Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sandy

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.


72 posted on 08/17/2005 4:44:14 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: Brilliant
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?

73 posted on 08/17/2005 6:13:19 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson