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:You see it as tolerating the abnormal, I see it as basic recognition of someone else's dignity.Are they not two sides of the same coin?
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:Being gay and being a pedophile are completely unrelated. Pedophilia requires a participant who in all likelihood has not yet developed a sense of personal sexuality and is certainly not capable of consentWhile I agree with you in this instance yet you totally condone a 2 year old of knowing their sexuality?
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. Quote:Because the 14th Amendment was not being adhered too. The 14th Amendment does in fact address this. Had the Amendment been followed to the letter of the law no additional protection would have been necessary.This is the point I have been trying to make. The 14th Amendment is not enough to provide protections on its own. Even though it expresses the idea of equality, it was not enough to implement the full meaning of that word. Therefore, when someone says additional protections are not needed for LGBT person's because of the Constitution, I can knowingly say that is not true. It was not true for black people and it is not true for gay people. The one positive is that the Constitutional Amendments paved the road for cities to create Human Rights Ordinances, Committees and Commissions which already designate explicit protections against discrimination and rights to public accommodation in such a way that six words are all that is necessary to be added to provide equal (not special or extra) rights to people who are gay or transgender. Because it is so simple a majority of gay American citizens now have equal protection where the live as several local governments have already updated their city's ordinances. Jacksonville is not one of those places (yet). Providing these protections means that these people can focus on being the best employee they can be while bringing their "whole self" to work without fear of unjustified termination. As for terminating underperforming employees .. I know Florida is a right to work state and I have seen plenty of incompetent employees fired with cause by simply being put on a performance management program to encourage them to get up or get out. Based on the amount of layoffs I have seen local employers go through in some rollercoaster years, I wouldn't think getting rid of employees good or bad is as difficult as you make it sound.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:While I agree with you in this instance yet you totally condone a 2 year old of knowing their sexuality?I do not. Sexuality is who a person is sexually attracted to. Usually kids don't really find this out until the hormones of puberty start kicking in. This is why so many people realize they are gay around middle or high school. The situation I shared has to do with gender identity. In layman's terms, this boy was born with the brain and self image of a girl. This child said from the age of two several things which made it obvious that she identified as a girl. A couple of years later when a clinical psychologist asked her directly if she was a boy or a girl, without hesitation she said she was a girl. And after a difficult chapter she is in a place where she can freely express her gender as a girl by wearing girls clothes exclusively. Someday she will have an understanding of her sexuality, but I have seen no indication she cares about anything right now except being a kid.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:This is the point I have been trying to make. The 14th Amendment is not enough to provide protections on its own. Even though it expresses the idea of equality, it was not enough to implement the full meaning of that word.And yet again you miss the point. IF the original law (in this case the 14th Amendment had been followed no additional legislation would have been needed. SO, instead of passing new legislation why not enforce the original laws? To go to the next step once you do pass these additional laws you have created a special class of individuals. To use your own words "I wouldn't think getting rid of employees good or bad is as difficult as you make it sound " Go share a beer with a member of any HR employee of any business anywhere in this country. Ask them how difficult it is to let go of a protected class of people compared to a single white male of equal incompetence.
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:And yet again you miss the point. IF the original law (in this case the 14th Amendment had been followed no additional legislation would have been needed. SO, instead of passing new legislation why not enforce the original laws?I guess you're right if you want to call black people, Muslims, handicapped people and the elderly a special class as they are all specifically covered under the the existing blanket term. I worked in the HR nerve center of one of the larger employers in town and have been in the industry over a decade. All you need to fire anyone is documented proof of poor performance. Oftentimes not even that as Florida is a right to work state and employees sign a document stating their awareness of this when they are onboarded. Did black people want special rights during the Civil Rights Movement? No. They just wanted the same rights that the Constitutional Amendments said they deserved. So when they fought.. they won. And that is why slowly, but without question, LGBT Americans are seeing their fight for equality being won one city or state at a time. If the original law (14th Amendment) was not being followed, so a better one was needed to replace it.