No, you didn't "ask me politely to not talk about people that I don't know". You just didn't like my opinion regarding the situation that you brought up. Tough.


You can tell me whatever you wish. You certainly have a right to free speech just like I do.


I'm still of the opinion that the family that you posted about is irresponsible and messed up. Like it or not, that's my opinion.

I'm fine with you owning the opinion that you think it is messed up to allow a kid who identifies as transgender to live their lives as they are most happy. Knowing their story I disagree, but you certainly have that right.


I was not okay with you offering up your own guesses and implications about the circumstances surrounding the small facts I did provide as they attacked the character of people whose story you really don't know. It was especially offensive to me because it seemed to me you were trying to assign traits to them which would align with your perception of the "type" of people who would do this and those speculations were way off base. This is after I offered you a direct opportunity to hear some of the facts I won't share on a message board.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Sure I did. You even commented on not liking my answers to your dumb questions. Don't be a coward. Answer the questions I asked. I even filled in one answer for you.

 

No you haven't.  The core issues are two fold.  

 

1.) Why do you believe that gender misidentification is so much more meaningful than any other psychological malady?

 

2.)In the event that a psychological malady occurs that would cause irrevocable harm to the person stricken by it should we as a society commit resources and personnel to facilitate that persons delusions.  What if someone identified as being blind?  Should we help them pour drano in their eyes to accommodate them?

---

I'm fine with you owning the opinion that you think it is messed up to allow a kid who identifies as transgender to live their lives as they are most happy. Knowing their story I disagree, but you certainly have that right.

I was not okay with you offering up your own guesses and implications about the circumstances surrounding the small facts I did provide as they attacked the character of people whose story you really don't know. It was especially offensive to me because it seemed to me you were trying to assign traits to them which would align with your perception of the "type" of people who would do this and those speculations were way off base. This is after I offered you a direct opportunity to hear some of the facts I won't share on a message board.

 

Well, sometimes we don't like to hear the opinions of others, especially if they don't align with our own point of view.

 

I did not intend to "attack" the character of your friends, I simply stated my thoughts and my point of view based on the information provided.  You can disagree all you want.

 

As far as your "direct opportunity" for me to hear some facts, I don't do that.  If you want to PM me then that's fine, and I will keep it private between you and I.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

No you haven't. The core issues are two fold.


1.) Why do you believe that gender misidentification is so much more meaningful than any other psychological malady?


2.)In the event that a psychological malady occurs that would cause irrevocable harm to the person stricken by it should we as a society commit resources and personnel to facilitate that persons delusions. What if someone identified as being blind? Should we help them pour drano in their eyes to accommodate them?

So.. I didn't answer your questions (even though I did).. and you won't answer my questions.. but you want me to answer more of your questions?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Well, sometimes we don't like to hear the opinions of others, especially if they don't align with our own point of view.


I did not intend to "attack" the character of your friends, I simply stated my thoughts and my point of view based on the information provided. You can disagree all you want.


As far as your "direct opportunity" for me to hear some facts, I don't do that. If you want to PM me then that's fine, and I will keep it private between you and I.

You could have easily continued making your point without throwing out insinuations about the personal lives of those involved. I offered up a direct line if you wanted to get a better understanding of who they are and what they went through, but instead you went a route which made wild assumptions about the parties involved. So.. You didn't want get the full details from the source or know anything about them because "you don't do that," but you can throw all sorts of garbage out there about what probably REALLY happened, predictably none of it positive or remotely accurate, and you think that's acceptable.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You didn't ask me a question.  

 

 

So you agree that it should be okay for people to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?

 

You passive aggressively mischarecterized what i said.  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.
 


Do roughly 700,000 Americans identify as a toaster? No?

 

Numerical superiority is irrelevant.  Just because more people were Nazi's in WWII Germany than there were Jews doesn't mean that fascism is a mainstream form of government.  



Hmmm... could it be possible your definition of "identify" is not the blanket statement of psychological disorder you have predefined?

 

identify  If there's another special definition that you find with an LGBTQ decoder ring then please let me know.
 


Have you spent half a second researching any of this or are you talking out your rear based on "how you see things?" (This is rhetorical. We all know the answer here.)

 


Your lack of understanding on this subject is as immense as your inflexibility to admit any opposing fact, hypothesis or testimony as valid or even possible despite your obvious absence of any real knowledge on what transgender is.

 

You haven't expressed any facts.  The fact is that unless you are talking about genetic singularity with ambiguous sex then we are born male or female.  This lofty idea of Gender Fluidity (sixteen different choices on some college campuses) is just a society gone made exalting anything that fills their nihilist agenda.  You have failed, and continue to fail to provide any contextual difference between transgender and any other number of known delusions and psychological misconstructions.  All you offer is anecdotes and emotional appeals.  

 

That brings us back to the question, if someone identifies as blind, should we as a society do all that we can to help them mutilate their eyes to fulfill their delusion?

---

You could have easily continued making your point without throwing out insinuations about the personal lives of those involved. I offered up a direct line if you wanted to get a better understanding of who they are and what they went through, but instead you went a route which made wild assumptions about the parties involved. So.. You didn't want get the full details from the source or know anything about them because "you don't do that," but you can throw all sorts of garbage out there about what probably REALLY happened, predictably none of it positive or remotely accurate, and you think that's acceptable.

 

Whatever.  I'm done with you.

 

Final remarks.  I stand by every post that I've made in this thread and I'll say it again.  Any couple that thinks that it's acceptable to dress their 2 year old son in girl's clothes because the kid "thinks" that he's a girl and not a boy is unacceptable.  The kid is not the one with psychological problems (yet) the parents are.

 

A child that age is constantly learning... they are learning how to walk, how to talk, how to eat by themselves and how to use the bathroom properly.  A child that age has no idea and no concept of male/female.  The only direction/lessons that he learns is strictly from his parents.

 

Fast forward a few years, and I know that this is going to upset you, but if his parents have been telling him that he's a girl, dressing him as a girl, buying him girl toys, etc. then the poor kid is going to think that he's a girl.  When he starts meeting the "real world" he's going to find out otherwise.

 

I personally find it sick and disgusting that parents would do this to their children.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There are a lot of people in this thread that truly think various aspects (or even all aspects) of the LGBT community are nothing more than mental illnesses. That's pretty sad yet not at all surprising. 

---

I'm hesitant to even reply to you anymore when your response starts with..  "You didn't ask me a question."

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">So you agree that it should be okay for people to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?  <-- This is a question.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">You passive aggressively mischarecterized what i said.  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.  ***I asked you a yes / no question and you give me a politician's response, but not an answer. You ignore/avoid every instance where I have already stated in this thread that LGBT citizens are not protected here in Jacksonville or in some other places in America.  The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 to provide equal protection of laws.  A hundred years later black people actually got equal rights.  --  So do you agree that it should be okay for people to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?***

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">

 

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I never said that. And I don't care whether people like or agree with people who are gay or transgender. But I do feel they should have equal protection to earn a living and to public accommodation. Is adding LGBT to the list of protected people (race, religion, age, etc.) bending over backwards for them? Allowing them to have the same rights I as a straight man have today?


 

 

 

Your comment on equal protections and expanding the Human Rights Ordinance is also very revealing. Adding six words to protect gays or transgender people in Jacksonville from being fired from their job, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant JUST FOR BEING GAY OR TRANSGENDER is bending over backwards for them. Because they are a minority. Like blacks. Jews. Muslims. Handicapped people. And they're the only ones left we can still keep or thumb on. Just admit you want to reserve the right to discriminate against these people because you don't like or understand them. At least you'd be honest.

 

 

 

So you agree that it should be okay for people to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?


 

 

If you think that you can pigeon hole me by limiting my responses to a single word then you are going to be VERY disappointed.  This part of our conversation started when you made the comment about adding LGBTQ to a LIST OF PROTECTED PEOPLE, i responded by saying simply that I disagree with the general idea of a specific list of people being protected because ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights and our laws should reflect this for all citizens and I cited the 14th amendment to the constitution as proof that this is codified into law and as such should be observed by all states and municipalities.  

 

If you disagree with my legal interpretation of the 14th amendment or the universality of equal protection from discrimination (specifically in light of the multiple federal civil rights acts) then that's fine.  You can feel free to make that argument from a legal or constitutional standpoint.  But to make the argument that someone who believes in the universal dignity of every person, even those with ailments or parts of sects or minorities seen and unseen, is RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE is frankly so disingenuous that it reveals how desperate your argument is and by no stretch of the imagination could any reasonable person say that i didn't respond to your question. 

 

Conversely, I am still waiting to see how you prescribe that society should research and dig deep within our souls to help the blind lady trapped inside a body with functional eyes to truly find her voice in society and live out her days as a person deprived of sight.  

---

Whatever. I'm done with you. ***You'll be missed..***


Final remarks. I stand by every post that I've made in this thread and I'll say it again. Any couple that thinks that it's acceptable to dress their 2 year old son in girl's clothes because the kid "thinks" that he's a girl and not a boy is unacceptable. The kid is not the one with psychological problems (yet) the parents are. ***Well then that means you stand by this..    I think that in this case "mommy and daddy wanted a girl but got a boy instead". ---
and when I replied with this:


***Y
<em><strong>ou can believe this more than you can believe a boy was born with the self image and brain of a girl? You can believe that this is even possible? Imagine your childhood. From the time you are born your parents force you to tell everyone you are the opposite sex of what your genitalia says you are. Because "mommy and daddy wanted a girl but got a boy instead." Do you realize how insane that makes you sound? That you can believe that parents would actually do that to their kid from the moment they are born. That they would CHOOSE this life for their kid and for themselves. That a kid.. ANY kid could be brainwashed into living that way? This kid was miserable being forced to wear boy's clothes for years and experienced absolute glee the first time her parents let her wear a real dress. But you think this is some incredibly "irresponsible" plot by scheming parents who just wanted a little girl and used psychological mysticism to make their little boy think it was a little girl.. because that is even possible. And of course.. EVERY parent would be a hit at the bake sales and birthday parties by standing out and choosing to FORCE their kid to act like the opposite sex. They wouldn't be talked about behind their backs, ostracized by entire branches on their family tree, ridiculed, discriminated against or evicted because of that. Let's CHOOSE this life for our family. Can you grasp just how ridiculous this sounds?*** --- Your lack of a response to this tells me you do indeed think that it is indeed possible and who knows.. maybe responsible for all 700,000 transgender persons in America. And of course you also believe that certain parents would desire this. Would choose this life for themselves. Why? Who can imagine? Is it a hipster thing? You must think I am also a liar when I tell you that her parents definitely did not ask for their child to be this way. To clarify a point in your reply which is wrong.. as I have already stated in one of the many sentences you must have chosen not to read, the child I know started displaying signs of / acting like / saying things / and self identifying as a girl from the age of two, and is in kindergarten now, but only recently got to the point where she wears girls' clothes all the time. As for her parents.. they've been through a lot, but they are finally in a good place and are one big happy family that has grown very close throughout this experience. They chose to love their child as she was, not how they thought or wanted her to be.***</strong></em>


A child that age is constantly learning... *** Yes they are.*** they are learning how to walk, how to talk, how to eat by themselves and how to use the bathroom properly. A child that age has no idea and no concept of male/female. ***By the age of two, you most definitely have a concept of male/female. Of daddy and mommy. Brothers or sisters. If you don't think this, maybe you were just slow.*** .The only direction/lessons that he learns is strictly from his parents. ***This kid learned love.. amongst many other things.***


Fast forward a few years, and I know that this is going to upset you, but if his parents have been telling him that he's a girl, dressing him as a girl, buying him girl toys, etc. then the poor kid is going to think that he's a girl. When he starts meeting the "real world" he's going to find out otherwise. ***This girl knows exactly who she is. She's been telling her parents for years.***


I personally find it sick and disgusting that parents would do this to their children. ***It's clear you are disgusted by something you don't fully understand. Maybe some day you can grab a burger at Hamburger Mary's and someone will take pity on you to explain it. But as I've stated before this was not their choice at all.***

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they don't understand your position.  It just means we think you're wrong.  The only response that you ever have with someone who provides a counterpoint to you is that "well you haven't heard the stories, you haven't done the research you haven't seen what i seen man!"  Never mind the the fact that there have been delusional people among us for years on end.  

---

If you think that you can pigeon hole me by limiting my responses to a single word then you are going to be VERY disappointed. This part of our conversation started when you made the comment about adding LGBTQ to a LIST OF PROTECTED PEOPLE, i responded by saying simply that I disagree with the general idea of a specific list of people being protected because ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights and our laws should reflect this for all citizens and I cited the 14th amendment to the constitution as proof that this is codified into law and as such should be observed by all states and municipalities.   ***Yes..  thank you for recapping..  I brought this up because it was relative to my friends who were evicted because their child is transgender. Had I realized that providing an actual answer to this question was going to illicit this much fear in you I would have led with it.  Why even pretend to discuss this issue if you can't own an opinion to a direct question?*** 

 

If you disagree with my legal interpretation of the 14th amendment or the universality of equal protection from discrimination (specifically in light of the multiple federal civil rights acts) then that's fine.  You can feel free to make that argument from a legal or constitutional standpoint.  But to make the argument that someone who believes in the universal dignity of every person, even those with ailments or parts of sects or minorities seen and unseen, is RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE is frankly so disingenuous that it reveals how desperate your argument is and by no stretch of the imagination could any reasonable person say that i didn't respond to your question.   ***You are absolutely right.  Even I said you gave me a response.  Glad to see your reading skills are consistent.  And you are also right that I made an argument that you MAY reserve the right to discriminate by clinging to an interpretation of the 14th Amendment which pretends black people were truly equal before the Civil Rights Movement a hundred years after its passing.   Your feigned outrage doesn't change the fact that while you did indeed provide a response, you still have not answered the question.  You've got so much conviction about so many things on this subject, but you can't publicly own your opinion on whether or not you think it is okay for people to be able to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender.  There's a word for that..  actually there are many.  I'll let you guess which one I am thinking of.***

 

Conversely, I am still waiting to see how you prescribe that society should research and dig deep within our souls to help the blind lady trapped inside a body with functional eyes to truly find her voice in society and live out her days as a person deprived of sight.  ***Well..  I guess we're both waiting on answers then..***

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Unless they explicitly entered the lease with explicit knowledge of a specific morality clause then i feel that the actions of the landlord would violate your friends right to fair treatment and due process given that the rent is current.


