Would this guy have his job today, if he had tweeted about a different race?
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Surely you are kidding, right? Have you read or heard of the first amendment? If I'm not mistaken it does say a few things about religion in that amendment.
As I said in one of my prior posts, I don't care if a person is gay or not. That is none of my business.
I also sad that I have no clue what makes a person gay. The identical twin example seems to preclude genetics. But I personally know people that are gay they were born and raised inside very strict families where everyone else was straight. I'm not sure that anyone will ever know for sure at least in my lifetime.
1st amendment guarantees non-interference from the government.
Religion is a protected class under civil rights legislation. Religion is something someone choices. If by your logic gays should not have protections due to homosexuality being a choice, then religion should not be protected either.
and people DIDN'T vote for a gutless ,lying bitch who stood idly by for 8 years while her "president" husband screwed everything in sight.......now...truly...who did more to downgrade women.?......you libs really need to quit whining and making excuses and help rebuild the country, cause there's a lot of rebuilding to do
Yep....welp....y'all stupit pussy libs betta hike up y'all skirts cuz they be bunches of a$$ to kick! Bunch a idiot libs got fags and bunches of dem other people screamin all kinds of stupit mess! N dat dang Obama got dem ahabs all rilled up! I recon I don't give a squirrel's left nut bout no warmin globe...we gots food n put on dat table and bunch a ahabs to kill!
Actually I think this is a good point. Should there be any protected classes or should all people enjoy the same protection under the law without special consideration?
Big Skip....
You called me a very derogatory name the other day suggesting that I was devoid of any intellectual capacity...I believe the term you suggested was that I was "dumb"? (correct me if I'm wrong?)
I responded to that false assertion with information you may or may not have been aware of regarding U.S. Citizenship Law drawn from current State Department policy and U.S. code (cited, and linked source data for you)
You have neither offered evidence supporting your remark about me, nor an apology. Either of which would be a more adult behavior to display than your original childish post.
No response from you to this post answers my question to you at the end of that response from me to you about how you would choose to identify your own sense of intelligence since you so obviously lack any demonstrated intellectual capacity to define mine.
I'll wait patiently for a little while to receive either an apology from you or an explanation. If not, I'll promptly add you to my growing yet unimpressive "ignore" list of BL posters who I don't care to read because quite frankly you all have nothing of any interest or importance to add to any intelligent respectful discussion except toddler-like name calling when you are left devoid of any substantive rebuttals.
Last edited:
The Law already respects "person-hood" as a class CAJUNEER. Behavioral choices relative to someone's personal preferences are already protected as a "civil right" because those activities are considered part of a person's Liberty in pursuit of one's Happiness.
Religion is an institution granted status and recognized in the Constitution as a guaranteed right (to practice)--meaning it is something that we are granted either by Providence (from our Creator) or by status (our humanity) In either case it is a protected right similar to our Lives, and the practice of which is delineated and codified under the 1st amendment.
Homosexuals already have those same protections. They are also free to practice their behavior in pursuit of their Happiness, but it's their behavior (choice) that's protected not the state of them "being homosexual" which is not a defined class in need of additional Constitutional protections beyond those already established which they also enjoy.
Last edited:
I think in those cases it's considered a "deviant" behavior.... a crime...like Rape.(Anyway how do those States enforce it, unless it is part of some other type of crime like that?(Rape-sodomy cases)
I don't want some G-man peeking into my bedroom at night "checking" to see if me and my Wife are going at it "Doggie style".
I'll shoot 'em!
Last edited:
These sodomy laws have nothing to do with rape. They make homosexual behavior illegal. This contradicts your contention homosexuals already have equal protection.
No State Law or local ordinance can remove the status Homosexuals already enjoy as persons under the Constitution. They are equal to you and me in that respect. Now in the case of their "behavior" by that I'm referring to the act of committing homosexual acts...States most certainly do have the right to restrict that type of behavior.
Similar to them limiting or defining your ability to drive, or open up a business under certain conditions, or even be a barber or a bartender. They most certainly can and do limit those behaviors.