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:It's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal? Well.. native Americans celebrated homosexuals for being both male and female in one person and called these people "two-spirited" ..until we killed them all. no it wouldn't. Hypocrisy is when you use yourself as an ideal of what is true and correct. That's self righteousness. It's an entirely different point to say that we are all inherently immoral and should strive toward a higher standard of behavior and morality. Quote:This is the point I have been trying to make. The 14th Amendment is not enough to provide protections on its own. Even though it expresses the idea of equality, it was not enough to implement the full meaning of that word. I still think that you are missing the point. If someone doesn't read a human rights ordinance or a commissions report about how to treat another individual then ultimately their behavior isn't going to be swayed. In 1871 there was enough legal basis for a properly inspired attorney general to get virtually every legal accomplishment of the mid 60's based on the 13th 14th and 15th amendments as well as the re authorization of the civil rights act of 1866. It wasn't about lack of legal basis, it was about lack of political will. The great accomplishment of the Kings and Malcoms of the world wasn't the impact that they had on 60 senators in washington, it was about the impact that they had on an entire nation that saw and entire group of people being mauled by dogs on television marching for rights that the constitution clearly recognized and that they themselves took for granted. Quote:I guess you're right if you want to call black people, Muslims, handicapped people and the elderly a special class as they are all specifically covered under the the existing blanket term. I worked in the HR nerve center of one of the larger employers in town and have been in the industry over a decade. All you need to fire anyone is documented proof of poor performance. Oftentimes not even that as Florida is a right to work state and employees sign a document stating their awareness of this when they are onboarded. And just as a matter of detail the civil rights act of 1968 (which was actaully a lot more about native americans than black people) didn't supplant the 14th amendment, it didn't replace it, it put systems of enforcement and criminal penalties in place for those who violated it. The point that I am trying to make is this. I believe that every American is fundamentally protected under the equal rights doctrine expressed in the deceleration of independence, the 14th amendment among others and the right to due process as expressed in the 5th amendment 15th amendment and others. I think that any consideration outside the specific scope of a lease agreement, employee contract, mortgage document etc. used to deny anyone basic services and decency is a violation of their basic civil rights and can be proven to be unconstitutional. The danger with ENUMERATING specific groups of protected classes is two fold. 1.) that it limits the focus to the acknowledges groups or minorities and negates the groups that are so small that they don't have lobbyists. 2.) it creates a system where those not in a special protected class become a new second class citizen instead of leading to a more egalitarian melting pot. Case in point, a person of same sex orientation has the right to expect reasonable service from a public establishment as long as they have the money to pay for it. Should that same basic right to reasonable service trump the vendors first amendment right to free religious expression or conscientious objection. It's wrong to evict someone just because of the way they dress just as much as it is to put someone out of business for what they sincerely believe.
Quote: Actually, the true "wrong" is that customer rights are superseding ownership rights. Whether or not it is moral to evict people based on creed, color, gender, et al really should have no bearing on whether or not the owner can do what he wants with his own property. That's the real problem with all this mess, not only must you tolerate it, you must endorse and participate in it. Otherwise you won't think the right thoughts that your betters know you should. “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!
Quote:Because the 14th Amendment was not being adhered too. The 14th Amendment does in fact address this. Had the Amendment been followed to the letter of the law no additional protection would have been necessary.Yes but that is the problem. People cry star spangled tears over their love for the Constitution yet are not following it and so additional legislation was required to push the backwards into modern times. Quote:I guess you're right if you want to call black people, Muslims, handicapped people and the elderlyLet me try one more time though I doubt it will work. 1. The 14th Amendment covers all Americans. Once you pass laws specifically singling out black people, Muslims, handicapped people and the elderly or any other minority, you have created a special class. Again why pass extra laws as opposed to enforcing the ones already on the books? 2. As for this gem, All you need to fire anyone is documented proof of poor performance You are being completely disingenuous if you claim the documentation required for letting go a minority is equal to that of letting go a caucasian employee.
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. Quote:Yes but that is the problem. People cry star spangled tears over their love for the Constitution yet are not following it and so additional legislation was required to push the backwards into modern times.See my response above.
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.
jj..
