LakersGround.net :: View topic - Indiana law that allows biz to reject gays

Indiana law that allows biz to reject gays
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:34 am Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:

It's been a while since I read it, but my information of the 14th comes from David Kluger's book. "Simple Justice." He spent a great deal of time laying the legal framework for the role of the Constitution on race in American Jurisprudence.

If I remember correctly, a reading of the minutes of the debate shows clearly that the 14th had one purpose and one purpose only and that was to protect the rights of blacks in America. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent was clear, no matter the outcome.

Without a doubt, the protection of freed slaves (and non-slaves in northern states) was the predominant issue of the time. However, it wasn't the only issue, and it wasn't the only purpose of the amendment. Here's a quote from the legislative history:

Quote:

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. How will it be done under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to be effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the fifth section of this amendment, which declares that “the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution.

http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Howard_Speech_5-23-1866.pdf

I'm not going to say that the author of Simple Justice was wrong without having read exactly what he wrote. However, the fourteenth amendment did have a broader purpose than the immediate goal of protecting freed slaves.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:41 am Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

So you don't agree with allowing women's only health clubs and gyms? Separate sex public restrooms?

It's not that weird. What's weird is figuring out where the line should be drawn and who should get to draw it.

Again, prohibiting gender discrimination does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world. There are functional reasons for having separate restrooms and not allowing men into a women's locker room.

The line drawing is left to the legislature. It's not complicated or weird. If a legislature decided to ban single sex health clubs or separate sex public restrooms, it could do so. However, there is no constitutional requirement that a legislature do so.

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:57 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

You're taking my post out of context. Why wouldn't you quote the post I was replying to?

I'm just saying that we already accept that some discrimination is ok because it serves a bigger picture goal. For instance, I'm fine with not being allowed at the Curves gym. That doesn't make its policy non-discriminatory just because I'm ok with it. It's highly discriminatory!

Sacrifices are going to have to be made here in pursuit of the bigger picture goal. Maybe religion needs to evolve a little bit. Perhaps people need to be more tolerant of the intolerant. And so on.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:58 am Post subject:

Wilt wrote:

So if water fountains had signs that said "Colored Only.....(out of love)," it would have been fine, I guess.

Since no malice is involved?

The argument that discrimination without malice should be legal is one of the weirdest things I've read on the internets lately.

Let's use a real world example of how this plays out.

I'm Joe Bob. I own a grocery store. I have absolutely no malice at all toward black people. Heck, I think black people are equal to everyone else, and that they are just as good employees as everyone else. But I have this problem -- a lot of my customers really don't like dealing with black people. They prefer white cashiers and make faces when they see a black person at the register. I'm just a small businessman, trying to make a living. I've got to give my customers what they want. I'm not doing anything discriminatory.

That sort of argument got shot down in flames. There were actually some major companies -- including McDonalds, I think -- that had policies about how the employees should "match" the demographics of the surrounding area.

This doesn't mean that people have to be treated as fungible in all cases. A strip club can hire only female strippers, and a movie studio doesn't have to cast black actors in a Shakespeare movie (though this has happened on a couple occasions). But those cases are the exceptions -- and common sense exceptions at that -- not the rule.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:08 am Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

I cut down strings of posts. You should, too.

I didn't take anything out of context. You're making the same argument that I addressed yesterday. Banning sex discrimination does not mean that we have to live in a unisex world. If you want to call Curves discriminatory, that's your privilege. However, the discrimination laws do not require a unisex world.

If you choose to date women and not men, are you discriminating against men? The law isn't stupid.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67627
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:29 am Post subject:

LINK LINK LINK _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Last edited by jodeke on Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:43 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

How is Curves not discriminatory? If a golf course said no women allowed, wouldn't that be discriminatory? It would I think. We just decided that the former is an ok form of it and the latter is not.

My point is simply that SOME level of discrimination is needed (how much clearly up for debate) in pursuit of the greater good. And so SOME discrimination is not malicious (the point I was addressing). Maybe in this case we'll need to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.

In the same way that we collectively say well men, you can't join Curves because it serves the greater purpose of providing women a more comfortable place to exercise (and so deal with it), we need to say well religious folks, you can't not service gay weddings because it serves the greater purpose of ensuring everyone is treated equally (and so deal with it).

the association
Star Player

Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:43 pm Post subject:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

mhan00
Retired Number

Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32059

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:34 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

Bigots donating to a fellow homophobe. I'd be kinda tempted to act like a bigoted moron to see if I can cash in too, but I'm not white.

