Conservative Group Drops Endorsement Of 'Pro Gay' Judge Roberts

Baltimore Sun (BS) Boards ^ | August 9, 2005 | Doreen Brandt

[Sandy]

The "group" apparently has one member.

ROFL. How true. I actually get a kick out of these daily press releases opposing Roberts. Such melodrama. As if there's a snowball's chance that he won't be confirmed.

[Mulch]

Bueller? Bueller?

[jec1ny]

'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."

I must respectfully disagree. In doing so I refer you to the following...

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Laws which protect or promote a legal right to discriminate are incompatible with the prohibition of denying someone the "equal protection of the laws."

You claim ..."but the Constitution doesn't require those laws,..."
But it does prohibit any laws which violate the equal protection clause.

[The_Eaglet]

It's old news, but worth remembering.

[jec1ny]

Re: 59

I am not sure what your point is. However I would have to say that I have seen discriminatory practices on a number of occasions in pvt business. I have not kept a running count. But it was more then 3 or 4 and I doubt more than 10. I lived in the south for a long time which might explain some of that. The more shocking practices of discrimination I have witnessed were in the military though. Where of course discrimination remains codified for matters involving sexual orientation.

[Mulch]

Lets say you're telling the truth and you have in fact personally witnessed 2 cases of discrimination. Considering there are approximately 14,000,000 businesses in the U.S., lets do some math. 2 divided by 14,000,000 equals 0.0000001. Multiple that by 100 and we get 0.00001%.

Hmm...This is interesting. You believe that a law should be created to protect against the occurrence of something that has a likelihood of only 0.00001 percent? I would say that is a bit irrational? Wouldn't you agree? I think the likelihood of a crash of a commercial airline is better. Should we also outlaw air travel too?

[jec1ny]

I find your defense of legalized discrimination shocking. I would not care if it occurred in only one case in a million. Its wrong. It violates both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Given your recourse to mathematical formulas in defense of something that is MALO INSEA you seem to feel that my personal and anecdotal experiences constitute a justification for repealing laws which protect people from abuse. But I must conclude that whatever your skill level in mathematics might be your command of history is gravely deficient. I would suggest you take a serious look at the history of what has been done to minority groups in this country's history by the majority. Who of course claimed the right to serve whom they wish, house whom they wish, and employ whom they wish. And while we are at it let vote those whom they wish. And if you believe that this sort of thing does not go on today I can only express the hope that the weather on your planet is more congenial that that which I have been enduring lately.

[EDINVA]

Delgaudio will do anything for publicity

[TBP]

Delgaudio will do anything for publicity

I know that; both brothers will. I discovered that in my YAF days. However, despite this, he is often right on the issues.

[Torie]

It used to be before a change in the law, and a change in the attitude about the enforcement, that millions experienced humiliating discriminating, disenfranchising discrimination, every day of their lives on this mortal coil. Laws animated by the right moral spirit can and do make a difference, a big difference, in a civil society.

[Sandy]

The 14th Amendment restrains actions of government, not actions of individuals. Laws aren't actions. If a government were forcing people to discriminate, that would be unconstitutional action. Encouraging discrimination would be an unconstitutional action too. Passively allowing it would not be.

My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Is that unconstitutional? Of course not. Yet by the Court's logic, it becomes unconstitutional as soon as we state in our constitution that we won't have those laws. We don't have the laws, and that's okay. Declaring via legislation that we won't have such laws, that would be okay too. But declaring in the constitution that we won't have the laws, that's forbidden. It's quite absurd really.

[Brilliant]

The Supreme Court doesn't declare laws unconstitutional just because they don't do anything or are unnecessary. They declared this law unconstitutional, though, so they obviously don't agree with your conclusion that businesses have the absolute right to discriminate against gays in hiring and renting.

[Sandy]

The Supreme Court doesn't declare laws unconstitutional just because they don't do anything or are unnecessary

I never claimed that the amendment didn't do anything. In fact I specifically said that the amendment forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws.

so they obviously don't agree with your conclusion that businesses have the absolute right to discriminate against gays in hiring and renting.

Conclusion? I'm not making conclusions. I'm explaining the amendment to you. I'm *not* explaining (nor making conclusions about) the case to you. If you had answered the question that I asked you earlier, you would have understood my point (I think).

Here, let's recap and start over, leaving out the fluff:

You: It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.

Me: That's not exactly correct . . . The people of Colorado were "authorized" to discriminate both before and after that amendment was passed.

You: Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Me: My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?

[berkeleybeej]

Not THESE idiots, AGAIN......

[Mulch]

The mathematical exercise illustrates how irrational it is to base laws on pure fantasy. Believing that discrimination is rampant in U.S. business is a fantasy. By your own testimony, you have witnessed only several examples of discrimination. This is significant, considering that you are probably hyper-vigilant in trying to spot discrimination. Despite that, you can only think of a couple examples. Whether those examples did in fact happen is another issue.

[Mulch]

"...that millions experienced humiliating discriminating, disenfranchising discrimination, every day of their lives"

Millions? Hardly. It might make you feel good to be a victim but it is a shameful quality in my book. Anti-discrimination laws teach people to act like victims. In the long run, that is harmful to the individual and society in general.