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.
It is very disappointing why you continually personalize the discussion, make false, erroneous and insulting comments directed at me, and totally ignore irrefutable and frightening facts concerning the proposed "Equality Act". . . one of the most alarming being, it is a bold attempt to allow Congress to exercise legislative powers not authorized by the people of the United States.
And, with respect to your false and insulting assertion about my "core philosophy", how many times must I restate my "core philosophy" which covers not only "gay people", but all people?
My core philosophy with respect to treating people, that is all people and with respect to our federal government is, our federal government ought not be allowed to interfere and meddle in the State's reserved powers, or the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities. An exception would be when and if the people of the United States adopt a constitutional amendment , e.g. the 13th Amendment, which altered the States' reserved powers. Do you agree with this "core philosophy"?
To put it another way, my "core philosophy" is in harmony with supporting and defending the text of our federal constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text. Do you agree with this "core philosophy"?
It is very disappointing why you continually personalize the discussion, make false, erroneous and insulting comments directed at me, and totally ignore irrefutable and frightening facts concerning the proposed "Equality Act". . . one of the most alarming being, it is a bold attempt to allow Congress to exercise legislative powers not authorized by the people of the United States.
And, with respect to your false and insulting assertion about my "core philosophy", how many times must I restate my "core philosophy" which covers not only "gay people", but all people?
My core philosophy with respect to treating people, that is all people and with respect to our federal government is, our federal government ought not be allowed to interfere and meddle in the State's reserved powers, or the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities. An exception would be when and if the people of the United States adopt a constitutional amendment , e.g. the 13th Amendment, which altered the States' reserved powers. Do you agree with this "core philosophy"?
To put it another way, my "core philosophy" is in harmony with supporting and defending the text of our federal constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text. Do you agree with this "core philosophy"?
JWK
Why does that bother you? It's a personal issue.
What are you referring to when using the word "that"?
What bothers me about the so called "Equality Act" are a number of specific issues which I have stated in this thread. Aside from that I have no idea what you are asking.
What the Equality Act would actually accomplish as the "rule of law"
.
Unfortunately, we have too many spineless “journalists” and news “commentators”, who are afraid or unwilling to address this notoriously evil attempt, the so-called Equality Act, which is intentionally designed to usurp legislative power not granted.
Presumably our “journalists” and news “commentators” fear they will be called names [homophobe, racist, sexist, etc.] if they divulge what the Equality Act would really accomplish if made the “rule of law” which is:
• Assume legislative power over a subject matter not granted to Congress [excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s delegation of power over “sex”];
• Deprive American citizens within the various states the fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities:
• It would forbid common sense distinctions being made between women and men such as all female sports events; women’s only and men’s only bathrooms and locker rooms and other gathering places; and would end the obvious truth that females have sex-based rights to privacy where males are not welcome.
• Allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.
The bottom line is the Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.
See: Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate
July 1, 2021
. “Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”
To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1], and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.
Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, knowingly and willingly spat upon on federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Corsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that's all.”
And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.
[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates,110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word "sex", as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock. It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.
Is the Equality Act within Congress' delegated legislative powers?
.
With all the brilliant minds here, I was wondering if anyone can point to the wording in our federal Constitution under which Congress is delegated the legislative power to forbid the States, and people therein, from making distinctions based upon sex?
Seems to me this specific grant of legislative power was intentionally rejected by the States and people therein when they refused to adopt the "Equal Rights Amendment" which would have, if ratified, granted power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding an abridgment or denial of rights based upon "sex".
The last rejection to grant such legislative power to Congress was in the 1980s, and the proposed amendment which was rejected by the States and people therein reads as follows:
'Article--
'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
'Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
'Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.'
So, the question remains, under what authority has Congress adopted "appropriate legislation" forbidding the States, and the people therein, to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?
Forcing someone to engage in specific behavior doesn't solve any problems. It only makes everything worse.
The question is, why would any identifiable group want to use government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in unwanted commercial activities with them?
It seems a small segment within the "gay community" may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need to want the muscle of government [e.g., the "Equality Act"], being used to force the unwilling into associations and activities with them.
During the 1970s when I was doing a lot of work out in Fire Island, the Pines and Cherry Grove, where successful members of the “gay community” congregated, they seemed to not give two twits how others viewed their life style, and would never stoop so low as to want to force others to associate or do business with them. But then again, most in this group were successful and had no feelings of insecurity or inferiority. Almost all simply wanted to go about their life style as they saw fit, and without forcing themselves upon others.
The question is, why would any identifiable group want to use government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in wanted commercial activities with them?
Same reason we had to protect the basic human dignity of racial minorities by law, who had faced systemic discrimination for decades by a majority that simply did not want to associate with them because of immutable characteristics they did not like, to those people's obvious detriment. While I do not believe a majority still do not want to associate with gays, there are sill plenty of people such as yourself who want nothing to do with us. If you want to know why the law is necessary (and the SCOTUS ruling preceding it), all you have to do is look in the mirror.
The question is, why would any identifiable group want to use government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in unwanted commercial activities with them?
It seems a small segment within the "gay community" may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need to want the muscle of government [e.g., the "Equality Act"], being used to force the unwilling into associations and activities with them.
During the 1970s when I was doing a lot of work out in Fire Island, the Pines and Cherry Grove, where successful members of the “gay community” congregated, they seemed to not give two twits how others viewed their life style, and would never stoop so low as to want to force others to associate or do business with them. But then again, most in this group were successful and had no feelings of insecurity or inferiority. Almost all simply wanted to go about their life style as they saw fit, and without forcing themselves upon others.
JWK
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude
Same reason we had to protect the basic human dignity of racial minorities by law, who had faced systemic discrimination for decades by a majority that simply did not want to associate with them because of immutable characteristics they did not like, to those people's obvious detriment. While I do not believe a majority still do not want to associate with gays, there are sill plenty of people such as yourself who want nothing to do with us. If you want to know why the law is necessary (and the SCOTUS ruling preceding it), all you have to do is look in the mirror.
Your answer makes no sense. There is a vast difference between distinctions being made based upon one's race, and distinctions being made based upon deviant sexual conduct and behavior.
Trying to compare deviant sexual conduct and behavior to racial discrimination is not only absurd, but offensive to those who fought against racial discrimination.
As to your comment suggesting to me to "look in the mirror", your innuendo is absurd and insulting.
And, as to the "law" and what a majority of the American People believe, until the States and people therein adopt a constitutional amendment delegating power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding an abridgment or denial of rights based upon "sex", "sexual orientation", and "behavior", the obvious question arises , under what wording in our federal Constitution may Congress adopt legislation [such as the Equality Act] forbidding the States, and the people therein, to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities?
The bottom line is, the Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Likewise. I’ve seen your hateful anti-gay animus dressed in these absurd legal arguments for many years, both on this site and the old Hannity board. You usually try to keep it hidden behind your legalese, as I’m sure you’re aware of its declining popularity. But sometimes as in this post, you choose to more openly identify with your true position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
deviant
I’m no more a deviant simply because I’m in a sexual minority than a black man or a left handed man are deviant simply because those are minority characteristics. That’s a word you employ when you are looking to paint someone as inferior and worthy of inferior treatment.
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.
What the Equality Act would actually accomplish as the "rule of law"
