Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="564242" data-time="1443875720">
<div>
You still don't understand my position. I don't believe that an HRO is necessary ANYWHERE because our rights to due process and fair treatment are endowed by our creator and codified in the constitution. ***If this is your position, you're right. I don't understand it at all. "Our rights to due process and fair treatment are endowed by our creator and codified in the constitution?"
If one believes in a Creator, any sort of influence on our lives he/she/it has, it has nothing to do with due process. Due process is a legal term saying a state must respect someone's legal rights. That has nothing to do with God or a Creator. Maybe you meant fair treatment is "endowed by our creator" instead? I still don't see how that applies. The Creator is going to give us fair treatment? Mmmkay.. I sure can think of a lot of examples people who believe in or worship a "creator" who don't treat others fairly. I also see plenty of people who believe in or worship a "creator" treated unfairly themselves.
So that leaves the Constitution. We've already discussed this, but to recap.. You referenced the 14th Amendment which was passed by Congress in 1866. I mentioned black people didn't get protection against discrimination or were granted equal housing opportunities until The Civil Rights Act of 1968. Would you say most black people in America got their right to due process and fair treatment before then? (You couldn't possibly defend this. So don't try.) Was some sort of legislation necessary to provide black people full equality and public accommodation despite the 14th Amendment passed by Congress before Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? (Yes. This too is indefensible. )
So according to your position, the "creator" and all the codifications of the Constitution didn't protect black people against discrimination or give them fair treatment until 1968. And gay and transgender people are still discriminated against and denied public accommodation today. You say that an HRO is not necessary ANYWHERE. Well.. just about every city I can think of has some sort of human rights commission, committee or ordinance to state precisely what protections are afforded to its citizens. Most of these cities, have already updated local human rights laws to provide protection for LGBT citizens. ***
There is no reason to have to pass a new law any time a new sect or cross section of the population pops up that was previously unknown or unseen. Its a difference of overall legal philosophy. ***Gay and transgender people have been around for literally thousands of years. You cannot consider them new. They are not unknown or unseen. The stereotypes you may have commonly seen concerning gay people in movies or on tv may be a little less demeaning today, then, say.. Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds. But you can't possibly claim gay people are new or unheard of before. I'm totally with you on NOT passing any new laws just to accommodate the Juggalos though.
It's not a difference in overall legal philosophy. I took your exact argument from a legal and legislative approach and showed you that is not possible.
The real answer lies in your inability to answer the direct question put to you multiple times already in this thread. You have ducked it long enough. So I will answer it for you. You don't like or understand gay or transgender people and therefore you don't care that they are discriminated against and treated like second class citizens in small pockets of the US including Jacksonville. This is the only logical explanation as to why you would continue to take a position which has already proven to not make sense so you don't have to publicly disclose your personal bias. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you DO indeed think it's okay for a person to be fired from their job, evicted from their home and or kicked out of a public restaurant just for being gay or transgender?
<div>
"I said that there is no need for PROTECTED CLASSES because the constitution is inherently universal as expressed in the 14th amendment. That's hardly an endorsement of discrimination."
Your lack of understanding of the Constitution and what the 14th Amendment actually did is no longer a crutch for you. The only other logical reason for you to continue to cling to this defense is to avoid answering the question honestly because you are okay with the fact gay and transgender people are discriminated against and just don't want to have to say it because in doing so, you expose the rest of your argument for the manure it is. So go ahead. Tell me I'm lying. Or I don't understand. I mixed your words around. Or be a man and own it. You don't need to wear it as a badge or something you're proud of, but own it. ***
As to the blind lady, i can't tell. It's taken you long enough. ***Hope she has a Snickers.***
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Quote:Can't believe I missed this earlier.. I would hate to not be thorough.
Show me the court documents where your friend went through an eviction instigated by their landlord and processed by the State of Florida that held the only reason that your friend was evicted was because of their child's lifestyle and evidence that the rent was current. You show me that and I will concede that there needs to be a staturtory change to reflect the rights granted under the 14th amendment.
