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.
 

 

<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>
 

 

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!

---

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.

---

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.  

---

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?***

 

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.  ***It is obvious you cannot read.  This what I wrote:  

 

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 admitted Lincoln wanted to do more and did NOT say otherwise.  I referred to an award winning documentary series (which I still recommend you watch because it's really great) and pointed to the fact that just because Lincoln wanted to do a bunch of great things for black people, there were plenty of places in America not willing to update that definition of equality.***

 

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.  ***This just proves to me that you don't even read what I write at all before throwing some argumentative counterpoint. I have stated multiple times (including the first post on the subject) that my friend and her situation were in one of the most/if not the most liberal states you could think of.  You continue to call me a liar, because you think my story is so fantastic it must not be true.  YOU DO NOT NEED COURT DOCUMENTS TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS AGAINST THIS in some parts of the country.  I drew comparisons to Jacksonville, because I also know members of the LGBT community who are currently at risk of suffering the same type of discrimination (surely you remember the question by now). And if you think I am lying about any of this, I will give you the same offer I gave another person in this thread.  I will meet you face to face and share details of their whole story (with pictures), and we will see who is lying.  It's amazing that your desire to not believe this keeps going back to things like..  well..  they must not have paid their rent..  instead of..  Wow..  they were discriminated against.***

 

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.  ***Certain emerging demographics..   interesting choice of words.  Again..  gay people have existed since at least the dawn of recorded history.  They have been kept down, discriminated against, ridiculed, misundertsood, etc. for hundreds of years. The public perception of homosexuality has taken a significantly more accepting and understanding tone in recent years as is evident by the ruling for same sex marriage across all 50 states.  It is offensive that you classify (indirectly) these people as having no bearing on everyday life.  Alexander the Great conquered the known world and was gay.  Alan Turing was the guy who laid the foundation for modern computing. Also gay.  I could go on, but the point is made, no?  How about the fact these people who are not famous have lives and contribute to the lives of others as family members, friends, employees, etc.  That has no bearing either, I suppose.***  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.  ***If you abhor discrimination so much, then why could you not simply say I do not think it is okay for a person to get fired from their job, evicted from their home or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?  Why can you still not say it now?***

 

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. ***Yeah..  I'm the first guy with a comment that had a bad word removed.  Still waiting for an answer on why the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was necessary if the laws of the Constitution already granted such equality in 1866.***

 

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.  ***Duval County Clerk Ronnie Fussell did roughly a year ago.  Condemn away.***  Until then, ill leave you to consider the poor blind woman that you have yet to attend to!  ***You still have to attend to an interpretation of the Constitution which says the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was not necessary first.***

---

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.  

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!

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

He knows that. Hes just trapped in his cognative dissonance.

---

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!

Is colorado honoring the federal laws outlawing marijuana use?

---

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!

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.

---

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!

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

p.s. - homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. 

 

Yes it is.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

p.s. - homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

 

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


 

No it isn't.

I can think of plenty of lifestyles I don't agree with, and I doubt many people would appreciate it if I called it a 'sickness'

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.

 

Who we are when we are born, who we are attracted to naturally, is not a choice.

 

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

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


 

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