[johnwk]

Did anyone here discuss what has happened in Florida? See:

Gulfport`s ``human rights`` [gay] ordinance: progress or height of hypocrisy?


.

[chabig]

No.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Did anyone here discuss what has happened in Florida? See:

Gulfport`s ``human rights`` [gay] ordinance: progress or height of hypocrisy?

Maybe you should point to an article that you yourself didn't write
if you want to further discussion on an issue. By referencing a blog posting
you yourself wrote, all you have done is ask a question about what people
think about your opinion of something. You haven't asked people what they
think about the underlying issue--the passage of legislation in Gulfport.

What is your concern on this issue?
Are you in favor of the legislative actions of Gulfport? If so, why?
Are you in opposition to the legislative actions of Gulfport? If so, why?

(By legislative actions I refer to the legislation that grants homosexuals
and transgendered people protected status from acts of discrimination
based solely on their status as being homosexual and/or transgendered.)

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Maybe you should point to an article that you yourself didn't write

Oh, but I did point to such an article, I wrote:

In a recent article titled, “A Tale of Two Counties Progress in Gulfport and another step backward in Hillsborough“, we are told by Wayne Garcia.


In addition, I addressed the questions you seem to have on your mind.


.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Oh, but I did point to such an article, I wrote:

In a recent article titled, “A Tale of Two Counties Progress in Gulfport and another step backward in Hillsborough“, we are told by Wayne Garcia.


In addition, I addressed the questions you seem to have on your mind.

In this thread, would you mind answering the following questions. Thanks.


What is your concern on this issue?
Are you in favor of the legislative actions of Gulfport? If so, why?
Are you in opposition to the legislative actions of Gulfport? If so, why?

(By legislative actions I refer to the legislation that grants homosexuals
and transgendered people protected status from acts of discrimination
based solely on their status as being homosexual and/or transgendered.)

[Y3a]

I thought gays just wanted to 'be treated the same as yu n me'. NOW the want special status? Perhaps Special housing? Special Health benifits? But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS. Seems they need help, not special status.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I thought gays just wanted to 'be treated the same as yu n me'. NOW the want special status? Perhaps Special housing? Special Health benifits? But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS. Seems they need help, not special status.

I'm having a hard time figuring out whether this post is a joke or not, can someone help me out?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I thought gays just wanted to 'be treated the same as yu n me'. NOW the want special status? Perhaps Special housing? Special Health benifits? But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS. Seems they need help, not special status.

If by special status you mean free from discrimination in housing and employment
opportunities, then yes, they want "special status" and they deserve "special status".
Because it is not really a special status. It is simply the same rights as non-homosexuals
have, to be treated decently regardless of their sexual orientation.


Or,
do you think it is OK for someone to refuse to hire a person simply because the job
applicant is gay?
do you think it is OK for someone to refuse to rent a residence to a person simply
because the applicant is gay?

In general, under what circumstances do you think it is or is not acceptable to treat
individuals differently simply because they are gay?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If by special status you mean free from discrimination in housing and employment
opportunities, then yes, they want "special status" and they deserve "special status".
Because it is not really a special status. It is simply the same rights as non-homosexuals
have, to be treated decently regardless of their sexual orientation.

So, is it your opinion that freedom to choose in contractual agreements, freedom of association and freedom to exercise rights associated with property ownership ought not be by mutual agreement between the parties involved, but arbitrarily decided by one of the parties who may use the force of government to compel another to comply to their wishes?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If by special status you mean free from discrimination in housing and employment
opportunities, then yes, they want "special status" and they deserve "special status".
Because it is not really a special status. It is simply the same rights as non-homosexuals
have, to be treated decently regardless of their sexual orientation.

The Gulfport ordinance, like many other anti discriminatory “laws”, federal and state, are intentionally designed by political advocates and hacks to interfere with and impinge upon fundamental rights of an identifiable group, or groups, they disagree with.

These “political advocates” were elated in 1996 when ROMER V. EVANS was handed down, which struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2. So why do they not now recall what the Court stated concerning “equal protection of the law“?

