GOP House leadership makes it clear that gay equality is NOT tolerated in their party

[Kulindahr]

Courts sometimes cites poetry and the like, but that does not make it law. No the DOI is not law and it confers no rights.

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

here


The Supreme Court has on multiple occasions disagreed with you.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you do not acknowledge any law which flies in the face of what you desire ideologically, so what does parsing over what is or isn't law truly matter in your case?

That besides the fact that the Declaration sets forth the principles on which the nation was founded. By his attitude, Ben conveys that he cares nothing for principles, only for interests... exactly what Jefferson had to say about the wealthy Virginia planters who wrote into existence an aristocratic government (which he derided as a mere continuation of rule by a self-interested elite, little different from the tyranny of Great Britain).

 

[Benvolio]

That besides the fact that the Declaration sets forth the principles on which the nation was founded. By his attitude, Ben conveys that he cares nothing for principles, only for interests... exactly what Jefferson had to say about the wealthy Virginia planters who wrote into existence an aristocratic government (which he derided as a mere continuation of rule by a self-interested elite, little different from the tyranny of Great Britain).

You are quoting Jefferson of the 200 slaves? Was there ever a bigger hypocrit? And yes I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--economic liberty being the most important.

 

[Benvolio]

Equality was not intended to be the enemy of liberty.

 

[kallipolis]

Equality was not intended to be the enemy of liberty.

and liberty is not free licence for the abuse of liberty by denying equality to all, no matter their sexual orientation, race, colour, religion, or none.

 

[Kabluey]

and liberty is not free licence for the abuse of liberty by denying equality to all, no matter their sexual orientation, race, colour, religion, or none.

Seems some people struggle with the idea of liberty for all.

 

[frankfrank]

It is untenable that in this day and age that you can be fired just for being gay.

Or even fucking lose the place that you live..perhaps even under SUSPICION of being gay.

If I lived in some place like Alabama and my cousin was coming to town and I wanted to let him sleep on the couch during the two days he's visiting, could I get kicked out because a man stayed overnight with me...therefore PROVING that I'm gay?

And, that bathroom [etc.] bill that got vetoed in Georgia - which, as I understand, included the state being allowed to keep a data base of gay people - was that something (similar to a Sex Offenders Registry) that any potential employer, landlord, etc. could look at and REFUSE a person who's on it? Was it going to allow a landlord to go through the list of the tenants in all 14 of the apartments, and summarily kick out, with little warning, those who were unfortunately on the data base? Probably.

The only reason to oppose a law that would allow people better suited for a position to get that position regardless of the personal prejudices of the employer -- which is what the law under discussion would do --is because of personal prejudices.

In Benvolio's world, businesses would be allowed to discriminate at will, disallowing innate qualities that have nothing to do with their quality of work.

Businesses SHOULD be allowed to discriminate on attributes which are likely to indicate that the person is unsuitable for the job, or who may jeopardize the functioning of the work place, etc. If somebody comes to the interview entirely stinky, or starts throwing "fuck you"s around during the interview, appears to have a strong attitude of taking the job for granted, will not answer questions, etc., YES that person shouldn't have to be hired.

To be able to throw away that person who ACTUALLY IS by far the most suited for the job...but just happens to be gay or Jewish...should not be allowed. Yes, it should be entirely ILLEGAL to be able to include religious affiliation, sexual preference (and, including, identity), even marital status ("No divorcees!" for example) in questions or interviews as qualifying factors.

I also, generally, have big problems with needing to show proof of things like good credit scores or savings accounts which can be entirely destroyed by some unfortunate hard times, such as divorce or health emergencies.

In totalitarian countries, party members always get preferred treatment. The democrats are and will be no different.

That's why your ideas WITH NO EXCEPTIONS EVER, give preference to Republicans. It would be an absolute extreme Republican theocratic dictatorship, with death penalties (or life-without-parole) for somebody who even SUGGESTS an abortion, allowing any out-of-state student to vote because hey he/she will probably vote Democrat, etc.

Would the pillories, or burning at the stake, for things such as heresy, be far off?

 

[Benvolio]

Seems some people struggle with the idea of liberty for all.

Much of what liberals call liberty is increased control and liberty of one at the cost of liberty for others. The right of people to sue if they don't get the job or promotion they want results in the deprivation of the job creator of the right to choose the best worker. So, in the end it is just the government taking more and more control.

 

[kallipolis]

^A court of law will determine the facts enabling both sides to an employment dispute to be heard.

There is no automatic court judgement in favour of a claimant in response to allegations of unfair dismissal.

 

[Benvolio]

Or even fucking lose the place that you live..perhaps even under SUSPICION of being gay.

If I lived in some place like Alabama and my cousin was coming to town and I wanted to let him sleep on the couch during the two days he's visiting, could I get kicked out because a man stayed overnight with me...therefore PROVING that I'm gay?

