The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Transgender HS student wants to use female locker room
|
Quote:Why was the Civil Rights Act of 1968 necessary then if what you say is true about the 14th Amendment passed in 1866? Was that feel good legislation? (I feel this is ground already covered in this thread if you care to actually read my responses, but please feel free to show me the flaw in any point of what I have already stated on this subject.) And I get called obtuse.. geez.Because the 14th Amendment covers it already. If the Amendment is not being followed then that is the fault of the people responsible for seeing that the law is not being adhered to. Additional laws being passed to cover the same issue are not needed. We simply need to follow the existing laws. Why is that so hard to understand?
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired 1995 - 2020
At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! Quote: </div> </blockquote> Quote:Can't believe I missed this earlier.. I would hate to not be thorough. 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! Quote:If transgendered people are mentally ill (which they aren't), most are some of the most functional mentally ill people you'll ever meet. The only thing keeping them from meshing seamlessly with society is the uninformed, bigoted attitudes they encounter. I think mentally I'll is the wrong term, and it's one I've used in the past. I think transgender people suffer from an identity loss which isn't the same as a mental illness. My views have kind of changed on the topic working with a transgender female that identifies as a male outside of work. Obviously she's gay but her partner says she's not gay that she is a he and when they call work asks for her by the male name. We've actually become pretty good friends and there is no way Id consider her mentally ill like you pointed out She's an intelligent fully functioning adult. But she is confused perhaps it has more to do with society's normal male and female personification of a couple and being gay she takes the assumption of the male role fully? I don't know but she's not mentally ill, she is confusing as hell however. From what I've gathered in our conversations she obviously knows she's not a male, she does over compensate sometimes because she wants to be treated as a male and you can imagine the atmosphere in an automotive shop. While phisically she's unable to do some jobs for the most part she's pretty damn good in the shop. I've asked her why she has a male personality outside of work because I've known other lesbians but never known one that had a different name and everything she says it's more for her girlfriend that doesn't consider herself lesbian? I dunno it's all confusing to me, but I have to retract my statements there mentally I'll earlier. Confused I think so but not ill, to say their ill sounds like I'm calling them [BLEEP] which isn't my implication. Quote:Because the 14th Amendment covers it already. If the Amendment is not being followed then that is the fault of the people responsible for seeing that the law is not being adhered to. Additional laws being passed to cover the same issue are not needed. We simply need to follow the existing laws. Why is that so hard to understand? Can you answer my question? If the 14th Amendment covers this, why was there a need for the Civil Rights Act of 1968?
Only a chump boos the home team!
Laws are only as good as the government officials that implement them. The slave amendments were fully intended to recognize the God given rights of the freed slaves and make them citizens of this country with all the privileges thereunto appertaining. The leadership that won the war and passed the amendments (namely the president) was assassinated. Andrew johnson was chosen as VP as a democratic southerner that would help unify the nation through reconstruction. Unfortunately the guy who lead the effort in the Civil war was assassinated and you were left with the guy who asked for an exemption from the emancipation proclamation as the President. He wasn't going to to over the hill to force federal mandates on the southern states and that's why civil rights were [BLEEP] in this country for a century.
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! Quote: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. ***It's great to say that, but you still have not explained why we even needed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in order for black people to get the same public accommodation and fair treatment as white people in this country. Should I assume this is anther question you intend to repeatedly dodge?***
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:Laws are only as good as the government officials that implement them. The slave amendments were fully intended to recognize the God given rights of the freed slaves and make them citizens of this country with all the privileges thereunto appertaining. The leadership that won the war and passed the amendments (namely the president) was assassinated. Andrew johnson was chosen as VP as a democratic southerner that would help unify the nation through reconstruction. Unfortunately the guy who lead the effort in the Civil war was assassinated and you were left with the guy who asked for an exemption from the emancipation proclamation as the President. He wasn't going to to over the hill to force federal mandates on the southern states and that's why civil rights were [BLEEP] in this country for a century.So are you saying the 14th Amendment was not good enough to grant former slaves full equality? Because that's what this sounds like.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:So are you saying the 14th Amendment was not good enough to grant former slaves full equality? Because that's what this sounds like. He's saying that it doesn't matter what the Amendment does or doesn't do if the government is unwilling to enforce it. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
So you're saying the 14th Amendment was good enough to grant former slaves full equality, but the government was unwilling to enforce it until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed?
Only a chump boos the home team!
Stop ducking the question by introducing things that are not related. Are you saying the 14th Amendment was good enough to grant former slaves full equality, but the government was unwilling to enforce it until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed?