States can limit individual behaviors they deem necessary to maintain an orderly society...but they cannot either grant certain behaviors "class status" or remove one's individual Liberty to pursue Happiness within the confines of their established behavioral modifications.
Again the question remains...is homosexuality a natural condition of human birth?
Ans:
No.
Last edited:
You have contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread. You say homosexuals have equal protects. You say you don't want the government in your bedroom. Then you say states have the right to pass laws which prohibit homosexual activity. You're all over the place.
Nope not at all CAJUNEER. Homosexuals are human beings. Therefore they already have protected "class status" under the Constitution as "persons". Their rights are indeed equal to yours and mine in that respect.
However their "behavior" is not a "class" recognized under the Constitution. You're correct, the Government has no right to restrict their behavior unless it is considered a crime...like a Rape....so they are indeed free to practice their behavior. It is not however a guaranteed right...like their Freedom. It is a behavioral choice they are certainly free to practice, but just like any other activity that behavior can and is regulated. Just like playing Sports.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution for us playing Sports, but States and local municipalities both allow and restrict that activity every day. The Government is only there to protect our ability to pursue happiness, however we define that, but it does not allow any and all behaviors of us doing that.
We are not granted 100% freedom to do whatever we think will cause us happiness, because in some cases for the general good of society some of our deviant choices might harm others. Suppose it made me "happy" going up to Oakland and smashing out all of the windows on cars with Pitt signs on them?
The Pitt campus police would haul me in, before the Pitt fans got to me.
States and local jurisdictions therefore decide what type of activities(behaviors) are in their best interests to regulate or restrict...depending on their views of what will be best for the overall general public. They cannot restrict your rights to Liberty (to live as you freely choose) but they can restrict certain behaviors you chose to engage in which they may deem are either dangerous, deviant, immoral, or whatever other element of organic Law they use to regulate your behavior.
How did I allow myself to get in tangled in this conversation?
The government has no right or authority to regulate the playing of sports which is sponsored by no government agency. They can only regulate behavior which may violate the rights of others. Smashing windows is not an innate human behavior. Sexual activity is. Smashing windows infringes on the rights of the car owner. It is destruction of property. Homosexual activity between consenting adults infringes on no one's rights. Yet 12 states have laws that outlaw homosexual behavior between consenting adults. Again you self contradict.
Last edited:
OK then CAJUNEER try this example. Many people will be going out drinking tomorrow night to ring in the New Year. This behavior will make many of them "Happy"...very happy!
Some of them will then attempt to get into their personal automobiles and drive themselves home from whatever party they found their Constitutionally protected "happiness".
Yet assorted crews of "Smokey Bears" will also be patiently waiting along designated and regulated State roadways and byways to promptly stop and arrest those "happy people" for driving their personal Automobiles in their "Happiness conditions" (behavior).
So if we are all free to do as we please, and States have no right to restrict our personal choices why are DUI citations going to be written? It's because some behaviors of choice are moderated, restricted, or regulated by States for the greater safety or public good.
If you want to argue CAJUNEER that Laws restricting homosexual activity are dumb and none of the Government's business...I might be willing to join you in that argument. As far as I'm concerned they can be as kinky as they want to be...it doesn't really effect me one way or the other.
I will oppose however your efforts or theirs to either argue for, or suggest that their deviant behavior (which I believe it to be) should be a protected class under the U.S. Constitution.
Look, I understand that you feel homosexuality is a threat to your faith, but you're really discussing something that science is only beginning to explore. I wrote yesterday that studies have revealed that there is correlation between lack of testosterone and homosexuality in men.
In case you didn't know the Y chromosome is what determines sex in the fetus. Your stance is that life begins at conception (which at this point I'm not contesting), so therefore in the beginning every life is in a "mixed sex" state. How's that grab you?
Also studies have revealed that homosexuality does persist in nature. One study of sheep found that 8% of male sheep were only attracted to other males sexually.
My main point is this: we don't know more than we think we know. Let's not fall back on traditional sources of knowledge and exclude a group of people. Let's open our minds to discovery, and be tolerant of something different. Truth is, it's not a psychological problem, and it very well could be a natural occurrence.
