It is democracy in action, in the sense that the majority want to oppress the minority and regularly keep voting to do so. Fortunately we set some basic protections into our founding documents - and then added some more later - that makes that sort of thing hard to keep doing forever.
I'm not really a fan of democracy, in case you were wondering. See previous comments about society and shitty rules.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:18 pm
by Vince
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:15 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:You can agree with the court, but don't pretend like this was democracy in action. Or even Republicanism.
Disagree. We have a constitution for a reason, and that primary reason is to protect individual liberty. I believe the court's interpretation of the Constitution in favor of gay marriage is absolutely correct and consistent with our Republic.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:16 pm
by Malcolm
So, in your opinion, there's gray area, and personal judgement has to come into play?
I'm saying if you want to be prejudiced to the full extent of the law, you must be consistently so.
You can agree with the court, but don't pretend like this was democracy in action. Or even Republicanism.
You'd prefer going back to the Articles of Confederation where the states stamp their feet and are allowed to hold their breath as long as they want? No thanks. Not unless the states feel like they should stop sucking the federal cash titty.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:48 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote:
Vince wrote:You can agree with the court, but don't pretend like this was democracy in action. Or even Republicanism.
Disagree. We have a constitution for a reason, and that primary reason is to protect individual liberty. I believe the court's interpretation of the Constitution in favor of gay marriage is absolutely correct and consistent with our Republic.
We have a constitutional republic. They use those two words because a constitution does not assure a republic and a republic does not ensure a constitution. Therefore I stand by my original statement that this had nothing to do with republicanism )or democracy). You may argue it was Constitutional, but words have meanings.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:51 pm
by Malcolm
So judicial review is out the window unless it's, what, a 2-vote margin of victory now?
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:36 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:
TheCatt wrote:
Vince wrote:You can agree with the court, but don't pretend like this was democracy in action. Or even Republicanism.
Disagree. We have a constitution for a reason, and that primary reason is to protect individual liberty. I believe the court's interpretation of the Constitution in favor of gay marriage is absolutely correct and consistent with our Republic.
We have a constitutional republic. They use those two words because a constitution does not assure a republic and a republic does not ensure a constitution. Therefore I stand by my original statement that this had nothing to do with republicanism )or democracy). You may argue it was Constitutional, but words have meanings.
I'll argue it's completely consistent with our government, and that democracy is flawed, and we're a Constitutional Republic for many, many reasons.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:45 pm
by GORDON
Was this the thread about the gay wedding cake?
Hey look at this.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:40 pm
by Vince
I think Melania Trump should sue all the designers that say they won't make dresses for her as first lady. This is America. You don't get to not provide the services of your business to someone just because you disagree with their life style.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:59 pm
by Malcolm
A private biz can always refuse service to someone if they find them personally distasteful and it doesn't violate a federal, state, or local statute. Skin colour, religion, sexuality, blah blah blah isn't good enough. If you have the balls to stand up and say, "I don't fucking like you, your personality is the antithesis of everything I find worthwhile, and you're a dumb-ass to boot, now get the fuck out," then you get the same protection. Trying to walk the razor's edge of, "No, I don't have any problem with your lifestyle or ancestry ... but I'd rather you get the hell out because one or more of those things makes me extremely uncomfortable, " doesn't fly. Being a tool or a moron isn't an aspect of one's lifestyle; it's evidence one is mentally deficient.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:07 pm
by GORDON
You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:11 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.
If Melania was working for the dressmakers, you might have a point. And no, it's not. Working for someone is an entirely different set of rules than trying to conduct biz with them. The designers can always make the argument that potential high-end clients seeing their end product on Drumpfette is going to have a negative effect on their bottom line, therefore they aren't going to do it. The end. Otherwise, you could force any musical artist to license their song for a campaign ... but since Drumpf doesn't usually ask permission for that sort of annoyance...
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 pm
by GORDON
Ah ha. Then peeps no longer have to serve anyone who has a Che Guevara shirt on.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:15 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Ah ha. Then peeps no longer have to serve anyone who has a Che Guevara shirt on.
If they want to make that stand, sure. A dress code isn't a new thing. Clubs have them. You can make a "no political clothes" rule in a private biz. I used to shoot pool in joints with a "no bandanas allowed" sign.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:33 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.
You are incorrect, you can absolutely get fired for your politics in most states.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:37 am
by Vince
I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:17 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:18 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:
GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.
You are incorrect, you can absolutely get fired for your politics in most states.
Well then I'm only partially incorrect?
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:25 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.
Equal protection clause?
Re: Gender pill
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:39 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote:
Vince wrote:I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.
Equal protection clause?
Then by your own argument that should also apply to political affiliation.