A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "(I)f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons. Amendment 2, however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

With reference to the Gulfport Ordinance, we are once again faced with a law intentionally designed having “a disadvantage which is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” The class bearing the disadvantage are those who may not wish to enter into contracts and relationships with the identified groups characterized in the ordinance but are given a special advantage to impose themselves upon unwilling individuals using the force of law.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

do you think it is OK for someone to refuse to hire a person simply because the job
applicant is gay?
do you think it is OK for someone to refuse to rent a residence to a person simply
because the applicant is gay?

Yes, and yes! Just as I think its OK for someone [in a non government job or situation] to refuse to hire a person because they a heterosexual, or a female, or a male, or a fat person, or a skinny person, etc. it’s called freedom of choice…LIBERTY. But unfortunately, you seem to want to impose your own moral code upon everyone else. Did you not read what the SCOTUS has stated about that?

In Lawrence vs. Texas, an opinion well known by the supporters of the Gulfport ordinance, we find:

.“The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”

Why are you so determined to impose your own moral code upon others?


JWK

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I thought gays just wanted to 'be treated the same as yu n me'. NOW the want special status? Perhaps Special housing? Special Health benifits? But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS. Seems they need help, not special status.

Ummm... this law says they have to 'be treated the same as yu n me'.

Can we get a knee jerk image?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ummm... this law says they have to 'be treated the same as yu n me'.

Can we get a knee jerk image?

With the exception that they get to use the force of government to have those fined who wish to exercise fundamental unalienable rights, such as the right to contract, to exercise freedom of association, and exercise rights associated with property ownership.


.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Yes, and yes! Just as I think its OK for someone [in a non government job or situation] to refuse to hire a person because they a heterosexual, or a female, or a male, or a fat person, or a skinny person, etc. it’s called freedom of choice…LIBERTY.

I hate to break it to you but most of our laws do NOT allow you to discriminate based
on sex, race, or marital status in hiring, whether or not you are in a private business.
What is being added to this list in Gufport is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It seems like you want, in addition to having the right to not hire someone based on their
sexual orientation you also want employers to be able to not hire someone because of
their sex (male or female) and because of their size (skinny or fat).

How do you feel about employers having the right to not hire someone based on their
age (too old or too young) or skin color?

Do you want to change all the laws such that a private-sector employer can choose to
hire or not hire whomever he wants for whatever reason? That's what it seems like you
are saying.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I thought gays just wanted to 'be treated the same as yu n me'. NOW the want special status? Perhaps Special housing? Special Health benifits? But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS. Seems they need help, not special status.

hmm... how did you find out about these parties? I take it that you have attended one?

[OldManMac]

It never ceases to amaze me as to how some people are so afraid of those who are different, that they can find so many ways to twist words around, in order to "justify" their ignorance.

Pssst: there is no "gay agenda." They want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, just like you already can. How sad, and pathetic.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I hate to break it to you but most of our laws do NOT allow you to discriminate based
on sex, race, or marital status in hiring, whether or not you are in a private business.

And tell me, how does someone justify such laws between individuals acting in their day to day affairs other than resorting to a personal moral code? Why is it that you seem to have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts; people being free to associate with whom they please, and exercising their rights associated with property ownership? What moral code justifies impinging upon these unalienable rights of mankind?


.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by johnwk

What moral code justifies impinging upon these unalienable rights of mankind?

Who said discrimination was an unalienable right?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

And tell me, how does someone justify such laws between individuals acting in their day to day affairs other than resorting to a personal moral code? Why is it that you seem to have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts; people being free to associate with whom they please, and exercising their rights associated with property ownership? What moral code justifies impinging upon these unalienable rights of mankind?

Again, moral codes != legal codes. There are plenty of legal codes I think are immoral but I
must respect them if I want to claim to have a fundamental respect for the idea of a people
ruled by law.

Let me ask you, which is more important, that "all men are created equal" or that the "right of
free assembly shall not be abridged"?