Are you kidding me? Drinking and driving frequently infringes on others' right to life. By regulating drinking and driving the government is protecting the right to life.
What right of others is the government protecting by regulating homosexual activity between consenting adults?
I suggested no class rights are constitutionally afforded, only individual rights.
That's false. An embryo is either XX or XY. Anything other than that is a mutation (i.e. Huntington's Disease).
Boomer I'm arguing that Science has NOT defined what the "gay sex gene" is. As far as we know, at the observable chromosomal level or in a person's DNA, we have only Males or Females...not "gays" as a sexual classification. I also posted I don't know what causes one to chose their own sex for gratification because in nature it is opposites that naturally attract.
Am I arguing that humans (even animals in some cases as you suggest studies have shown) can't or do find sexual gratification within their own Sex? No I am not.
Am I arguing homosexual behavior should be "banned"? No. Am I saying it even bothers me as a believer in a Divine and Supreme Creator? No! That's strictly between them and their Creator if they indeed believe they were created.
All I'm saying is they chose to do what they say they are. In fact there is nothing that differentiates them from you or me Boomer my Man except that behavior which they so choose to engage in. So I'm cool with what they choose to do. I don't choose it for myself, but to each his own.
I am arguing that it is not a normal condition of birth which they have no control over, if for no other reason they have to choose to engage in the behavior in order to be what they say they are "homosexual". I didn't choose to be Black, I AM Black. They are not "born" that way. They are not "helpless" to control or regulate those urges. They choose to pursue them. They are not nor should be a protected "class" based on the fact that they think their behavior is a 'normal' condition of their birth.
I am arguing against all of that.
Last edited:
So the question is homosexuality or being a homosexual a class? I'm saying no it is not. As individuals they are protected under the Constitution...you are 100% correct on that. However, their behavior is not nor should be protected as a "class".
You argued for the states' authority to regulate homosexual behavior. I said they have no such authority. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Of course homosexual activity is not a class. It's an activity. But it is an activity by homosexuals. What you're saying is the equivalent of Christians are a protected class but Christian activity like praying isn't protected because praying is an activity not a class.
Religion is protected by our first amendment's free exercise clause. I understand it was included in the 65 Act but religion was always recognized as a unique right in this country, one that cannot be abridged.
The other protected classes are all non choices (e.g. race, ethnicity, age, etc). I am not for a moment suggesting it be legal to discriminate against gays.
My real issue that I grapple with is "born that way" or choice. Either way, there should be no discrimination. The restaurant in Hawaii, for example, that discriminates against Trump voters is not illegal. Stupid for sure. Ignorant and vile, certainly. But not illegal.
I think libertarians think there should be no special protections against discrimination. They are in favor of the market place punishing those that discriminate and it will be self correcting.
The first amendment does not define religion as a class. There are no group rights afforded in the Constitution, only individual rights.
I cited the free exercise clause. But you are right, the Constitution defines individual rights, although the 10th Amendment deals with States which one could argue are a group of citizens. But other laws have been created that define group rights. And have been declared Constitutional.
Do you choose who you are attracted to? By even saying it's a choice, you are defining homosexuality in a way that might not be accurate.
Studies in medicine have notoriously been wrong and weak. First cholesterol laden foods were bad for you, now they aren't, for example. I can almost find any medical study to support a position I hold. Testosterone influences characteristics like body hair, strength of sexual desire, etc., but no proof has been provided that it determines sexual preference.
The gay community has sought for a long time to convince everyone that homosexuality is not a choice. No one knows if that is right or wrong. Studies are all over the map. The point is that we should treat gays like we treat everyone else. I am a Christian and I am told not to judge. Someone far more advanced than me will make those judgments. Christians are taught to love.
Nope CAJUNEER, you're mixing and twisting the definitions of class and behavior. Homosexuals as I've stated are human beings...therefore under the Constitution they have protected class status...same rights as you and I. However they must choose to engage in a certain activity that not only defines who they claim to be (gay) but affirms what they are (homosexual). How is one "homosexual" or "gay" without actually performing the behavior? It is that behavior which some jurisdictions think is deviant that they chose to restrict...which they are granted authority under the Constitution to do. (State's rights)
I can't choose not to be Black...it is a natural state of my human condition. A Black gay person has the same rights under the Constitution as me...however he is not actually being homosexual unless he chooses to engage in that act. Therefore his behavior to perform homosexual acts is a choice and not a class status as a matter of his natural condition.
You said his behavior has been deemed to be unconstitutional (sodomy laws)...but you are arguing his behavior has nothing to do with his "class status". I'm saying his class status is already confirmed under the Constitution but his behavior can be and is regulated by some States who consider it "deviant"
Praying Christians by way of your analogy are neither engaging in nor promoting their behavior as a protected class. They are simply exercising their Constitutionally protected Freedom to Worship. Their behavior doing so is not considered deviant or unsafe, so there are no restrictions against it...unless they are in a Public school or holding Prayer sessions on a College campus somewhere.
So the two activities in your analogy do not line up because on one hand the behavior is being promoted as a class that should be protected (gays) and on the other hand the behavior is a protected Freedom
(to Worship) that does not require a class for protection under the Constitution.
Last edited:
Agree 1,000%. Judges should not make law. They are unelected and that act violates the Constitution. Jefferson warned about the courts becoming too powerful. He wanted them placed in their box and they have ventured well outside that box for many years.
Yes I do Boomer, and so do they. They chose not to pursue hot Women...even though they are Men. Which I admit I really don't understand...but....
Boom there is no way I'm going to pick your hairy ass (even though you may be a handsome Dude) over Nikki Minage's apple bottom shaped ass. Sorry Bro, I don't know what you look like, but you'd have to be pretty damned photo voltaic hot to make me pick your hairy ass over her's.
I'm just saying.
Point out one statement where I mixed or twisted class and activity.
Find one reference in the Constitution to a class of people.
You again argue the states have a right to regulate homosexual activity. What authority is assigned to states in the Constitution to regulate the sexual activity between consenting adults?
You talk about activities being deviant. Says who? What gives government the authority to classify activity between consenting adults which infringes on no one else's rights as deviant?
Christians haven't fought for mandatory public prayer in school? Again show me where the Constitution classifies any group with special rights.
You wrongly assessed my analogy and argument. I argue the Constitution affords no group special rights. No religious group is afforded special rights under the establishment clause. All individuals are afforded the right to practice faith or practice no faith. At the same time no group can have their faith or lack thereof established by the government.
My analogy to prayer demonstrates the contradict inherent in your argument. You say homosexuals are protected--you even say they are a protected class but I think this is because you don't know what "protected class" means. Then you say the only thing that defines homosexuals as homosexuals is their sexual activity. Then you say their activity is not protecting. So homosexuals are protected but the only characteristic which defines them as homosexual is not protected. That's self contradictory. It's like saying Christians are protected by the Constitution but Christian activity like prayer is not protected.
Last edited:
I'll answer you in this post one assertion you make at a time:
Blacks or Women don't have special rights, but they are granted class status protections due to previous discrimination Laws.
Race. Negroes. Us. Brothers.
They can and do under State's rights because that activity is not a protected "class" like Race or Gender.
There are community standards and indecency Laws which define deviant behavior. A woman has no right to bear her breasts in public. Urinating in public or exposing genitals in public.
Prayer is a Constitutionally protected Freedom under the free exercise clause of Religious Freedom. Public schools actually have no right to restrict Prayer, they only cannot "organize" it or "mandate" it.
Blacks or Women don't have special rights, but they are granted class status protections due to previous discrimination Laws.
what about Race?
Correct, but Freedom to practice one's Religion freely is protected under the establishment clause.
Correct, never said otherwise. But Homosexual behavior is not protected under the establishment clause the way Religious Freedom is.
Again correct. What does this have to do with performing homosexual acts?
As individuals and Human beings under the Constitution they are, not their behavior which they have to choose to do in order to be homosexual. It is not a natural state of their humanity because it is a choice. You can choose not to do it, you can't choose not to be Human.
Do you?
How else are they homosexual unless they engage in the act? Otherwise they are just like anyone else, a Man or a Woman. What makes them homosexual unless they perform homosexual acts?
