Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you obviously have a business and you would like the opportunity to discriminate against others.
Right..OK
Glad I don't live in Texas, I might accidentally patronize your business.
We have anti-discrimination laws on the state level in Texas which I fully support and think should be expanded.
I just support the federal government's power being more limited. That said, I think the federal courts have every right and obligation to rule unconstitutional laws unconstitutional. A state discriminating would be unconstitutional.
We have anti-discrimination laws on the state level in Texas which I fully support and think should be expanded.
I just support the federal government's power being more limited. That said, I think the federal courts have every right and obligation to rule unconstitutional laws unconstitutional. A state discriminating would be unconstitutional.
Yes, a STATE discriminating would be unconstitutional.
However, YOU keep harping on individual BUSINESSES being able to do so.
In one of your posts you made it very clear that there should be (in your mind, anyway) separate laws for STATES and BUSINESSES.
Yes, a STATE discriminating would be unconstitutional.
However, YOU keep harping on individual BUSINESSES being able to do so.
In one of your posts you made it very clear that there should be (in your mind, anyway) separate laws for STATES and BUSINESSES.
No, I think it's constitutional for a business to discriminate but not for a state to.
I think it should be illegal for businesses to discriminate, but that they should be state laws only. If a state other than mine did not have anti-discrimination laws for private businesses, I would consider it none of my business. If the state was discriminating, that would be unconstitutional.
You certainly don't have to agree, but can you understand what I'm saying?
I've said that the state should NOT be able to discriminate. I've also, however, said that the federal government should not mandate that private businesses can't discriminate but that state governments should mandate that they don't discriminate, simply that the federal government should not force them to.
Thanks for your service to our country.
But as we have found force is often the ONLY way some can be forced to comply with the law
Well, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES disagrees with you. In LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS (2003) the court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.
I know all about that ruling. But to put it in context, three justices dissented, and I agree with the rationale of the dissents (although they varied somewhat). That is, a law can be stupid and silly (as Justice Thomas called the old Texas statute...and I agree it was), but not unconstitutional. That was my original point.
Well, look at your post - you are the one who made this argument. Not I. If you make sweeping statements that step well across the line of ridiculousness, then you need to live with them. So much for being grown up, right? Own up to your own BS is what I say.
There is no "BS" to own up to. I stand by everything I said so far as the major points about marriage/adoption are concerned...and differences. With that said, however, I DO admit I was a little brusque and rude with my reply and the way I framed it. For that, I indeed apologize.
Many Republicans feel it's ok for the state to ban almost about anything, except guns, because the 10th amendment gives states the right to be fascist.
And we all know when the federal government curtails your freedom it's dictatorship, when the state government does it, it's libertarian.
I know all about that ruling. But to put it in context, three justices dissented, and I agree with the rationale of the dissents (although they varied somewhat). That is, a law can be stupid and silly (as Justice Thomas called the old Texas statute...and I agree it was), but not unconstitutional. That was my original point.
And what, praytell, is the compelling state interest you see but the court did not? It need not be 9-0 to be unconstitutional.
And what, praytell, is the compelling state interest you see but the court did not? It need not be 9-0 to be unconstitutional.
Did you even read the dissenting opinions? Did you ever read what I wrote earlier? I said all along I believe it to be a stupid and outdated law (and it was only a Class C misdemenor, anyway...on par with a traffic ticket. and never really enforced, to boot).
The 9-0 thing is not the point. But the fact the dissenting opinions (you should read them if you haven't already) are constitutionally based (some on stare-decisis). Which translates into that the danger of activist rulings like this -- as some like afoigrokerkok and I, along with some others -- have pointed out -- are that they can just as easily be reversed by a future SCOTUS. Savvy?
Also, your points are a little abbreviated. When you speak of "the court" you are relying on the opinion of 6 members. A dissent is almost always going to open up a can or worms. I wonder what todays court would do?
The compelling state interest? OK. Fair enough. As I said earlier, I think the law was a bit silly and I would have voted to repeal it had I been a member of the legislature and it came up for repeal. At the least, probably just abstained. (although no, it would not have been a high priority on my list!).
BUT...ok, compelling state interest? Hell, it could be justified as a measure to prevent the spread of STD -- ever more common and by certain practices -- that would eventually infect the whole population of the said state; a public safety measure. Is that enough? *shrug*
So then, does it perhaps not make sense to that a future SCOTUS make that sort of ruling? Which goes back to one of my original points. The danger in judicial activism and ignoring stare-decisis is that is can ALWAYS be reversed and have the opposite effect of what was intended. Because, paradoxically, it has no stare-decisis respect for stare-decisis itself!
Last edited by TexasReb; 01-07-2012 at 05:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Duh