Don Draper
Retired Number

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 28432
Location: LA --> Bay Area

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:42 pm Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Yes, and people have written about it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianreid/2012/04/09/male-only-golf-enclaves-its-not-just-augusta/

You're basically using Fox News' argument against Jon Stewart. "Well hey, they already discriminate there, so why is it bad that we discriminate here?"

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:42 pm Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

I've answered this several times already. The line gets drawn by the legislature. I'm not sure what your point is, or whether you even have a point. You seem to want to discuss "discrimination" in some philosophical/academic sense. That's great, I guess, but it doesn't have much application to the real world.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:07 pm Post subject:

mhan00 wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

Bigots donating to a fellow homophobe. I'd be kinda tempted to act like a bigoted moron to see if I can cash in too, but I'm not white.

Why am I not surprised?

the association
Star Player

Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:51 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

I was commenting (via non-sequitur, sorry) on the distasteful effluence that always seems to spring forth when those obsessed with guns, god and gays here in the land of hope and dreams find a soapbox to exploit ... P.T. Barnum (or David Hannum, whatever) was more right than he ever had a chance to know.

A 48-hour haul of ~ $770K (net of fees) for these mouthbreathing rounding errors in the heartland ... God Bless America, indeed.

KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:24 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:

Quote:

Great find. Thanks. I concede about 80% since it is obvious that the speaker and therefore the framers of the 14th knew the fifth section would have implications far beyond the reach of the 14th. Yet, I'll retain 20% or so to my original contention since, even when arguing for the fifth section, the worry was that somehow, somewhere, down the line, some lower power would try to usurp the goals of the 14th and they wanted to prevent that from happening at all costs.

Obviously, this is a prime example of why Justice Frankfurther, for example, was dubious of the Court going too far ahead of the general public and putting itself out on a limb that would serve to diminish it's stature by making laws that it was powerless to enforce. Ultimately, it wasn't the court that provided the federal marshals to protect children like Ruby Bridges, it was the President backed by the power given to him by his position and the moral and legal authority of the SCOTUS.

Thus the brilliance of the balance of powers in shaping what our nations' experiment in representative democracy has become, towering nobility and repellant warts and all.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays

KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:27 am Post subject:

the association wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

Excellent! If you weren't such a Kobe hater, I think I'd even like you

. Your writing style reminds me of some of the essays of Ralph Ellison, particularly in "Going to the Territory."
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:47 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

That's what happens when you quote my post out of context! Haha.

The post I was originally responding to, stated that there is no such thing as discrimination without malice.

But I contend that there is, as evidenced by legislation that we for the most part are ok with, that allows for gender discrimination in favor of women in the form of gender specific health clubs, sports leagues, public restrooms, etc.

As far as its relevance to this topic, I think it ties in to the idea that legislatively, on this matter, someone is going to have to be discriminated against. Either those with strong religious beliefs are going to have to put their personal views aside during the course of a business transaction, or, the gay community will have to accept that there is a consequence to allowing for choice.

I consider sexual orientation to be a protected class and so I would err on the side of forcing religions to evolve from their hundreds year old traditions as they already have on a number of other positions. That is, in a sense, discrimination on the basis of religion but, it isn't malicious in nature. It's a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. IMO.

ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player

Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:33 am Post subject:

I would be willing to bet my whole lives earnings that science could find someone born gay before they find someone born religious.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:09 am Post subject:

I didn't read most of the thread. I haven't familiarized myself with the issue. But it seems like it's something everyone is talking about and, as usual, there's a lot of name calling on both sides. Most people really aren't interested in honestly talking to each other as fellow Americans. Instead it's my side vs your side. From my limited perspective, I see that both sides have a point. Freedom is important. It's a defining value for many Americans. So laws that inhibit that strike a nerve. In one sense, people should be free enough to be idiots. They should not be forced to do business with people they don't want to do business with. In an ideal world, this works itself out. People avoid idiots and they eventually go out of business or at least see far less success than their moral counterparts. But we need to also acknowledge that the world isn't ideal. In some places, bigotry is still ingrained enough for it to thrive if allowed. A true freedom lover accepts this as just taking the bad with the good. With the ultimate good of freedom, there will also be bad. But the other side is that the bad in some cases ends up affecting others. When it affects the freedom of others it crosses the line. Then there's the idea that the consumer has choices, and they don't need that particular business to supply the product or service they want. They can still get it elsewhere. And so on... And so on... And so on... But I am mainly disheartened at the lack of desire of people to truly understand each other instead of names and accusations being thrown around. (Not here specifically, but everywhere)

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:51 am Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

I didn't read most of the thread. I haven't familiarized myself with the issue. But it seems like it's something everyone is talking about and, as usual, there's a lot of name calling on both sides. Most people really aren't interested in honestly talking to each other as fellow Americans. Instead it's my side vs your side.