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:Stop ducking the question by introducing things that are not related. Are you saying the 14th Amendment was good enough to grant former slaves full equality, but the government was unwilling to enforce it until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed? lol. Unrelated? I give you a clear example of a federal law that strictly forbids an activity yet goes unenforced by the leadership of the federal government and you say that's unrelated? And you say that i am ducking the questions? lol. I am saying quite simply that if i were a judge in 1871 after the passage of the 15th amendment then I would have held that grandfathering in a bunch of iliterate white farmers at the expense of blacks through literacy testing would have been unconstitutional. I would have held that denying blacks full citizenship and participation in society with all the rights and privilages of citizenship would have been a violation of the 14th amendment. I would also hold that denying someone housing based solely on their lifestyle choice would be a violation of the first amendment (freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression) and the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law). As well as acknowledge the fact that under the first amendment the government could not prohibit consenting adults from entering into whatever kind of domestic arrangement they saw fit as their interpretation of a religious institution. That's not to say that legislation cannot be passed to clarify and define certain interpretations. Such as the voting rights act of 1965 which clearly denoted that poll taxes and literacy tests were discriminatory. My only point is that i think that could hav ebeen held by a judge after the passage of the 15th amendment. One of the reasons that it was more preferential to have new pieces of legislation is that there was a time in this country that we acknowledged that it was better to have broad sweeping bipartisan support for massive social change than just a 5-4 court decision that would bind 300 million people (why there is such a backlash against Gay marriage). Moreover, i didn't say that LGBT people had no bearing on every day life. i said that show votes and redundant legislation has no bearing on everyday life. One of the first things that they passed at the beginning of Obama's first term was the Lilly ledbetter act. We're still talking about equal pay for equal work and no one i know has ever initiated a lawsuit based on that statute. The constitution, federal laws, local laws and state laws are all meaningful and have impacts on our lives, but that's only if they are enforced. You can have all the speeding signs that you want but if there is no cop on the beat willing to write a ticket that won't mean anything. It's illegal to enter the country without the knowledge and consent of the state. Did that stop 11 million people from entering the country ilegally? We even had a bipartisan act in 1986 to secure the border. The 13th 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution have within them the basis for the civil rights and full inclusion of the freed slaves, the thing that changed the most in the mid 60's was not just the passing of the civil rights and voting rights bills. It was the awareness of the country based on the actions of the Kings, X's and other leaders of the world to change the trajectory of the hearts and minds of the electorate. If the 1968 voting rights act was treated like the 1986 act to secure the border then we would still see black people denied the right to vote in the absence of federal action. Still waiting on the blind lady. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Why is it any time I pose a direct question to you that can be answered with a simple yes or no, you go off on tangents instead of just answering the question? Nothing of what you wrote answers the question:
Are you saying the 14th Amendment was good enough to grant former slaves full equality, but the government was unwilling to enforce it until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed? Why are you afraid to give a simple yes or no to this question? I will try a different approach.. Why did we need the Civil Rights Act of 1968 if the 14th Amendment supposedly already gave black people equal protection of the law? The blind lady is gonna die of old age before you give a straight answer to this question. p.s. - homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. I won't debate this point with you as I only view your putting that in your last post as another distraction from answering the simple questions put to you.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote: Yes. Quote: Yes it is. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
Quote:p.s. - homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Quote:Yes it is. Living one's life true to oneself is a choice. Denying or hiding ones true identity is also a choice. Who we are when we are born, who we are attracted to naturally, is not a choice.
If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley ![]()
Quote:No it isn't. Well I think being a pedophile is sick, being a sexual abuser is a sickness. Just my thought.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Quote: And when those natural choices are such that we do classify them as illness? Pedophilia immediately comes to mind, but it's certainly not the only one. This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's reality. Pedos and other "deviants" will be watching and waiting for their turn for legitimization and how can you deny them? After all, it's not a choice. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
Quote:And when those natural choices are such that we do classify them as illness? Pedophilia immediately comes to mind, but it's certainly not the only one. This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's reality. Pedos and other "deviants" will be watching and waiting for their turn for legitimization and how can you deny them? After all, it's not a choice. You're talking about a different situation, in which someone harms or potentially harms someone else. It's a straw argument, and a ridiculous one, at that.
If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley ![]()
Quote:You're talking about a different situation, in which someone harms or potentially harms someone else. It's a straw argument, and a ridiculous one, at that. No it's not, it's simple reality. You normalize one sexual deviancy and you open the door for all the rest. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
|
Users browsing this thread: |
2 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.