Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
Thanks! :-)
You deserve to be mocked if you think the 14th Amendment is any impediment to private choices.
Like the majority in Romer v. Evans, you've allowed your emotions to override your good sense. Some of us are concerned that Roberts may ride his emotions to a similarly foolish socially liberal, family destroying destination. If so, we don't want to follow him to the absurd result he is seeking.
Howlin is basically arguing that Eskimos need more ice.
"The homosexuals should not be discriminated against in housing, jobs, or education, and I think you agree on this because if you do not that it is not worth debating you."
Oh, really? So if someone says, "No one should be forced to associate with people who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder," then that person is just so extreme that there's no point talking to them?
It really is true. The right wing of the Republican Party today is about where the left wing of the Democratic Party was in 1960.
They had every single "protection under the law" that any other citizen of that state had. What they could not do is claim that their homohood earned them any extra protection.
Would you support a law that would force a Christian landlord to rent to a gay couple?
Sorry, but you and (apparently) ThePythonicCow are way off. The first thing you need to understand is that the US Constitution ONLY tells GOVERNMENT what it CAN do, and reiterates the point by going on to specify some things that government CANNOT do. (That's why the more or less redundant "Bill of Rights" was added.)
So, the 14th Amendment says, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
See? It's all about what states cannot do. There's NOTHING about who a private citizen may choose to hire or discriminate against (although I will readily admit that scumbag liberal judicial activists may "discover" something in the 14th Amendment somewhere that they can twist and spin into a "law" which tells a private citizen entrepreneur that he cannot discriminate against gays in his hiring practices even if gays creep him [and maybe his clientelle] out).
Best Regards,
LH
have=has
It should be up to the landlord. It's his property.
I'm not asking ANYMORE about that, believe me!
You should be able to deny housing or work to any person just because you don't like the way they look, FGS, but not SPECIFICALLY because they are gay.
Forgive me for intruding, but this seems contradictory - no special laws for or against, but then saying it is illegal to deny housing because one engages in homosexual behavior. This affords people who engage in this behavior special rights. If you believe it is okay to deny housing based upon looks, which is, for the most part, an immutable characteristic like someone's skin color or gender, then why isn't it okay to deny housing to someone who engages in a behavior which one finds morally offensive, or just plain offensive - unmarried man and woman, smokers, people with certain jobs or criminal history, etc.
The Supreme Court has stated previously (prior to the abomination that is Lawrence that in order for a group to have legitimate "minority rights", it must demonstrate the following three things:
1) History of discrimination, evidenced by the lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education and deprived of cultural opportunities.
2) The class must exhibit obvious, immutable, unchangable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as an insular and discrete group.
3) The class must show they are politically powerless.
None of these 3 categories applies to homosexual behavior (as opposed to race, gender, or religious groups). We must keep in mind that what we are talking about here is a behavior, one that has historically been deemed sinful and immoral. Unless you want to fall into the category that humankind has been wrong for its entire existence up this point in how homosexual behavior has been viewed, then I don't see why you believe I shouldn't be allowed to rent out my basement to a man or woman who engages in this behavior.
Well, which part of the conservative party is discriminating against anybody who defends the druggies?
What I mean is that I don't know any who do -- so what am I missing?
Excuse me, but are "gay rights" as we see them "special rights," and not necessary?
And see if you can answer it without making yourself look petty.
No, I meant as in "malcontent" branch, "unappeasable" branch, or the "Holier Than thou" branch, etc.? :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.