Given what he says about immigrants, what do you think?
1 Like
Sure! But sometime in some nebulous future everyone would Kumbaya to a color-blind society.
Never mind the cost of discrimination until then.
Hmmm… I wonder why you did not include white people in you list.
Read what I posted, very slowly.
JWK
Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __, to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?
We did, it confirms what I said.
I have no idea what you are talking about? But I do know Justice Ginsburg’s written opinion in the VMI case is not supported by the text or legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?
Your opinion but still the law of the land…
When I saw the title of this thread, I know EXACTLY who wrote it.
Anyway, I saw the film on Sunday. It was really good. The film focused on her lawsuit against the government for sex discrimination on tax law. No partisan politics were displayed. The ACLU wasn’t always depicted as a saintly organization.
As for the OP, he needs to seriously enter into the 21st Century, with all due respect. In 1964, we passed a law making it illegal to segregate based on sex, and the 14th amendment demands equal protection for government law. This should be as clear as the blue sky on a sunny day: Any government law which discriminates on the basis of sex is illegal and should be repealed.
We have gone through this before our OP: Equal protection applies to EVERYBODY, not just groups/races OP agrees with.
Today, pretty much nobody disagrees with the decision to grant Charles Moritz a tax deduction for taking care of his elderly mother. If the OP disagrees with such a decision, please provide reasons, because the deduction was intended to help out people taking care of their parents. The fact that it could be a man or woman, should be irrelevant.
Silly argument. It’s a public place. Unless they are violating dress codes or causing a scene, they have every right to be there during business hours.
Both customers and business owners have rights. When you open up a business for the public, you have to serve everybody. Regardless of who you’re. That’s the law. That’s what you agree to, when you got your business license.
I actually with the Supreme Court case with Phillips. The Colorado Supreme Court never gave Phillips a fair trial, and he did allow the gay couple the ability to purchase anything in the store they wanted. He just didn’t want to do a custom made cake, which is protected under free speech.
If your argument is that business owners should not be forced to serve LGBTQ folks, then you’re wrong - constitutionally and morally. But if the argument is should an artist be forced to make a custom made item, then I side with the artist.
It’s rather troubling you cannot separate the politics of a business vs. a private home.
But one supported by the text of the Constitution and its narrow purpose as stated by those who framed and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment, e.g.,
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293 a supporter of the 14th Amendment.
Additionally, Ginsburg’s assertion that our Constitution forbids the people or States to make distinctions based upon sex is irrefutably proven to be untrue when one considers the American people, in the mid 1980s, specifically rejected the “Equal Rights” proposed amendment to our Constitution which was intended to prevented such distinctions!
And then, if the 14th Amendment prohibited distinctions based upon sex, why was it necessary to adopt the 19th Amendment demanding that:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Unitted States or any State on account of sex
The fact is, a majority on our Supreme Court, which includes Justice Ginsburg, used their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law instead of supporting and defending the very Constitution they took an oath to support and defend.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
I’m sure you take great pride and comfort in your interpretation. Probably makes you sleep very cozy at night… In the meantime, US v. Virginia is cited in real courtroom cases over and over across this great nation and will for many years to come…
Thank you for your opinion, however, private property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited upon it. In any event, I stand firm in believing a fundamental rule protecting an inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. Likewise, I also support rights associated with property ownership, and that includes an owners right to determine who may enter upon that property.
Unlike our snowflake crowd, I have no problem with a business owner rejecting doing business with whomever he or she chooses, and for whatever reason he or she chooses. I believe a free market system, especially in today’s society, will quickly punish any business owner rejecting customers based on bigoted reasons.
I also believe allowing people to openly engage in bigoted activities allows the community to actually identify these types which is far better then allowing them to act in the shadows to the detriment of those they hate.
In general, true freedom has many advantages over forcing your personal morality upon others.
JWK
Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?
And many take great pride and comfort in overlooking judicial tyranny because they agree with the court’s sense of social justice, even when it betrays the very text and legislative intent of our Constitution.
Having said that, I did notice your omission to offer a rebuttal to the facts I presented, historical facts which are not interpretations.
JWK
Politically speaking, a fully informed citizen in today’s society is one who diligently gathers their news from MSNBC and Fox News.
I fully support the 1964 act, so we fundamentally disagree then. The invisible hand didn’t work. That’s why we needed the 14th amendment and the 64 civil rights act. I believe America is for EVERYBODY, and if you agree to serve the public, you must serve the public.
Don’t open up a business, if you’re unwilling to be a decent human being and fulfill your function.
The problem here is you’re looking at things very narrow. As in, you’re only looking at it from one wing. You forget about the other wing.
BTW, you don’t actually believe in free markets. You’re a big protectionist. That’s not a free market concept.
Where does it say that in the constitution? Which amendment?
This has been proven, historically, to be false.
1 Like
Well, now that you bring up the 14th Amendment, is it not a fact that Justice Ginsburg’s suggestion that it forbids the people or States to make distinctions based upon sex is a big fat lie?
And with regard to my supporting the people’s inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which you seem to have a problem with and challenge the existence of this right, I suggest you read the opening words of our Constitution which expresses its objectives. Is securing the blessings of “Liberty” not inclusive of the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?
Why does such a right trouble you so?
JWK
Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?
Rights aren’t unlimited.
No- how I read that is they gave permission for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project to raise money in those 500 theaters that day.
To which my response would be “So what?”
My guess is the desire to donate to such a project would be highly correlative with wanting to see the movie in the first place…understanding that there also would be a subset of the movie-goers who would be like you…who seemingly paid out money to see the film as another way of making sure you stay OUTRAGED all the time.
1 Like
Simply pointing to the word “liberty” in the constitution does not actually cite your source. Liberty does not mean, “do whatever you want”. It means you can do whatever you want, IF and only IF, it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Denying somebody access to public goods and services based on who they are or what they believe in, is not at all liberty. It’s actually anti-liberty. We have these laws – civil laws – in first place to create a more economically prosperous for all, and prevent the wealthy from controlling the working class. In other words, a free country is free for everybody. And if somebody is uncomfortable dealing with lifestyles and races foreign to them, then they can CHOOSE to run a different kind of business or not one at all.
As for Ginsburg/the movie in question, she never said you cannot make distinctions based on biological differences. For example, she never said that a state cannot create a tax break for women giving birth to children. As in, the state would reimburse for the medical costs involving child birth. Nor would she object to the government paying for, testicle exams. Her point was you cannot make distinctions between men and women, based on cultural differences. That’s why she used the word “gender” in the appeals court hearings. In the case in question, Mortiz wanted to get a tax credit for taking care of his aging mother, and was denied because he was a man. The law assumes that men are not allowed to take care of their sick parents, or would defer their parental responsibilities to their wife. The law was wrong, and if you paid attention to the movie, this was spelled out very clearly. And I for one, don’t understand why you would oppose such a decision. It was the right thing. You really think Moritz should have been denied the tax deduction?
In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg asserted a party seeking to make a distinction based upon sex must establish an “exceedingly persuasive justification” In addition, Ginsburg asserted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”
Of course, these parameters are Ginsburg’s personal desires. They are not part of our Constitution or the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. Making distinctions based upon sex was never intended to be forbidden under the 14th Amendment, nor does its text remotely suggest our Constitution is violated if the citizens of a state make distinctions based upon sex. The 14th Amendment merely declares, whatever laws a state may adopt, it may not “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of …” those specific laws. Its laws must be enforced equally!
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Dude, dude, you do realize that Scalia was the ONLY dissenter. here?
Women have every right to join the military. Deal with it.
