What's new
By:

The Call

  • Thread starter Thread starter UAL_TECH
  • Start date Start date
I don't guess this one. Why would private business need protection from law suits? Any business has the right to refuse service for whatever reason. I cannot envision seeing a court ruling in favor of a same sex couple complaining that the Catholic church said they would not marry them.

Newhampshire close to approving same sex marriage
 
Garfield1966 said:
I don't guess this one. Why would private business need protection from law suits? Any business has the right to refuse service for whatever reason. I cannot envision seeing a court ruling in favor of a same sex couple complaining that the Catholic church said they would not marry them.

Newhampshire close to approving same sex marriage
Click to expand...


Garfield,

Open a resturant near a freeway and refuse to serve a minority and see what happens. Perhaps the churches are worried about the same principles being applied to their situation in the future with gay marriage.
 
I understand that GTL, but are there not different standards? Private woman's schools do not need to allow men in. But lets go with your example. Is that against the law? I'm not trying to be funny. Is it against the law for a business that is privately owned to be racist?
 
Garfield1966 said:
I understand that GTL, but are there not different standards? Private woman's schools do not need to allow men in. But lets go with your example. Is that against the law? I'm not trying to be funny. Is it against the law for a business that is privately owned to be racist?
Click to expand...


Yes; very different standards as of right now. I think the concern of many might be that, someday, homosexuals may become a protected class like race. It isn't really against the law to be racist; but it is against the law for a publilc accomodation such as a resturant to refuse service to someone because of race. That's why you don't see the "white only" signs. I am just explaining their possible rationale, not my stance on the issue.
 
I think Piney and I had this discussion earlier. I do not foresee gays becoming a protected class. I think we have seen what that does and I believe it does more harm than good. Most of the arguments I have heard are asking for equal treatment under the law. I have heard/see/read nothing of quotas, reparations or any thing else.

I understand that it is not your stance.
 
Garfield1966 said:
I think Piney and I had this discussion earlier. I do not foresee gays becoming a protected class. I think we have seen what that does and I believe it does more harm than good. Most of the arguments I have heard are asking for equal treatment under the law. I have heard/see/read nothing of quotas, reparations or any thing else.

I understand that it is not your stance.
Click to expand...


What the hell do you think is the intent of hate crimes legislation.
 
Do you think drawing your initials on my fence is the same as drawing a Nazi cross on my fence? DO you think they should be penalized the same? Do you think I view them as the same?

Can you explin to me how hate criems translates into a protected class? I do not see the connection.
 
Garfield1966 said:
Do you think drawing your initials on my fence is the same as drawing a Nazi cross on my fence? DO you think they should be penalized the same? Do you think I view them as the same?

Can you explin to me how hate criems translates into a protected class? I do not see the connection.
Click to expand...

1) Well...If you feel it's somehow more '"acceptable" to have some moron deface your property with his/her initials than it it is for the same moron to do so with a swastika....and imagine that the latter case should somehow be more severely prosecuted (ie; A "hate" crime) just because you personally find it to be more "offensive"?...Well...there's just no explaining things much further here.

2) If anyone feels it's a more "serious" crime to murder someone for their race, creed, sexual orientation, or whatever else..than it is to murder that same someone for other reasons,..well?...that's just flat-out INSANE "thinking". Case in point = Person A is murdered in a drive by shooting. What's the "proper" protocol for leveling charges against their murderer(s)? Should we first ask if it was done for reasons of gang turf disputes? Would it be best to factor in the respective genetic backgrounds of the killer(s) and victim? Should we determine whatever religious beliefs might possibly be involved? Let's not forget gender and/or sexual orientation of course.....Is there, in ANY actual fact, even the slightest reasonable basis for elevating the tragic victim A of the drive by/whatever, into magically becoming some extra-extra"special" person, who's legal "value", due to some personal condition, supposedly makes them more "worthy" of obtaining more severe legal retribution against their killer(s) than "Joe/Jane Average" are?

Go for it. Just try and even defend the moral and logical absurdity of legislating "hate crimes" if you even possibly can.
 
Garfield1966 said:
Do you think drawing your initials on my fence is the same as drawing a Nazi cross on my fence? DO you think they should be penalized the same? Do you think I view them as the same?

Can you explin to me how hate criems translates into a protected class? I do not see the connection.
Click to expand...

How about Christian preaching towards homosexual intolerance?
 
Dell,

Speech is protected. I am referring to actions.

East,

If you think initials are the same as a swastika or a noose, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

A noose for a black person or a swastika to a jew is a threat and IMO is quite different from someone putting their initials on my garage door.

As for more serious crimes it becomes less important. Why someone was murdered or beaten is irrelevant. It's the lesser crimes where I feel it is important and the motivation need to be taken into account to make the penalty harsher for a hate crime.
 
Garfield1966 said:
Dell,

Speech is protected. I am referring to actions.

East,

If you think initials are the same as a swastika or a noose, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

A noose for a black person or a swastika to a jew is a threat and IMO is quite different from someone putting their initials on my garage door.

As for more serious crimes it becomes less important. Why someone was murdered or beaten is irrelevant. It's the lesser crimes where I feel it is important and the motivation need to be taken into account to make the penalty harsher for a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Carving swastika's on your door would be Constitutionally protected and constitute no hate crime unless you came out and they carved them in your forehead for instance.

The GLBT crowd was hell bent on protected class type law but it appears cooler heads in Congress prevailed.

Bill
 
delldude said:
Carving swastika's on your door would be Constitutionally protected and constitute no hate crime unless you came out and they carved them in your forehead for instance.

The GLBT crowd was hell bent on protected class type law but it appears cooler heads in Congress prevailed.

Bill
Click to expand...


Exactly how is carving a swastika much less anything else on my property protected by the COTUS?

There are always segments of society who what something extreme. I do not feel it is fair to use them as a representation of the society as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

700IAM
Off Tangent Post from "Challenges ahead mean US Airways honeymoon over"
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
700IAM
700IAM
USCREW
How to take a shower
Replies
1
Views
798
Seatacus
Seatacus
UPNAWAY
Nice Article
Replies
1
Views
1K
UPNAWAY
UPNAWAY
A
The State of US Airways
2 3
Replies
32
Views
6K
jcrb
J
EyeInTheSky
Today's Atlanta-Journal Constitution
Replies
12
Views
4K
Travels2mch
Travels2mch

Latest posts

Back
Top