Thoughts on gay crosswalks?

[Critter7r]

I see nothing whatever hypocritical about that. Nor do I see anything whatever hypocritical about the countless other instances of legal discrimination which raise no constitutional issue.

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation. Yet somehow, it's illegal for two people to marry, based on their sexual orientation.

That's what is known as a double standard, or hypocrisy, depending on how nicely you're trying to phrase it.

 

[matchlight]

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation. Yet somehow, it's illegal for two people to marry, based on their sexual orientation.

That's what is known as a double standard, or hypocrisy, depending on how nicely you're trying to phrase it.

I don't think either term applies, and your statement of the law is vague and inaccurate. Federal law does not prohibit discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. That is exactly why proponents of the homosexual agenda have tried so hard to get that provision into various state public accommodation laws. Some of those laws prohibit owners and operators of public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which means they force those persons to enter into contracts for goods and services with homosexuals even when they do not want to. But other states' laws do not contain any such prohibition, and they do not violate anything in the Constitution by omitting it.

The Supreme Court has twice held state public accommodation laws which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unconstitutional, both times on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley, it held the Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Dale, it held the New Jersey law violated the freedom of association. Having studied the arguments of proponents of the homosexual agenda, it does not surprise me to see their disdain for the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy and his four fellow legislators showed a barely concealed hostility toward religious freedom two years ago in Obergefell, the homosexual marriage decision. This hostility was open enough that the Chief Justice had quite a bit to say about it in his dissenting opinion.

 

[AGENT J]

I don't think either term applies, and your statement of the law is vague and inaccurate. Federal law does not prohibit discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. That is exactly why proponents of the 1.) homosexual agenda have tried so hard to get that provision into various state public accommodation laws. Some of those laws prohibit owners and operators of public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, 2.) which means they force those persons to enter into contracts for goods and services with homosexuals even when they do not want to. But other states' laws do not contain any such prohibition, and they do not violate anything in the Constitution by omitting it.

The Supreme Court has twice held state public accommodation laws which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unconstitutional, both times on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley, it held the Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Dale, it held the New Jersey law violated the freedom of association. Having studied the arguments of proponents of the homosexual agenda, it does not surprise me to see their disdain for the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy and his four fellow legislators showed a barely concealed hostility toward religious freedom two years ago in Obergefell, the homosexual marriage decision. This hostility was open enough that the Chief Justice had quite a bit to say about it in his dissenting opinion.

1.) facts prove theres no such thing as you state it
2.) this is a factual lie, there is no force LMAO

 

[matchlight]

this is a factual lie, there is no force

That assertion is false. Whenever government uses its power to coerce individuals by law into taking some action, by punishing them if they fail to, it is obvious--at least to most of us--that force is being used. Laws would be meaningless if they were not backed by the threat of government force. In the case of state public accommodation laws, this usually takes the form of a fine. The New Mexico business owner in the Elane Photography case, for example, was fined quite a large sum for declining to take photos of a homosexual wedding.

 

[Critter7r]

I don't think either term applies,

Which term? I highlighted 4, and there are a dozen in the quote. Which two are you talking about?

... and your statement of the law is vague and inaccurate.

As general descriptions of laws tend to necessarily be.

Federal law does not prohibit discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

Sweet. I'm talking about civil rights

That is exactly why proponents of the homosexual agenda have tried so hard to get that provision into various state public accommodation laws. Some of those laws prohibit owners and operators of public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which means they force those persons to enter into contracts for goods and services with homosexuals even when they do not want to. But other states' laws do not contain any such prohibition, and they do not violate anything in the Constitution by omitting it.

cool story bro. irrelevant though

The Supreme Court has twice held state public accommodation laws which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unconstitutional, both times on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley, it held the Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Dale, it held the New Jersey law violated the freedom of association. Having studied the arguments of proponents of the homosexual agenda, it does not surprise me to see their disdain for the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy and his four fellow legislators showed a barely concealed hostility toward religious freedom two years ago in Obergefell, the homosexual marriage decision. This hostility was open enough that the Chief Justice had quite a bit to say about it in his dissenting opinion.

It's not like the SC hasn't ever been wrong.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)That assertion is false.
2.)Whenever government uses its power to coerce individuals by law into taking some action, by punishing them if they fail to, it is obvious--at least to most of us--that force is being used.
3.) Laws would be meaningless if they were not backed by the threat of government force.
4.) In the case of state public accommodation laws, this usually takes the form of a fine.
5.) The New Mexico business owner in the Elane Photography case, for example, was fined quite a large sum for declining to take photos of a homosexual wedding.

1.) actually its 100% factually true and its easy to prove which i will do so after I read whatever failed attempt to support your lie you post next.
2.) interesting please list the people forced to open a public accommodation business and prove they were forced to open it, thanks
3.) who said laws arent backed with government, oh thats right NOBODY just a retarded strawman that holds ZERO validity in the discussion of the lie you got caught posting
4.) again who forces people to open public accommodation businesses and enter contracts? Ive never been forced to? Wheres the force?
5.) guess she shouldn't have CHOOSE to be a criminal and break the law than, thats her own stupid and bigotry. Shes not above the law, she CHOOSE to open a a certain type of business ( a contract) which has rules regulations and laws that govern it. Then she CHOOSE to be a bigoted moron and break the law :shrug: Hopefully the dummy learned valuable lesson. She isnt above the law and cant break contracts.
You lie failed and facts win again. LOL

Ok that was easy, ill ask you again sir to please support your bogus, dishonest, retarded and factually proven wrong claim that people are being FORCED to enter into contract, thanks

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Thoughts? They are so gay

Really? I don't mind a splash of color. Why not?

 

[HenryChinaski]

Get new material. No one believes such nonsense.

You're gonna be that crochety old guy in the neighborhood that all of the kids TP and egg your house on Halloween.