With your example you are saying that the right to free assembly, in regards to rental housing,
trumps the right of equality. And I think the right of equality is paramount . . . and so do a number
of Supreme Court justices as well as number of federal, state, and local legislators. So, which is
more important to you, personal equality or free assembly?

In this country you can choose not to associate with homosexuals if you so desire. But you cannot
choose to not conduct business with a person simply becuase they are homosexual. Obviously,
the fact you cannot choose to not conduct business with persons based solely on their sexual
orientation bothers you. I would encourage you to contact your local, state, and federal
legislators to change the laws of your city, state, or this country ****ry such that you can choose
not to associate with homosexuals in business transactions. But until the laws change you have to
abide by them.

[Millennium]

Not sure what to say about this. The word 'liberty' is indeed a broad one, but does freedom of association also mean freedom of disassociation? Can someone choose not to associate with someone else because of ultimately-meaningless characteristics like these, and if so, then to what extent?

There are no easy answers to this question. I am not attempting to advocate either side, and I certainly don't follow anything remotely near either end of the spectrum. But I'm not sure I see any way around legislating a moral decision here unless you take a completely hands-off approach, and I don't think anyone would like the inevitable results of that decision. I certainly wouldn't.

[cpt kangarooski]

does freedom of association also mean freedom of disassociation?

Yes. See, for example, cases where the Boy Scouts could refuse to have homosexual members, or where the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston could refuse to have homosexual marchers.

But this is different, as business relations are already pretty regulated. You can't have a restrictive covenant on your house that forces all future owners to only sell to white Christians, for example. (This was a common practice, and many houses still have these invalid covenants attached to them) You can't have a whites-only store. You can't buy and sell securities willy-nilly. You can't sell drugs unapproved by the FDA. And so on.

It's hardly a big deal.

[johnwk]

Hmmm, seems to me there are those who believe “discriminating” is an evil or intolerable act when exercised by individuals. But it appears that only those who wish to control the personal lives of other people seem to view their discriminatory day to day decisions as being evil or intolerable if they do not agree with those decisions. How dare someone attempts to exercise freedom of choice with whom they associate and contract with without the King’s permission. But the truth is, freedom of choice is in fact the very act of discriminating.


I think many of you miss the point!

According to the SCOTUS in Lawrence vs. Texas, the state’s Homosexual Conduct law was found to be discriminatory:

Quote:

“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”
—Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court majority.




Well, if Kennedy is correct in his logic, then a law which makes freedom of choice in contracting and association a criminal offense in the public and/or private spheres, it too is an open invitation to discriminate against those who choose to exercise freedom of choice in both the public and in the private spheres!


Apparently this is why the Court also pointed out:
Quote:
“The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”


The liberty of all means the liberty of “all“, even those who would dare to exercise freedom of choice in contracting and association!

Those who wish to use the force of government to forbid an individual from exercising freedom of choice in contracting and association, base their desire upon their own moral code, and in the process discriminate against people who wish to exercise a freedom of choice they may disagree with. They do not believe in equality under law. Equal treatment to them, as documented in the Gulfport Ordinance, means a fine for those who choose to exercise freedom of choice and fundamental rights, while those who conform to their moral code, which impinges upon freedom of choice as outlined in the ordinance, escape being fined.

This of course creates a glaring “ disadvantage which is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” See ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996). The class bearing the disadvantage are those who may not wish to enter into contracts and relationships with the identified groups characterized in the Ordinance who are given a special advantage to impose themselves upon others without their willing consent, and do so under the penalty of a fine.

And so, the Court in ROMER warned folks in government, including the Gulfport City Council:


Quote:
"[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."




Unfortunately, the Gulfport City Council wants to seek out and fine those people who would dare to exercise fundamental rights . . . freedom of choice in contracting and association.


JWK

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Y3a

But the flaming gays don't want a healthy lifestyle. they have aids parties and have unprotected sex with gay already infected with AIDS.

That's odd - NONE of the gays I know do those things.

Maybe you need to start hanging out with a different crowd?