okay.. for starters.. you're right. We did not kill ALL of the Native Americans. Just most of them. And the ones that are still alive get some great former genocidal target perks. My point was that there was a society before the white man came which embraced homosexuality as a rare gift. I was simply responding to a comment about society accepting gay people. My comment which inspired you to write about "self righteousness" comes from people who throw out the term sexual perversion. While I do not know what everyone's personal definition of this term means, it was certainly directed to the idea of homosexual intercourse. I was merely pointing out that there are some who hypocritically bash two guys having sex, but are incredibly turned on at the thought of two women getting it on or the stereotypical male fantasy of having two girls at once. I do want to touch upon one thing you said: "If someone doesn't read a human rights ordinance or a commissions report about how to treat another individual then ultimately their behavior isn't going to be swayed." The point here is that it will. You see.. it didn't matter if white people read the Civil Rights Act of 1968 or not. They knew that they had to treat these people with full equality or there would be repercussions. You make the argument that the legal basis was there well before the end of the 19th century to make this happen, but it did not due to a lack of political will. This ties nicely to the parallel made with the idea of advancing equal rights for LGBT citizens. The legal basis has been there for over a hundred years. And the wave of public support to provide equal protections and accommodations is not ebbing. Just because the argument is in the 14th Amendment does not mean the realization of equality exists within the 14th Amendment. Black people only got it with the teeth of the Civil Rights Act. Whether or not the intent was there with the Constitutional Amendment to provide equal protection, the reality is that it didn't. Just as the Constitution provides the argument and legal basis for equality, but doesn't actually deliver the reality of equality. Your comment that the Civil Rights Act was more about Native Americans than black people was pretty fantastic. Even taking into account the differential in the size between the black and Native American demographic, I guess I never saw any Native Americans thrown out of restaurants, attacked by police dogs or physically removed by fire hoses. The Indian Civil Rights Act certainly provided some overdue relief to Native Americans, but to say the Civil Rights Act was more about them than quelling an angry, organized and unsatisfied black minority.. we don't need to discuss this point further. We can agree to disagree. You continued with this point: "The point that I am trying to make is this. I believe that every American is fundamentally protected under the equal rights doctrine expressed in the deceleration of independence, the 14th amendment among others and the right to due process as expressed in the 5th amendment 15th amendment and others." You say you believe every American is fundamentally protected by the Constitution. Fundamentally means in basic or primary respects. So this statement is true. Black people were fundamentally protected by the Constitution when the KKK burned their homes, schools and churches and lynched them without fear of prosecution. Black people were fundamentally protected in the 5 year period between 1910-1915 where Oklahoma passed a Constitutional Amendment that only those whose grandfathers had voted in 1865 could take part in elections or when many southern states implemented literacy tests or applied poll taxes as ways to circumvent the 15th Amendment. Black people were fundamentally protected during Jim Crow and segregation. So.. what good is fundamental protection if you can still be blatantly treated as less than from your station in life to the quality of water fountain you drink from to your seat on a public bus or restaurant? Fundamentally protected is not actually protected. Further legislation was needed for black people to realize equality. You continue with this point: "I think that any consideration outside the specific scope of a lease agreement, employee contract, mortgage document etc. used to deny anyone basic services and decency is a violation of their basic civil rights and can be proven to be unconstitutional." You are right. A basic (fundamental) right was violated. See the above paragraph.. Had this incident taken place in Orlando or even Atlantic Beach, there would be legal recourse for the situation I described. If that same scenario took place in Duval County, there would be no grounds for recourse as Duval County has yet to amend their local Human Rights Ordinance as most every other major city in the US has. I will keep this all together as one final point as I believe that was your intent: "The danger with ENUMERATING specific groups of protected classes is two fold. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">1.) that it limits the focus to the acknowledges groups or minorities and negates the groups that are so small that they don't have lobbyists. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">2.) it creates a system where those not in a special protected class become a new second class citizen instead of leading to a more egalitarian melting pot. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Case in point, a person of same sex orientation has the right to expect reasonable service from a public establishment as long as they have the money to pay for it. Should that same basic right to reasonable service trump the vendors first amendment right to free religious expression or conscientious objection. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It's wrong to evict someone just because of the way they dress just as much as it is to put someone out of business for what they sincerely believe." <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As for 1, I am not sure I fully get what you are saying. I don't understand the need to limit the focus when we say you cannot be discriminated against regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital or familial status, pregnancy or ancestry. should we be limiting the focus more? You can be discriminated against if you have a particularly grotesque disability or if you're like Cocoon-level old? What groups are so small that they don't have lobbyists that are in need of protection against discrimination? If your fear is that this paints with too broad a stroke, my question to you would be, who don't you want to have the same rights as you and what grounds do you have to deny them these fundamental rights we have discussed at length? <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And as for 2.. "those not in a special protected class become a new second class citizen.." When we say you cannot be discriminated against regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital or familial status, pregnancy or ancestry, who is the special protected class? This mentality that someone is a special protected class when in actuality they are just getting the same rights and protections you have known all along is a bit ridiculous. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">When you get into people's religious beliefs.. I hesitate to respond. Not out of fear of making a sound argument, but because people believe a whole manner of things when it comes to religion and what one person thinks compared to the next is often contradictory. The very definition of communion, sin, heaven and hell are all open for interpretation and debate. I don't claim to have all the answers of the universe. There are 40,000 denominations of Christianity ranging from Westboro Baptist Church to Kim Davis to LGBT affirming churches. Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old and that Jesus hung out with dinosaurs. Some people ram a Leviticus verse down people's throat as their belief that homosexuality is an abomination ignoring a slew of other abominations mentioned in this same book which they themselves welcome into their daily lives without a second thought or prayer for forgiveness. Some people act like some sins are worse than others. Some people think we should bring back stoning people. I acknowledge that many people use their faith as a focal part of their lives and draw a great personal inspiration and sense of community from their church. That said.. while I respect everyone's right to say "I don't think homosexuality is right," because of their personal interpretation of the Bible, I do not feel that a person can use their faith as a way to circumvent the fundamental rights afforded to all citizens under the Constitution as a tool to discriminate. <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> <p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">There is a lot of heated debate over this topic and much of it, I feel, comes from those who lean to a more (as fate would have it) "fundamentalist" interpretation of Christianity. Just today another Florida bill got advanced to set up another trumped up gay vs. religion show down. They are calling it the "Pastor Protection Act" (HB 43) and it is a joke. It passed along party lines (shocker) despite the fact that faith leaders from around the state testified AGAINST this bill calling it dangerous and unnecessary. The debate quickly became about marrying or not marrying same sex couples. This is a real fear for these people? That they are going to be forced to marry gay people? And special interest lobbyists are raking in cash to fight this non-battle and waste the people's time and energy over nothing. To date I know of zero pastors or priests who have been forced by the government to perform a same sex marriage against their will anywhere in the US. This type of thing promotes the idea that granting equal rights to others will somehow take away their own rights. I do know all churches still get tax exempt status though. That special privilege hasn't changed.
Only a chump boos the home team!
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! Quote:Actually, the true "wrong" is that customer rights are superseding ownership rights. Whether or not it is moral to evict people based on creed, color, gender, et al really should have no bearing on whether or not the owner can do what he wants with his own property. That's the real problem with all this mess, not only must you tolerate it, you must endorse and participate in it. Otherwise you won't think the right thoughts that your betters know you should.Tolerating a same sex marriage doesn't mean you need to endorse it or participate in it. Stop playing the persecution card. And I love your point that being a Richard and evicting people based on color or creed, though immoral, should be a right of the property owner. You should put that on your Tinder profile.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:Let me try one more time though I doubt it will work.1. The one "on the books" in the Constitution simply provides the legal basis against discrimination. It doesn't provide the legal protection against it. You are not creating a special class by saying ALL races, color, creed, ages, etc. You pass extra laws to ensure equal protection, not the idea of equal protection. Unless you feel it is okay for a person to get fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay. 2. Did some foreigner take your job? How hard do you think it is to fire someone? I assure you I have seen it done for any number of reasons, up to and including "no reason given" whatsoever. Lawyers get paid a lot of money to draft up onboarding documents to insulate themselves against frivolous law suits. And I have seen plenty of people "performance managed" into unemployment due to underachieving.
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:See my response above.Yes I saw your response. That's still doesn't address the issue I brought up. Sure the 14th amendment should have been enough but clearly was not. If it was we wouldn't have needed civil rights legislation over the years nor the 19th amendment. That's kind of point of the living document our Constitution is. It was designed to be changed and altered with the times of society. Soemtimes that can be done with legislation or SCOTUS rulings and not just with amendments. For example, not to long ago the SCOTUS ruled on, what to most was obvious I think, that the 2nd amendment protected personal weapon ownership rights. Clearly the amendment was not enough for some so had to be addressed.
SCOTUS just ruled that the 14th amendments granting of equal protection is so universal, it redefined a legal precept that predates not only English common law but the English language itself. This was in the face of direct legislative opposition across party lines.
so again, anyone who is going to assert that the 14th amendment itself is inadequate to protect basic human rights and fair treatment is going to have to cite a specific court case, a holding opinion by a judge, and the outcome on appeal. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! Quote:SCOTUS just ruled that the 14th amendments granting of equal protection is so universal, it redefined a legal precept that predates not only English common law but the English language itself. This was in the face of direct legislative opposition across party lines. Like Obergefell v. Hodges?
Only a chump boos the home team!
Quote:so again, anyone who is going to assert that the 14th amendment itself is inadequate to protect basic human rights and fair treatment is going to have to cite a specific court case, a holding opinion by a judge, and the outcome on appeal. Quote:Like Obergefell v. Hodges? ![[Image: regular-showburninsultin-your-face.gif]](http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/regular-showburninsultin-your-face.gif) |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 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.