the Constitution so as to give the government ever more open-ended power. Deceiving the people into accepting velvet chains was simply the most expedient and shrewd means of achieving their goal.

When these changes were being pushed thru - yes, a good percentage of the people did cheer; but a healthy percentage of the people did, in fact, recognize what was going on, and the danger in it all; and yes, they did object quite vigorously. But of course the fix was in at the Supreme Court, and over time, after the "crisis" of the depression eased, most everyone settled into business as usual.

From there the Establishment was on to their next deconstruction projects - most notably, more war.

After decades of this type of herding the masses with these types of deceptions and manipulations - the masses are all-but ignorant from whence they came and the principles of freedom, and are completely at the mercy of the oligarchy.
 
Then properly going thru the amendment process shouldn't have been a problem - should it??

There's no need to amend the constitution because it already gives the govt the power to regulate commerce
 
Back
Top Bottom