From my limited perspective, I see that both sides have a point. Freedom is important. It's a defining value for many Americans. So laws that inhibit that strike a nerve.

In one sense, people should be free enough to be idiots. They should not be forced to do business with people they don't want to do business with. In an ideal world, this works itself out. People avoid idiots and they eventually go out of business or at least see far less success than their moral counterparts.

But we need to also acknowledge that the world isn't ideal. In some places, bigotry is still ingrained enough for it to thrive if allowed.

A true freedom lover accepts this as just taking the bad with the good. With the ultimate good of freedom, there will also be bad.

But the other side is that the bad in some cases ends up affecting others. When it affects the freedom of others it crosses the line.

Then there's the idea that the consumer has choices, and they don't need that particular business to supply the product or service they want. They can still get it elsewhere.

And so on...

And so on...

And so on...

But I am mainly disheartened at the lack of desire of people to truly understand each other instead of names and accusations being thrown around. (Not here specifically, but everywhere)

I feel exactly the same way man. Oh, and if you bring up the freedom word then you're playing the semantics game.

It's just how it is. On both sides. If you don't think the way I do about things, you're a hater/bigot/tree hugger/[insert other label here].

the association
Star Player

Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:28 am Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:

the association wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

Excellent! If you weren't such a Kobe hater, I think I'd even like you

. Your writing style reminds me of some of the essays of Ralph Ellison, particularly in "Going to the Territory."

I've encountered plenty of critics with less generous comparisons, so, you know ... anyway, thank you and I'm looking forward to spending some time with Ellison's works over the next few months. Appreciate the referral ...

Regarding KB, these past 19 years of my 30+ year association as a fan of the Lakers have been a roller coaster, but I feel like I'm in a good place with my views on him these days. I may have been too unforgiving of him in the past, but I've become more appreciative of his career arc in these twilight years. And I've learned to temper the finger wagging quite a bit, too ...

Everything in moderation, including moderation ...

Finally and as to the comments above suggesting that both "sides" bear some fault in failing to consider the position(s) of the other ... when someone has the temerity to suggest that "God has blessed us for standing up for what we believe, and not denying him" as the explanation for the almost 30,000 (mostly) clueless supporters who have collectively handed her almost $800K over the course of 48 hours (in lieu of contributions to obviously less important areas for giving like medical research, poverty or homeless assistance, education or the arts), I'm perfectly OK with setting up camp on the other side and calling B.S. on these freakshows ...

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I don't think there's any meaningful amount of of discourse that should change anyone's mind on this and similar issues ... my only regret is that GoFundMe will not be publishing the identities of those who gave in that campaign. That's a scarlet letter I could probably get behind ...

Aussiesuede
Franchise Player

Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:15 am Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:

I would be willing to bet my whole lives earnings that science could find someone born gay before they find someone born religious.

C'mon. Right after the doctor cuts the umbilical cord and a baby opens it's eyes, the first thing that goes through their mind is :

"Wow, somewhere 'up there' is a a sex hating single dad on a power trip that created all this. I think I'm gonna follow that dude on my twitter".

_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.

AllorNothing
Franchise Player

Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 18448

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:23 pm Post subject:

I am wondering why the klan doesn't set up a gofundme account. They would bank millions.

Nordvader
Star Player

Joined: 21 Jan 2012
Posts: 1662

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:18 pm Post subject:

the association wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

While the pizza shop has gotten $770K for being distasteful on the other side of the coin - Cut The Cake who was prank called by idiot Joshua Feuerstein and asked to bake a cake and put "We do not support gay marriage" on top of it, has gained a whopping $3,365 in 2 days.

http://www.gofundme.com/qr6zu4

jonnybravo
Retired Number

Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30680

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:19 pm Post subject:

the association wrote:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:

the association wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

the association wrote:

$785K and climbing for Memories Pizza ... I'm assuming we can drop the "American exceptionalism" nonsense already?

Excellent! If you weren't such a Kobe hater, I think I'd even like you

. Your writing style reminds me of some of the essays of Ralph Ellison, particularly in "Going to the Territory."

I really need to find a way to hop on this right wing gravy train. Cha-ching!

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Page 8 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.