Oh, and apparently, HETEROSEXUALS are all in favor of huge debauched unprotected sex orgies under the influence of copious amounts of alcohol - not what I'd call "healthy lifestyle". I read it on the internet, just like you, so I know it must be true.

Oh, and that was one funny post, although it's rather bitter knowing you didn't mean to be funny.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by analogika

Oh, and that was one funny post, although it's rather bitter knowing you didn't mean to be funny.

So tell me, if statistics establish that the population of Gulfport has a population consisting of 30 percent sexually challenged residents [homosexuals, lesbians, and the transgendered] and a business establishment having 100 employees---none of which is sexually challenged--- can the business owner be cited for discrimination, fined and forced to hire a quota of 30 sexually challenged employees to come into compliance with the Ordinance? Just curious!

.

[analogika]

I skimmed the article (not the blog) that you linked to above, and I see absolutely no mention of a quota for anything.

Do you wish to discuss the issue you posted about - equality before the law -, or would you really rather argue about fictional affirmative-action scenarios imagined from within your frightened little mind?

Because I ain't going there.

Also, I was responding specifically to an astoundingly stupid post by Y3a. Whyever that prompted you to post a complete non-sequitur, I'm not entirely certain.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

So tell me, if statistics establish that the population of Gulfport has a population consisting of 30 percent sexually challenged residents [homosexuals, lesbians, and the transgendered] and a business establishment having 100 employees---none of which is sexually challenged--- can the business owner be cited for discrimination, fined and forced to hire a quota of 30 sexually challenged employees to come into compliance with the Ordinance? Just curious!

If you show me where in the article you cited that quotas will be a requirement of this legislation then I'll debate that point with you. Otherwise, please stick to the question at hand: Which is a more fundamental human right? "all men are created equal" or "freedom of assocation"?

I believe the more fundamental right is "all men are created equal". I think you believe the more fundamental right is "freedom of assocation". But you have yet to come out (HA! HA!) and say that explicitly. So tell me, which fundamental right do YOU think should take precedence?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I believe the more fundamental right is "all men are created equal"

to continue the quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[spatterson]

It never ceases to amaze me how insecure and intolerant people are. There is no "gay agenda", gay persons want to make sure that they won't be discriminated against because of their orientation. In your opinion johnwk, why is someone who is homosexual sexually challenged? Also just curios if you came in here to spread your "heterosexual agenda" with a total of eight posts.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

to continue the quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thanks!

Unfortunately johnwk's "pursuit of Happiness" seems to involve willful disassociation--what most of us would call discrimination--against "sexually challenged" persons.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spatterson

It never ceases to amaze me how insecure and intolerant people are. There is no "gay agenda", gay persons want to make sure that they won't be discriminated against because of their orientation. In your opinion johnwk, why is someone who is homosexual sexually challenged? Also just curios if you came in here to spread your "heterosexual agenda" with a total of eight posts.

What IS the "heterosexual agenda"? Did I miss this info in 8th-grade health class?
Or maybe there was a hand-out on the topic; I was always losing hand-outs when I was in school.
Anyone out there have a copy of the agenda they want to share with me?
All these years of sleeping with women and I don't even have the agenda. Damn!

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by spatterson

It never ceases to amaze me how insecure and intolerant people are. There is no "gay agenda", gay persons want to make sure that they won't be discriminated against because of their orientation

Your assertion that there is no “gay agenda”, is refuted by the Gulfport Ordinance which expresses that “agenda” in detail.

Those characterized in the ordinance [homosexuals, lesbians, and the transgendered] want to be able to invoke the force of government as a favored class against owners of property and business owners who may be unwilling to enter into contractual agreements or associate with them, and, they want the government to fine these individuals would dare exercise fundamental rights such as freedom to contract with whom they please; freedom to associate with whom they please; and, freedom to allow only those they want to enter upon their property.

The agenda my friend, in Gulfport, is to use the force of government to trample upon the fundamental and unalienable rights of others.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

All these years of sleeping with women and I don't even have the agenda. Damn!

