Gay Pride flag flown over State Capitol

Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#41
The Civil Rights Act CLEARLY DID NOT limit itself to just "race", but also covered religion, gender, national origin, etc, etc, ...
Do you understand that?

And with respect to "gender", there was no constitutionally authorized delegated power to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex.

Have you forgotten it took the 19th Amendment to forbid a distinction being made based upon "sex", but limited it to voting, and specifically delegated a power "to enforce this" prohibition by appropriate legislation?

And then we have the Equal Rights Amendment, which attempted to accomplish your desires, but the American people rejected allowing our federal government to meddle in this area.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the truth and facts as they are? Why do you reject abiding by our Constitution?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
 
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
#42
Because that is homophobic and not what this country is about. That is why they go to court.

No. Many go to court in an attempt to compel others to engage in associations and contractual agreements they are unwilling to be part of. Many in our sexual deviant crowd detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Stop making crap up!

JWK



The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed the democrat’s slaves. ___ Author unknown
 
Nov 2005
8,341
2,864
California
#43
The reality of the situation is, the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected by the American People, but would have, if adopted, granted by its second section a power to Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” what the Equality Act attempts to do without this authorization in our Constitution.
Why is this reality so difficult for you to understand? Is reality not your friend?
Because it's a false claim.
The Equality Act has authorization by our constitution.
This has been explained to you over and over and over again.

And this trick of yours where you cut and paste around my arguments to blindly repeat things which were already addressed in what you cut and pasted out fools nobody, except you.
I'll simply repeat what you ignored that already addressed your claims.

It seems obvious you are referencing the 14th amendment. But the 14th amendment DID NOT give blacks the capability to "run to court" when a business discriminated against them.
Do you understand that?

The Civil Rights Act, utilizing the powers of the constitution, is what gave blacks the capability to "run to court" when a public business discriminated against them.
Do you understand that?

The Civil Rights Act CLEARLY DID NOT limit itself to just "race", but also covered religion, gender, national origin, etc, etc, ...
Do you understand that?

Likewise, when legislation similar to the Civil Rights Act got passed in various areas which required the local government to not discriminate based on sexual orientation, that likewise gives gays (as well as straights) the same power as Christians and blacks to "run to court" when a public business discriminated against them (based on sexual orientation, religion, or race).
Do you understand that?


Moreover, the 14th amendment specifically avoids specifying race in the relevant portion of the 14th amendment. It never specifies one characteristic, whereby you want to pretend that explicit choice to avoid specifying the one characteristic somehow means that only one characteristic is specified.


Finally, there is a final relevant issue you have failed to address.
The Civil Rights Act covers Christians as well. The Civil Rights Act was passed by people who were predominantly Christian, choosing to ensure they were protected by the Civil Rights Act just like blacks were covered.
Can I mindlessly claim (just as you did) that Christians "detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations"?
 
Likes: Lyzza
Nov 2005
8,341
2,864
California
#44
And with respect to "gender", there was no constitutionally authorized delegated power to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex.
You are eternally reminding me of that story where five people look at an elephant and think it is something it isn't because they are physically limited in what they can sense.
While they are physically limited, what's your excuse?

The "authorization" is not based on a "power to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex".
The authorization is based on the 14th amendment.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia


Have you forgotten it took the 19th Amendment to forbid a distinction being made based upon "sex", but limited it to voting, and specifically delegated a power "to enforce this" prohibition by appropriate legislation?
The 19th amendment is irrelevant here. There is no need to remember what is irrelevant.


And then we have the Equal Rights Amendment, which attempted to accomplish your desires, but the American people rejected allowing our federal government to meddle in this area.
This has got to be one of your dumbest arguments.
If one legislation form fails in the past, but then a different legislation form is pushed forward in the future, there is absolutely no constitutional nor moral standard which prohibits this.
By that standard, the right-wing has failed repeatedly to repeal Obamacare, so the Republicans should just stop trying to meddle in that area...


Why is it so difficult for you to accept the truth and facts as they are? Why do you reject abiding by our Constitution?
You have presented absolutely nothing which is inconsistent with our constitution.
 
Likes: Lyzza
Nov 2005
8,341
2,864
California
#45
...and people defend the insanity w/ seemingly straight faces.
Definitely clownworld
Yes. You do.


But hey it's illegal to get a plastic straw in callifornia but knowingly give someone AIDS... no big deal.... clownworld.
I just proved your statement about knowingly giving someone else AIDS not being illegal to be a dumb lie, but you continue in your claim anyways...
 
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2013
33,447
19,262
Beware of watermelons
#46
Yes. You do.



