Skip to comments.
Conservative Group Drops Endorsement Of 'Pro Gay' Judge Roberts
Baltimore Sun (BS) Boards ^
| August 9, 2005
| Doreen Brandt
Posted on 08/16/2005 11:59:10 AM PDT by TBP
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
To: TBP
Public Advocate, ..
Sounds suspicious. Like an offshoot of The Advocate. Are they for real?
To: jec1ny
Please explain what you mean by "codifying discrimination into law".
42
posted on
08/16/2005 3:02:28 PM PDT
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: Brilliant
the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminateAnd? They also said that Americans don't own their property.
43
posted on
08/16/2005 5:10:16 PM PDT
by
Shalom Israel
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
To: Brilliant
Look at the Boy Scouts. The only reason they got out of letting gays be Scoutmasters is that they sold the Court on the notion that they were a religious organization. A commercial enterprise, though, is not a religious organization, even if the boss is religious. You're confused. The Boy Scouts didn't convince the Court that they're some sort of religious organization. Religion had nothing to do with that case at all. They won because they're a private organization with a 1st Amendment right of expressive association. Meaning, they can exclude a person from their group if that person doesn't share their views or advance their message and goals. Pretty much the way Jim Robinson gets to pick and choose who he wants participating on this forum. He can't Constitutionally be forced to let the moonbats post here against his wishes. Free association--it's not about religion; it's about about freedom to choose the people you want to be around.
44
posted on
08/16/2005 5:54:06 PM PDT
by
Sandy
To: TBP
Oh for cryin' out loud! God knows I love my felow conservatives but some of those on our side are just WAY to knee-jerk.
45
posted on
08/16/2005 5:55:09 PM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(Well, why did you pull a gun on me if you didn't want to have sex?)
To: Brilliant
It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.That's not exactly correct either. The people of Colorado were "authorized" to discriminate both before and after that amendment was passed. They didn't need an amendment to grant them some sort of permission to discriminate. Freedom to discriminate is a natural right. It pre-exists any laws. Laws can only take that right away, not give it to you. The amendment did nothing except forbid such laws.
46
posted on
08/16/2005 6:17:00 PM PDT
by
Sandy
Comment #47 Removed by Moderator
To: TBP
48
posted on
08/16/2005 6:40:25 PM PDT
by
Kevin OMalley
(No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
To: Sandy
Just because you say so doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court, for example, does not agree. You may have as much contempt for the Supreme Court as I do, but the fact remains that they decide these cases. And so long as they do, we are bound by their decisions.
I am reminded of a guy I know who took the position that the Tax Code is unconstitutional, so he did not pay his taxes. If you'd asked him how he could justify not paying his taxes, he'd have told you that the Tax Code is unconstitutional. He's in jail now.
To: Mulch
Re: 42
"Please explain what you mean by "codifying discrimination into law".
Judge Roberts provided legal advice to a group that opposed a law in Colorado which would have expressly made it legal to discriminate against people in employment and housing on the basis of their sexual orientation. While I am DEEPLY opposed to homosexuality as a Christian, I am also opposed to attempts to legislate what is essentially a matter of private morals. The government has no business encouraging employers or landlords to try and dictate the private moral behavior of consenting adults.
50
posted on
08/16/2005 7:07:53 PM PDT
by
jec1ny
(Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
To: TBP; All
51
posted on
08/16/2005 7:10:31 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(the space/future belongs to the eagles --> http://www.cafepress.com/kevinspace1)
To: jec1ny; All
That is my belief too. I don't think government should be dictating behaviors of two consenting adults.. Rape and incest in one thing...
52
posted on
08/16/2005 7:13:54 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(the space/future belongs to the eagles --> http://www.cafepress.com/kevinspace1)
To: Sandy
Re: 46
Your point is technically correct but it does not alter the basic facts. The amendment clearly was intended to protect, and I think one could reasonably argue, encourage discrimination. You are of course correct in noting that there is a legal right to discriminate in some cases. But you err in asserting that it is a natural right. It is not. Discrimination can be perfectly justifiable in some circumstances. But if you are imposing a negative burden upon another human being, especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head, then a heavy burden must rest on those defending that discrimination to justify their actions. There is a vast body of legal precedent including the 1964 civil rights act and the fair housing acts which have made it clear that the right to discriminate in those two matters is extremely tenuous.
53
posted on
08/16/2005 7:18:42 PM PDT
by
jec1ny
(Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
To: Brilliant
"...the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews.
You forgot to include: woman, asians, hispanics, indians, midgets, fat people, old people, bald people, people with dandruff, people without dandruff, etc. etc. etc.
54
posted on
08/16/2005 7:18:57 PM PDT
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: TBP
The "group" apparently has one member.
55
posted on
08/16/2005 7:19:42 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: jec1ny
"...especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head."
There are 10's of 1000's of businesses in this country. How many examples of discrimination have you personally witnessed?
56
posted on
08/16/2005 7:34:48 PM PDT
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: Mulch
"...especially when that discrimination negatively impacts someones livelihood and their ability to put a roof over their head."
"There are 10's of 1000's of businesses in this country. How many examples of discrimination have you personally witnessed?"
Several. But that is not the point. The point is that any law which promotes, protects, or directly or indirectly encourages discrimination on the basis of someones private life is wrong. That is NOT the function of the government.
57
posted on
08/16/2005 7:49:44 PM PDT
by
jec1ny
(Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
To: Brilliant
The Supreme Court, for example, does not agree. Does not agree with what? My explanation states the facts of the situation, the situation which the Court (obviously) ruled unconstitutional. My point was, the amendment didn't "authorize" discrimination, which is what you had claimed. The amendment only forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. *That's* what the Court didn't approve of--the forbidding (via amendment) of laws which nobody was even required to pass in the first place.
My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?
58
posted on
08/16/2005 7:50:16 PM PDT
by
Sandy
To: jec1ny
By several do you mean 1 or 2? You've personally witnessed only 1 or 2 cases of discrimination by a business?
59
posted on
08/16/2005 8:00:56 PM PDT
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: jec1ny
But you err in asserting that it is a natural right. By natural right I meant a right that exists until forbidden by law. Imposing a negative burden upon another human being is already illegal, so that's not the sort of thing I'm talking about.
There is a vast body of legal precedent including the 1964 civil rights act and the fair housing acts which have made it clear that the right to discriminate in those two matters is extremely tenuous.
Well yeah, that's true, but the Constitution doesn't require those laws, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional to remove those laws from the books. We have those laws because people like them, not because the Constitution mandates them. Remove the laws, and the default situation returns, i.e., the right to discriminate. It's a right that existed until laws prohibiting it were passed. That was really my point. I hope that's more clear than my other reply.
60
posted on
08/16/2005 8:12:54 PM PDT
by
Sandy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson