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>