Perhaps you shouldn't have been sleeping all those years, you may have learned something, and even found some enjoyment.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by johnwk

The agenda my friend, in Gulfport, is to use the force of government to trample upon the fundamental and unalienable rights of others.

Once again. When did discrimination become an unalienable right?

[kmkkid]

Whats with the new influx of ignorant bigots?


Oh, and I'm not 'sexually challenged' as long as I have genitals and I am having sex, thanks.

[OldManMac]

I'm not so sure it is an influx. It could be an individual who's been here before, under another name, who is so horrified at being turned into a gay that he can't stop thinking about it.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

So tell me, if statistics establish that the population of Gulfport has a population consisting of 30 percent sexually challenged residents [homosexuals, lesbians, and the transgendered] and a business establishment having 100 employees---none of which is sexually challenged--- can the business owner be cited for discrimination, fined and forced to hire a quota of 30 sexually challenged employees to come into compliance with the Ordinance? Just curious!

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If you show me where in the article you cited that quotas will be a requirement of this legislation then I'll debate that point with you.

My name is not CLEO so I can’t predict when and where quotas and percentages of a population will be used under the Ordinance.

But, I’m not interested in debating the point as the Court has already given its node to quotas and formulas as a remedy …it’s a moot issue, pal!

How about showing me where the 14th Amendment was intended to allow government approved quotas, and also explain why the SCOTUS, [see Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger ] upheld racial preferences and quotas to achieve “diversity” in higher education within a university. And, while your at it, why the mathematical formulas used to achieve diversity, could not be used and applied under the ordinance to also remedy an alleged discrimination prohibited under the Gulfport Ordinance.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Once again. When did discrimination become an unalienable right?

Discrimination? Oh, that evil word which really means freedom of choice . . . LIBERTY!

Since the founding of our nation, inalienable rights of mankind have been repeatedly recognized which include, among other things, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, within the meaning of “liberty” the U.S. Supreme Court has properly noted that the right to contract is within the meaning of liberty:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." See: Meyer v Nebraska262 US 390 (1923)

Sorry that you would have a person check in with you to approve who they contract with. How stupid of people wanting to be free to choose.

[OldManMac]

You find interesting, but unsustainable, ways to twist the meaning of words to your liking.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Whats with the new influx of ignorant bigots?


Oh, and I'm not 'sexually challenged' as long as I have genitals and I am having sex, thanks.

Bigots? Great response --- demonize a person who you disagree with when you are unable to present a rational argument to refute their position.

Amazing! Simply Amazing. But tell me, are you really suggesting THESE PEOPLE are not born sexually challenged? Give me a freaken break!

These pages are about the special health concerns of transsexual people, those who want to change their bodies to be like the other sex. The process of changing the body, through hormones, surgeries, and other means, is commonly referred to as "transitioning."

.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Bigots? Great response --- demonize a person who you disagree with when you are unable to present a rational argument to refute their position.

Amazing! Simply Amazing. But tell me, are you really suggesting THESE PEOPLE are not born sexually challenged? Give me a freaken break!




.

Funny, I'm gay and I don't find myself sexually challenged. I find you morally challenged, and perhaps mentally challenged if you think gays having equal rights is any sort wrong doing. I'd also like ANY bigot to come up to me or my bf on the street and say half the things people in here say to our faces, cause they'd be hurting real quick and find out what equality is all about, gays have the same right to kick the living **** out of anyone than any other person whom they may offend, and a lot of us use that right.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

My name is not CLEO so I can’t predict when and where quotas and percentages of a population will be used under the Ordinance.

But, I’m not interested in debating the point as the Court has already given its node to quotas and formulas as a remedy …it’s a moot issue, pal!

How about showing me where the 14th Amendment was intended to allow government approved quotas, and also explain why the SCOTUS, [see Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger ] upheld racial preferences and quotas to achieve “diversity” in higher education within a university. And, while your at it, why the mathematical formulas used to achieve diversity, could not be used and applied under the ordinance to also remedy an alleged discrimination prohibited under the Gulfport Ordinance.