As I have already stated this did not happen in Florida, but it is still perfectly legal here in Jacksonville. You think I am making up their story? Lying about the details. I am not. It happened exactly as I have said it did and had nothing to do with rent not being current. It had to do with bigoted neighbors who made more than a big stink about something they didn't understand or like. You don't need any documentation to know that there are no protections against this happening in Jacksonville or any other section of the country which does not update local laws to protect against this form of discrimination in order to concede on this point.
You can choose to disagree if you like. There are plenty of people who say that we didn't go to the moon and some who believe that our country is truly run by aliens. The truth is that Lincoln wanted to see the implementation of the slave amendments and extension of civil rights to freed slaves and when he was killed a deeply racist Democrat took his place and didn't share his ideas for integration.
I recommend you watch the documentary series "Many Rivers to Cross" by Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. so you can realize how silly you sound by continuing to fight this battle. It took over 100 years for black people in this country to realize the promise of the 14th Amendment, but you think had Lincoln not been assassinated, everything would have been completely different. Yes, Lincoln wanted to do more for black people than he got the chance to finish, but emotions and public opinion on this subject, especially in the South wasn't going to change that quickly. Mississippi didn't even outlaw slavery until 1995.
I'm just gonna assume you weren't really looking for a rebuttal to the aliens part.
As usual the simplest answer seems to be the right one. Simply put, as with so many of your ilk, for all your bluster and all your name calling you have just failed and fundamentally grasping the basic elements of the American legal system.
The rights that we have are RECOGNIZED and PROTECTED by the states. They are ENDOWED by our creator and thus cannot be taken away (inalienable). If you don't understand that basic underpinning of the constitution and the American legal system then its no wonder you are having trouble understanding an argument of basic federalism.
This is also why there was a debate about whether or not to even need a bill of rights because as stated above the framers understood that the rights themselves predated and super-ceded even the constitution.
In the case of Abraham Lincoln he most definitely wanted the freed slaves integrated into society with all the rights and privileges conveyed to citizens of this country. You say otherwise is inherently dishonest and yes, it [BLEEP] civil rights in this country by about a century. It's one of the great tragedies of our country.
And now you have been railing about this cities need to change the law and now you tell me that this isn't even the jurisdiction that the alleged incident happened in? 1.) If the people in question belonged to an HOA the system becomes infinitely more complex because entities such as that have the ability to operate extra-constitutionally because the terms of the HOA are deemed to have essentially been collectively bargained (state by state things are very different). 2.) until you show me court documents that demonstrate the only holding reason for the families eviction was the status of the child then i am not taking what you say at face value on such a detailed topic.
Moreover, just because i disagree with you (demonstorably ignorant) legal opinion doesn't mean i (as a black man) condone discrimination. I disagree with show votes and meaningless legislation meant only to placate to certain emerging demographics that have no bearing on everyday life. I abhore discrimination and I acknowledge that it has no place in our democracy or our free society. Its a frankly trite tool of the left to say that if you don't agree with repressive legislation on fuel and carbon emissions that you want the planet to die, if you don't agree to this tax increase that will kill jobs you hate the poor, if you don't agree to double payroll taxes you hate old people, or that if you don't agree to write a new law for every aggrieved person in this country that you are reserving the right to discriminate.
You've name called, mischarecterized and resorted to frankly abhorrent language for a forum that welcomes those of all ages. In all that time you have not demonstrated that you have a fundamental grasp of the American legal system, its underpinnings, or how that affects our society.
The one point that you did make (by accident) is that laws are only as good as the men and women that we as a democracy entrust with their execution. That's how immigration laws can be ignored in some cities, marijuana laws ignored in some states, and civil rights codified in the slave amendments was held back for over a century. It is our job as citizens to be the final arbiters of our nations destiny by holding politicians accountable for upholding the ideals that we have codified into law. If you show me a politician that has openly broken that trust and advocates discrimination against anyone based simply on a lifestyle choice i will join you in condemning them. Until then, ill leave you to consider the poor blind woman that you have yet to attend to!