Icidentally linclon was going to implement the civil rights that were delayed by a century begore he was assasinated and the plain text of the amendments clearly RECOGNIZED the inalienable rights MENTIONED in the declaration of independence and endowed by our creator.


However you do point out the fact that the central government is not omnipresent and it is hard to legislate integration. The false belief that there is a magic bullet legal phrase that will normalize those at the extreme lifestyle choices in our society is another form of delusion.


Still waiting to hear about the blind lady.

---

Unless they explicitly entered the lease with explicit knowledge of a specific morality clause then i feel that the actions of the landlord would violate your friends right to fair treatment and due process given that the rent is current.  ***Still not an answer because the facts I have already presented have already proven that while you feel the actions of the landlord SHOULD violate their rights, without an expansion of a given city's Human Rights Ordinance to include those six words which WOULD protect them, it does NOT here in Jacksonville and it did not where my friends live.  Also..  I have NEVER heard of ANY lease which contains a "morality clause."    So...  a simple yes or no would suffice..  Do you think it's okay for a person to be able to be fired from their job, evicted from their home or kicked out of a restaurant  just for being gay or transgender?***


Icidentally linclon was going to implement the civil rights that were delayed by a century begore he was assasinated and the plain text of the amendments clearly RECOGNIZED the inalienable rights MENTIONED in the declaration of independence and endowed by our creator.  ***Yeah..  it took 100 years because Lincoln was killed.    Riiiiiiiiiiiight.....   Jim Crow says this is horse manure.***


However you do point out the fact that the central government is not omnipresent and it is hard to legislate integration. The false belief that there is a magic bullet legal phrase that will normalize those at the extreme choices in our society is another form of delusion.   ***If I gave you a map of all the places in America that have amended their local HROs to include these protections for LGBT citizens already, you would see there are very few pockets left where the right to discriminate against people who are LGBT is still legal outside of Jacksonville***


Still waiting to hear about the blind lady.   ***Oh, I'll get to your stupid blind lady.. ***

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="564165" data-time="1443838021">
<div>
Unless they explicitly entered the lease with explicit knowledge of a specific morality clause then i feel that the actions of the landlord would violate your friends right to fair treatment and due process given that the rent is current.  ***Still not an answer because the facts I have already presented have already proven that while you feel the actions of the landlord SHOULD violate their rights, without an expansion of a given city's Human Rights Ordinance to include those six words which WOULD protect them, it does NOT here in Jacksonville and it did not where my friends live.  Also..  I have NEVER heard of ANY lease which contains a "morality clause."    So...  a simple yes or no would suffice..  Do you think it's okay for a person to be able to be fired from their job, evicted from their home or kicked out of a restaurant  just for being gay or transgender?***

 

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.  



Icidentally linclon was going to implement the civil rights that were delayed by a century begore he was assasinated and the plain text of the amendments clearly RECOGNIZED the inalienable rights MENTIONED in the declaration of independence and endowed by our creator.  ***Yeah..  it took 100 years because Lincoln was killed.    Riiiiiiiiiiiight.....   Jim Crow says this is horse manure.***

 

<b><i>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></b>



However you do point out the fact that the central government is not omnipresent and it is hard to legislate integration. The false belief that there is a magic bullet legal phrase that will normalize those at the extreme choices in our society is another form of delusion.   ***If I gave you a map of all the places in America that have amended their local HROs to include these protections for LGBT citizens already, you would see there are very few pockets left where the right to discriminate against people who are LGBT is still legal outside of Jacksonville***


Still waiting to hear about the blind lady.   ***Oh, I'll get to your stupid blind lady.. ***

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

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.  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.  

 

As to the blind lady, i can't tell.  It's taken you long enough.  

---

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>

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

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.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

 

<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>
OMG Why so obtuse?  The 14th Amendment as written covers us all.  If segments of society and politicians do not follow it as written they are the problem.  Passing additional laws are nothing but feel good legislation.  The 14th Amendment encompasses these issues already.

---

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.
 

OMG Why so obtuse? The 14th Amendment as written covers us all. If segments of society and politicians do not follow it as written they are the problem. Passing additional laws are nothing but feel good legislation. The 14th Amendment encompasses these issues already.

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.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!