So, you don't like some decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. Big deal. Lots of people don't. You may disagree with some decisions of the Supreme Court--I certainly disagree with lots of their decisions--but you still MUST respect their interpretation of the law as they are the highest court in the land and the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.

But you still haven't answered the question I have posed several times now so I will repeat it for you.
Which right do you think should take precedence in this country, the right of
"all men are created equal" or the right of "free assembly and association"?
Which right do YOU think is more important to this country and should be granted greater precedence in legal decisions?

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Which right do you think should take precedence in this country, the right of "all men are created equal" or the right of "free assembly and association"?
Which right do YOU think is more important to this country and should be granted greater precedence in legal decisions?

not to interrupt the argument, but how is "all men are created equal" a right? i thought it was the philosophical premise from which the rights were derived (if the rights weren't actually endowed by the creator - strange language that declaration).

some more food for thought...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

be well.

laeth

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Funny, I'm gay and I don't find myself sexually challenged. I find you morally challenged, and perhaps mentally challenged if you think gays having equal rights is any sort wrong doing. I'd also like ANY bigot to come up to me or my bf on the street and say half the things people in here say to our faces, cause they'd be hurting real quick and find out what equality is all about, gays have the same right to kick the living **** out of anyone than any other person whom they may offend, and a lot of us use that right.

I'm not a violent person by nature, but sometimes I wonder how some individuals can be so dense.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I'm not a violent person by nature, but sometimes I wonder how some individuals can be so dense.

Neither are my bf and I, but when people come up to you and call you a cocksucking fag on the street, and say you're going to burn in hell, and try to physically attack you, well, any person can only take so much abuse

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by isao bered

not to interrupt the argument, but how is "all men are created equal" a right? i thought it was the philosophical premise from which the rights were derived (if the rights weren't actually endowed by the creator - strange language that declaration).

some more food for thought...



be well.

laeth

You are correct! I believe the founders were referring to “under law” as in all men are to be equal under the law.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, you don't like some decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. Big deal. Lots of people don't. You may disagree with some decisions of the Supreme Court--I certainly disagree with lots of their decisions--but you still MUST respect their interpretation of the law

I don't respect decision of the Court when they are not in harmony with the most fundamental priciple of constitutional law---carrying out the intent of the Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who ratified it.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by johnwk

I don't respect decision of the Court when they are not in harmony with the most fundamental priciple of constitutional law---carrying out the intent of the Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who ratified it.

And you know how they "contemplated" it? You're some sort of expert? You were there? And there should be no changes EVER?

You're just a troll.

[vexborg]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You find interesting, but unsustainable, ways to twist the meaning of words to your liking.

Yep, the way of the typical troll...

Remember, trolls are not be repolied to, but to be stuffed and put on a shelve.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

I don't respect decision of the Court when they are not in harmony with the most fundamental priciple of constitutional law---carrying out the intent of the Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who ratified it.

Originally Posted by AKcrab

And you know how they "contemplated" it? You're some sort of expert? You were there? And there should be no changes EVER?

You're just a troll.

What an intelligent response…name calling!

As to “changes”, our wise founding father provided an amendment process in which the people, and not judges imposing their personal whims and fancies upon the people, may alter the constitution to accommodate changing times. I guess you simply do not understand the constitutional system we were blessed with.

As to your glib remark asking me if I was “there” [during the framing and ratification of our Constitution],
we do know the constitution did not suddenly appear out of thin air; there is a history behind it and a wealth of recorded evidence documenting its day-to-day framing. See Madison’s Notes on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; see the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and also see Elliot’s Debates, the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and, in many instances, it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the constitutional convention!


Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by We the People.

Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

And Jefferson tells us:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

In addition, you may find the following quotes informative:

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)


"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.


And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

As to “changes”, our wise founding father provided an amendment process in which the people, and not judges imposing their personal whims and fancies upon the people, may alter the constitution to accommodate changing times. I guess you simply do not understand the constitutional system we were blessed with.