Last edited:
Please quote the Constitution where it says that any race is a protected class.
They're not called deviancy laws. They're called decency laws. They regulate public activity not private activity. The state has no authority to regulate the private activity of consenting adults which infringes on no one's rights.
When arguing for protected class you appeal to individual rights. Again that's self contradictory. I think you need to google group rights and protected classes.
I didn't argue that homosexual activity is not the defining characteristic of homosexuals. I said it's self contradictory to state that homosexuals are a protected class but the only activity which defines them as such is not protected.
The First Amendment does not protect particular activities of religions, just religion in general, is the same as saying homosexuals are a protected class but not homosexual activity.
If you're familiar with the Italian Philosopher Cesare Beccaria, who wrote "On crimes and Punishment" he argued for the responsibility of Civil Government to define both the nature and parameter of "deviance"
From "on crimes and punishment"
Beccaria’s Theory:
There are three main legs in which Beccaria’s theory rests. Those are that all individuals possess freewill, rational manner and manpulability. Beccaria, like all classical theorist, believe that all individuals have freewill and make choices on that freewill. The second leg, rational manner, means that all individuals rationally look out for their own personal satisfaction. This is key to the relationship between laws and crime. While individuals will rationally look for their best interest, and this might entail deviant acts and the law, which goal is to preserve the social contract, will try to stop deviant acts. This ends up with the individuals and the society rationally looking for satisfaction, and at times these interests clash. The third leg in which Beccaria’s theory rest is manipulablibily, universally shared human motive of rational self-interest makes human action predictable, generalable and controllable. (Roshier, pg.16). The job of the criminal justice system is to control all deviant acts that an individual with freewill and rational thought might do in the pursuit of personal pleasure. This is made easier by the fact that human actions are predicable and controllable. With the right punishment or threat the criminal justice system can control the freewilled and rational human being. The problem the criminal justice system has is finding the right punishment or threats"
'On Crimes and Punishments" had a large and lasting impact on the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our criminal justice system.
So the question is can Government both define and enforce "deviant" behavior?
Case law confirms is not only possible, but implemented:
http://legaldictionary.net/deviant-behavior/
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deviate-sexual-intercourse/
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jmahoney/deviance.htm#Definition_of_Concepts:_Deviance_and_Cri
Then is Homosexuality considered "deviant" behavior?
Homosexuality was defined as not simply a matter of sexual desire or the act of sex, but as a dangerous quality that defined the entire personality and moral being of an individual (Foucault 1980). From that point until the late 1960s, homosexuality was regarded as a deviant, closeted activity that, if exposed, could result in legal prosecution, moral condemnation, ostracism, violent assault, and loss of career. Since then, the gay rights movement and constitutional protections of civil liberties have reversed many of the attitudes and legal structures that led to the prosecution of gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. The point is that to whatever degree homosexuality has a natural or inborn biological cause, its deviance is the outcome of a social process.
Source:
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter7-deviance-crime-and-social-control/
You wrote:
"The state has no authority to regulate the private activity of consenting adults which infringes on no one's rights"
This is not always correct because certain private activity can be deemed to be deviant and thus the State can and does restrict it as those links I provided showed they often do. Individual rights are always protected under the Constitution and I never said they weren't, but engaging in homosexual behavior is an individual activity, not a right. Again, one cannot be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts. It is not a condition of birth, therefore it is not protected as a right like being human is. To the extent homosexuals are first human, they already have all of the rights afforded to human individuals under the Constitution, including their choice to commit homosexual acts.
Those choices though are not automatically protected under the Constitution as a matter of their status or class...it's simply a matter of their choice which is or can be restricted.
Last edited:
Read this and decide for yourself. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/who_is_protected_from_protected_classes.html
Pull quote from linked article:
"It should be clear that the First Amendment protects very large classes of people, almost everybody. The freedoms in the First Amendment represent protected behaviors both public and private."
Last edited:
You say that like an activity cannot be a right. I would then counter the activity of prayer is not Constitutionally protected.
Tell me now, where can I find Beccaria's influence in the Constitution? Where are the lines concerning the regulation of private activity?
You googled the wrong thing.
Last edited:
