Michigan GOP votes to fine gay-friendly colleges

[AbnormalDann]

I am so ashamed to be living in MI.

 

[chrisrobin]

I am so ashamed to be living in MI.

I am so ashamed to be living near MI.

 

[jackoroe]

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that it is unlawful for universities to extend benefits to same sex couples.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/08/benefits

It's not OK to ignore the laws we find inconvenient. It's OK to change them or challenge them when we disagree with them.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

Yeah, this is a big part of the reason I left Michigan to live in Canada.

 

[hotatlboi]

It's not OK to ignore the laws we find inconvenient.

Sure it is, it's called civil disobedience.

One of the most important weapons in eliminating unjust laws. When the public sees you getting punished or facing persecution for doing what is perceived as the right thing, in spite of the law, that tends to lend greater support to your position.

Your typical, right on cue defense of this homophobic bullshit from the right is rather sad.

 

[jackoroe]

Sure it is, it's called civil disobedience.

One of the most important weapons in eliminating unjust laws. When the public sees you getting punished or facing persecution for doing what is perceived as the right thing, in spite of the law, that tends to lend greater support to your position.

Your typical, right on cue defense of this homophobic bullshit from the right is rather sad.

Individuals have the right to engage in civil disobedience. The state (including state funded institutions of higher learning) does not. The case I cited enjoined institutions, not individuals from engaging in a course of action. Your argument is not valid.

The Constitution says very clearly that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. We have a decision in Loving says we can't discriminate against people of different races marrying. We'll use this to win at SCOTUS when we get there. Until then, this law is what they're stuck with in MI. Change it? Of course. But do it lawfully.

 

[hotatlboi]

Individuals have the right to engage in civil disobedience. The state (including state funded institutions of higher learning) does not. The case I cited enjoined institutions, not individuals from engaging in a course of action. Your argument is not valid.

The Constitution says very clearly that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. We have a decision in Loving says we can't discriminate against people of different races marrying. We'll use this to win at SCOTUS when we get there. Until then, this law is what they're stuck with in MI. Change it? Of course. But do it lawfully.

Call me in 20 years when someone invites you to the front of the bus.

I'll just be taking my seat here right now (and providing support and encouragement for those that choose to do the same, not scolding).

 

[T-Rexx]

GOP Great Idea #5,247 - "Let's put a tax on fairness, tolerance, open-mindedness, and humanitarianism!"

 

[jackoroe]

Call me in 20 years when someone invites you to the front of the bus.

I'll just be taking my seat here right now (and providing support and encouragement for those that choose to do the same, not scolding).

You've made a ridiculous argument that would encourage governmental entities to ignore Supreme Court rulings. The very fight we are making is about our right to protection under the law. If you don't recognize the supremacy of law, you are left with nothing to protect your rights.

If we ignore the law as you advocate, you won't only not be allowed onto the bus, but you'll be run over by it and have no recourse against the driver.

 

[hotatlboi]

If we ignore the law as you advocate, you won't only not be allowed onto the bus, but you'll be run over by it and have no recourse against the driver.

Now you're suggesting that there is no distinction between just laws and unjust laws. That to combat unjust laws through civil disobedience, we have to throw out all law (anarchy). That's just absurd.

 

[T-Rexx]

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

According to Thomas Jefferson, it is our duty to overthrow our Republican despots.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your typical, right on cue defense of this homophobic bullshit from the right is rather sad.

Since when is pointing out the law a "defense of ... homophobic bullshit"?

 

[Kulindahr]

Now you're suggesting that there is no distinction between just laws and unjust laws. That to combat unjust laws through civil disobedience, we have to throw out all law (anarchy). That's just absurd.

It's not absurd at all.

If your position is correct, then Governor Walker in Wisconsin would be justified in rounding up all gays and lesbians and throwing them in Lake Michigan -- because a state government doesn't have to follow the law if it feels it's wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

uhhh say, because the law is homophobic bullshit?

Uh-huh.

So if we're traveling and stop for a burger, and at the place we find a simple thing about like a Big Mac is $9.99, and I point out that the price is $9.99, am I defending the price?

 

[hotatlboi]

Uh-huh.

So if we're traveling and stop for a burger, and at the place we find a simple thing about like a Big Mac is $9.99, and I point out that the price is $9.99, am I defending the price?

Don't be naive.

These legislators are proposing to fine colleges that treat gay people well because they despise gay people. Any other reasoning is an obfuscation and a denial of reality.

 

[LikesDudes2]

How the fuck can some of you JUBbers continue to support this cuntish cabal of homophobic idiots?

Probably because there's more to a vote than gay rights.

 

[JB3]

Don't be naive.

These legislators are proposing to fine colleges that treat gay people well because they despise gay people. Any other reasoning is an obfuscation and a denial of reality.

BECAUSE the state supreme court has already said that it is unlawful for universities to extend benefits to same sex couples. How do you not understand that?

Yes, it is unjust, and no it is not right. But, until someone challenges that ruling and that law, the state funded colleges and universities must abide by it.

 

[JB3]

Like the price of fast food has anything to do with LGBT civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Oh stop already. It was an example of the ridiculous argument hotatlboi was making.

 

[hotatlboi]

BECAUSE the state supreme court has already said that it is unlawful for universities to extend benefits to same sex couples. How do you not understand that?

Yes, it is unjust, and no it is not right. But, until someone challenges that ruling and that law, the state funded colleges and universities must abide by it.

That doesn't make it any more rational.

Ok, since the court has ruled then it is a settled issue right?

So why do we need ever MORE anti-gay legislation on the books?

Oh right, we don't!.

This action has absolutely no valid defense imo.

 

[JB3]

That doesn't make it any more rational.

Ok, since the court has ruled then it is a settled issue right?

So why do we need ever MORE anti-gay legislation on the books?

Oh right, we don't!.

This action has absolutely no valid defense imo.

With Michigan's courts, it is. However, because of the issues involved, it will almost certainly be challenged in Federal courts.

Your defense right now is basically 'I don't like it so I don't care what the law says I'm going to tell them to do whatever I want'. That isn't how this works. The law is there, and the universities must abide by it for now. They do not have a choice.