And, that bathroom [etc.] bill that got vetoed in Georgia - which, as I understand, included the state being allowed to keep a data base of gay people - was that something (similar to a Sex Offenders Registry) that any potential employer, landlord, etc. could look at and REFUSE a person who's on it? Was it going to allow a landlord to go through the list of the tenants in all 14 of the apartments, and summarily kick out, with little warning, those who were unfortunately on the data base? Probably.

In Benvolio's world, businesses would be allowed to discriminate at will, disallowing innate qualities that have nothing to do with their quality of work.

Businesses SHOULD be allowed to discriminate on attributes which are likely to indicate that the person is unsuitable for the job, or who may jeopardize the functioning of the work place, etc. If somebody comes to the interview entirely stinky, or starts throwing "fuck you"s around during the interview, appears to have a strong attitude of taking the job for granted, will not answer questions, etc., YES that person shouldn't have to be hired.

To be able to throw away that person who ACTUALLY IS by far the most suited for the job...but just happens to be gay or Jewish...should not be allowed. Yes, it should be entirely ILLEGAL to be able to include religious affiliation, sexual preference (and, including, identity), even marital status ("No divorcees!" for example) in questions or interviews as qualifying factors.

I also, generally, have big problems with needing to show proof of things like good credit scores or savings accounts which can be entirely destroyed by some unfortunate hard times, such as divorce or health emergencies.


That's why your ideas WITH NO EXCEPTIONS EVER, give preference to Republicans. It would be an absolute extreme Republican theocratic dictatorship, with death penalties (or life-without-parole) for somebody who even SUGGESTS an abortion, allowing any out-of-state student to vote because hey he/she will probably vote Democrat, etc.

Would the pillories, or burning at the stake, for things such as heresy, be far off?

No, the Republicans would just roll back some of the governmental control of business to the time when our economy was the greatest the world has ever known and people all over the world envied our freedom. There is no evidence that gays cannot find work and places to live. The possibility that some bosses and landlords may discriminate does not justify governmental control. Other countries have tried total government control of everything, and still do. Your precious socialism has been imposed in Venezuela, Cube, North Korea. They, like you, throw away liberty to achieve equality and it is a horrible trade.
You probably think our liberals will not go so far in taking control. They will allow us some little liberty. Don't bet on it this entire episode of the government taking control of the nations showers and dressing rooms in the name of equality, proves that our liberals are no different than those in Venezuela, Chine, Russia. Just a little slower thanks to the Republicans.

 

[rareboy]

We seem to do just fine with protection for homos in socialist Canada and in amny European countries.

In fact a lot of the most prosperous states in the US do just fine with laws prohibiting discrimination against homos.

It is just the shithole, backward, religious states that seem to want to go out of their way to allow employers and landlords to discriminate.

You keep talking about government control as though it isn't the Republican state governments that aren't the ones always trying to impose control over lgbt citizens.

As usual...you've got nothing but empty rhetoric and baseless rants.

 

[kallipolis]

You keep talking about government control as though it isn't the Republican state governments that aren't the ones always trying to impose control over lgbt citizens.

The irony, and hypocrisy of it...............

 

[rareboy]

No, the Republicans would just roll back some of the governmental control of business to the time when our economy was the greatest the world has ever known and people all over the world envied our freedom. There is no evidence that gays cannot find work and places to live. The possibility that some bosses and landlords may discriminate does not justify governmental control. Other countries have tried total government control of everything, and still do. Your precious socialism has been imposed in Venezuela, Cube, North Korea. They, like you, throw away liberty to achieve equality and it is a horrible trade.
You probably think our liberals will not go so far in taking control. They will allow us some little liberty. Don't bet on it this entire episode of the government taking control of the nations showers and dressing rooms in the name of equality, proves that our liberals are no different than those in Venezuela, Chine, Russia. Just a little slower thanks to the Republicans.

I would also note for you that the irony of someone from a nation that had to have a civil war to end the practise of slavery and then spent the next 100 years enforcing an apartheid system is not lost on people from socialist countries that also have a very healthy capitalist economy.

The freedom for 1/10th of 1% to have aggregated almost all the nation's wealth based on the exploitation of near slave labour in third world countries, while shipping their profits off-shore and demolishing the middle class that rose to affluence and security under labour unions in the 50's and 60's is also noted.

You always seem to equate communism with liberalism. In fact, the reality in the counties you keep referring to has nothing to do with liberalism. Invariably, they are examples of reactionary, conservative regimes.

But we've all had this discussion 100 times before and each time your ridiculous and delusional assertions get demolished.

I keep thinking that at some point, you'd get tired of touting nonsense that no one here is buying.