Well, if what you are advocating is a Constitutional Amendement to require people to not discriminate against homosexuals then I am all for that. Let's start that process now. Then when it eventually passes--I have no delusions to think it will be a fast process--people like you *will* be legally prevented, by the Constitution, from discriminating against homosexuals.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Not sure what to say about this. The word 'liberty' is indeed a broad one, but does freedom of association also mean freedom of disassociation? Can someone choose not to associate with someone else because of ultimately-meaningless characteristics like these, and if so, then to what extent?

An individual may choose to NOT associate with whomever he or she chooses. But a government MUST associate with everyone equally. This means that any form of discrimination based on a distinction such as sexual orientation is illegal (per the equal protection clause) because that distinction changes nothing about the nature of the citizen. Further, a business runs afoul of antidiscrimination laws by failing to do business with individuals because the business believes them to be of any particular sexual orientation, just as much as if they refuse to do business with someone based on the color of their skin or their religion.

To me the whole gay rights issue comes down to equality under the law. The LAW does not recognize differences in citizens based on their ethnicity, religion, nor (for the most part) their sexual orientation. Why should a gay couple that's been together for twenty years not have the same legal benefits that a straight couple that's been together for twenty days gets automatically? How does it harm anyone to let the same automatic "next of kin" and inheritance rules apply to everyone?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ghporter

An individual may choose to NOT associate with whomever he or she chooses. But a government MUST associate with everyone equally. This means that any form of discrimination based on a distinction such as sexual orientation is illegal (per the equal protection clause) because that distinction changes nothing about the nature of the citizen. Further, a business runs afoul of antidiscrimination laws by failing to do business with individuals because the business believes them to be of any particular sexual orientation, just as much as if they refuse to do business with someone based on the color of their skin or their religion.

Hmmmmm. All that based upon the equal protection clause [of the 14th Amendment]?

Can you provide some documentation from the 39th Congress which framed both the first Civil Rights Act, and the 14th Amendment, to support you opinion?

From my research, the People, when adopting the 14th Amendment, intended to prohibit state sponsored discrimination, “black code laws“, [discriminatory law based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery] and insure that all people, regardless of race, color, or former condition of slavery, would enjoy a constitutional guarantee to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to inherit and purchase property, etc., as was then enjoyed by white citizens. This was the narrow intent of the majority who supported the Fourteenth Amendment..at least as far as I have been able to document.

A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution --- thereby making the first Civil Rights Act constitutional --- contains not one shred of evidence the amendment was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon sex, or one’s disabilities, and allow Congress to enforce such prohibition by federal legislation. As a matter of fact, there is an abundance of documented evidence the amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area…to prohibit state authorized discrimination, unequal law, based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…” As Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was being debated elaborated:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.”

[see Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex or physical disabilities falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination which is prima facie evidence the Fourteenth Amendment is not a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination at the voting booth on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment was unmistakably adopted to enlarge the prohibition on state sponsored discrimination mentioned in the 14th, and extend it to include a new subject matter, but only to the extent that the prohibited discrimination is based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”…the People not yet willing to provide the same federally enforceable guarantee to the female gender!

The assertion that the 14th Amendment prohibits a wide variety of discrimination such as discrimination based upon sex, [see Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI Case], is totally refuted when reading the 19th Amendment which was adopted by the people to specifically forbid yet a new kind of discrimination, discrimination at the voting both based upon sex. Why adopt the 19th Amendment forbidding the right to vote to be “denied or abridged” on account of “SEX.” if the Fourteenth Amendment already prohibited sex discrimination as claimed by Justice Ginsburg?

And finally, why would there have been a proposed so-call “equal rights amendment” offered in the 1980’s for adoption to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit sex discrimination by legislative acts [which was voted down by the People] if the 14th amendment already granted such power to Congress as Mssssssss. Ginsburg asserts?

The truth is, the Supreme Court is working in concert with those who are subjugating our Constitution and supplanting their personal whims and fancies as law in spite of the Constitution forbidding such law ---, such action being a blatant rebellion against our Constitution, and meeting the definition of tyranny!


Regards,

JWK