I just proved your statement about knowingly giving someone else AIDS not being illegal to be a dumb lie, but you continue in your claim anyways...
From CNN

Starting January 1, it will no longer be a felony in California to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV with the intent of transmitting the virus. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that lowers the offense to a misdemeanor.
The California legislature passed SB 239 in September.
The law previously punished people who intentionally exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. The new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.


https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/10/07/he...l-signed/index.html?r=https://duckduckgo.com/


No big deal.
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
8,341
2,864
California
#47
I just proved your statement about knowingly giving someone else AIDS not being illegal to be a dumb lie, but you continue in your claim anyways...
From CNN
Starting January 1, it will no longer be a felony in California to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV with the intent of transmitting the virus. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that lowers the offense to a misdemeanor.
The California legislature passed SB 239 in September.
The law previously punished people who intentionally exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. The new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html?r=https://duckduckgo.com/
No big deal.
Jesus Christ.
It's like you're trying to comprehend, but you lack the intellectual capacity to actually make that leap...

Sweetie. Listen closely...
Your site shows it is still illegal.
'mmkay?
It repeatedly astounds me when you occasionally present evidence which disproves your position. You are seriously the only person I know who does that on a consistent basis.

The sentencing guidelines discussed are clearly in line with treating a knowing AIDS infection as an assault (i.e. 6 month sentencing)
Penal Code 240 - California "assault" law
So by your stunted attempt at logic, do you think assault is treated as "no big deal"?
Yeah. I know. I just asked you a question and you cower from questions...
 
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2013
33,447
19,262
Beware of watermelons
#48
Jesus Christ.
It's like you're trying to comprehend, but you lack the intellectual capacity to actually make that leap...

Sweetie. Listen closely...
Your site shows it is still illegal.
'mmkay?
It repeatedly astounds me when you occasionally present evidence which disproves your position. You are seriously the only person I know who does that on a consistent basis.

The sentencing guidelines discussed are clearly in line with treating a knowing AIDS infection as an assault (i.e. 6 month sentencing)
Penal Code 240 - California "assault" law
So by your stunted attempt at logic, do you think assault is treated as "no big deal"?
Yeah. I know. I just asked you a question and you cower from questions...

Did i ever say it was now legal? Nope.

Giving someone aids is now a few months in county. So...yeah. no big deal.

Just because some communities have been passing it around like brownie recipes for a couple of decades does not mean that it should not still be treated like the malicious act that it is.

Translation:

Clownworld.
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
8,341
2,864
California
#49
Foundit66:​
The sentencing guidelines discussed are clearly in line with treating a knowing AIDS infection as an assault (i.e. 6 month sentencing)​
So by your stunted attempt at logic, do you think assault is treated as "no big deal"?
Yeah. I know. I just asked you a question and you cower from questions...​
What a lack of surprise.
You cowered from the question...


Giving someone aids is now a few months in county. So...yeah. no big deal.
Woah, woah, woah...
Have you done six months in jail before?
Cause the only people I have come across that think that way are those who are habitually in and out of jail in the first place. For the rest of us, it's a pretty serious deal.

Is it possible you're posting to the forum from jail now?
It actually would explain a lot...


Just because some communities have been passing it around like brownie recipes for a couple of decades does not mean that it should not still be treated like the malicious act that it is.
HIV / AIDS is relatively rare in most communities, like the gay community.
The vast majority of gays do not have AIDS / HIV.

And despite the fact that people like you may be used to six months being locked up, for the rest of society six months in jail IS a serious consequence for both assault and purposefully infecting somebody with AIDS.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2013
33,447
19,262
Beware of watermelons
#50
Foundit66:​
The sentencing guidelines discussed are clearly in line with treating a knowing AIDS infection as an assault (i.e. 6 month sentencing)​
So by your stunted attempt at logic, do you think assault is treated as "no big deal"?
Yeah. I know. I just asked you a question and you cower from questions...​
What a lack of surprise.
You cowered from the question...



Woah, woah, woah...
Have you done six months in jail before?
Cause the only people I have come across that think that way are those who are habitually in and out of jail in the first place. For the rest of us, it's a pretty serious deal.

Is it possible you're posting to the forum from jail now?
It actually would explain a lot...



HIV / AIDS is relatively rare in most communities, like the gay community.
The vast majority of gays do not have AIDS / HIV.

And despite the fact that people like you may be used to six months being locked up, for the rest of society six months in jail IS a serious consequence for both assault and purposefully infecting somebody with AIDS.

6 months MAX. six months w/ good time is more like 3 or 4. This for permanently altering someones life and possibly a death sentence. Intentionally.

But up to a $10,000 fine for a plastic straw?

Clownworld
 

Similar Discussions