Replies

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.

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.

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.