 

[Benvolio]

I would also note for you that the irony of someone from a nation that had to have a civil war to end the practise of slavery and then spent the next 100 years enforcing an apartheid system is not lost on people from socialist countries that also have a very healthy capitalist economy.

The freedom for 1/10th of 1% to have aggregated almost all the nation's wealth based on the exploitation of near slave labour in third world countries, while shipping their profits off-shore and demolishing the middle class that rose to affluence and security under labour unions in the 50's and 60's is also noted.

You always seem to equate communism with liberalism. In fact, the reality in the counties you keep referring to has nothing to do with liberalism. Invariably, they are examples of reactionary, conservative regimes.

But we've all had this discussion 100 times before and each time your ridiculous and delusional assertions get demolished.

I keep thinking that at some point, you'd get tired of touting nonsense that no one here is buying.

Venezuela and Cuba are Conservative? Lol,lol. Cuba is admired by liberals. Free health care and all that. Venezuela as well until it, like all socialist economies collapsed. Socialism is based on deprivation of economic liberty, so ultimatly socialism and fascism differ in ideology, but not in practse.

 

[rareboy]

To begin with, liberals don't believe in 'free' healthcare. We know it costs money.

Western socialism, as it is practised in Europe and North America (including the US) is not based on the deprivation of economic liberty. It is based on the idea that some things, like healthcare, basic education, social security and other community services and infrastructure should be available to all citizens and this should be a priority for tax expenditures. It leaves more than ample room for the free market to not only exist but to thrive.

The examples you keep tossing out are reactionary states with limited resources that are, in fact, ideologically conservative. The reason for Venezuela's collapse is its reliance on a single product...oil. The main reason for Cuba's economic troubles for decades has been an embargo by the United States, finally mercifully lifted.

But last I checked...the US protectorate of Puerto Rico is also collapsing...and it is hardly a socialist state.

And China will soon pretty much literally own the world economy...even though they are still a repressive, reactionary totalitarian state that has embraced capitalism.

I can't believe that anyone who claims to have gotten an education in order to become a 'lawyer' is so unbelievably ignorant of how the world actually works.

But you don't care how it works, do you? Your only job is to keep repeating the same tired and discredited talking points over and over and over on a porn forum board.

 

[Benvolio]

To begin with, liberals don't believe in 'free' healthcare. We know it costs money.

Western socialism, as it is practised in Europe and North America (including the US) is not based on the deprivation of economic liberty. It is based on the idea that some things, like healthcare, basic education, social security and other community services and infrastructure should be available to all citizens and this should be a priority for tax expenditures. It leaves more than ample room for the free market to not only exist but to thrive.

The examples you keep tossing out are reactionary states with limited resources that are, in fact, ideologically conservative. The reason for Venezuela's collapse is its reliance on a single product...oil. The main reason for Cuba's economic troubles for decades has been an embargo by the United States, finally mercifully lifted.

But last I checked...the US protectorate of Puerto Rico is also collapsing...and it is hardly a socialist state.

And China will soon pretty much literally own the world economy...even though they are still a repressive, reactionary totalitarian state that has embraced capitalism.

I can't believe that anyone who claims to have gotten an education in order to become a 'lawyer' is so unbelievably ignorant of how the world actually works.

But you don't care how it works, do you? Your only job is to keep repeating the same tired and discredited talking points over and over and over on a porn forum board.

You too keep keep presching the same crap over and over. The is not Europe and our liberals are not like those of Europe.

 

[rareboy]

Oh bullshit.

I know a lot of Americans. Probably as many or more than you. And I certainly know way more liberals than you do.

Trying to pull some kind of American exceptionalism nonsense just doesn't work. It is a desperate ploy because you've got nothing.

 

[hotatlboi]

You too keep keep presching the same crap over and over. The is not Europe and our liberals are not like those of Europe.

I think the amount of support Bernie has received have easily proven there are a substantial number of US liberals that favor European ideas about government.

 

[Benvolio]

I think the amount of support Bernie has received have easily proven there are a substantial number of US liberals that favor European ideas about government.

And they want other people to pay for it. That is the primary purpose for our massive immigration. If Americans don't want socialism, flood the country with poor unemployed people and rush them to voting citizenship.

 

[Kabluey]

And they want other people to pay for it. That is the primary purpose for our massive immigration. If Americans don't want socialism, flood the country with poor unemployed people and rush them to voting citizenship.

Classic xenophobic response. When you've been proven unequivocally to be wrong, you blame foreigners.

It is you who claims their is a magical 'cost' to providing people other than yourself liberty and freedom.

Your stance is basically 'I want to do whatever I want to do, and I want others to do what I want them to do, and I don't want to have any responsibilities'.

That's not liberty, that's simple selfishness. The logic of a spoilt child.