Supremes: LGBTQ Landmark Decision

[Rob Roy]

This was inevitable after the thirteenth amendment was passed. All persons have equal rights and due process. It continued with Brown v board of education of topeka ks. You do not have to associate with anyone, but you may have to hire them.

Except that doesn't define what "equal rights" actually are. I'm speaking in the actual real meanings of words, not in the word smithed meanings governments often use and you provided.

It would seem if all people are "equal" than that could only mean they all have the equal right of self determination, and don't have the right to remove that right from other peaceful or neutral people.

If you think it means you or some people have the right to determine what other people MUST do with their property and their body against their wishes, that is an action that negates equality. Actions which negate equality are not actions which are also examples of "equal rights".

That is so, because it removes the equal right of SELF determination and replaces it with the wishes of one person over the wishes of another. When that occurs, it is a proof of INEQUALITY.

So, it looks like I am correct, unless you can apply some logic, rather than "government speak" which is based in illogic, to prove me wrong.

 

[Rob Roy]

apparently the Supremes disagreed with your assessment.

Supreme Court: CONSENT NOT REQUIRED

Yes, but anybody who calls themselves "Supreme" is applying a hierarchy, with themselves at the top. Interesting, and right under your nose too.

So the Supreme persons near the top of a hierarchy are going to determine what "equal" means and then they will authorize the use of force if you don't share their illusion, and that is what "equal rights" are ?

The Supreme court is wrong and aren't talking about equal rights to self determine, they are talking about how to have one party remove other parties right of self determination and how they have legally incorporated it.

That's all it is, it is impossible for them to be talking about actual equal rights, if they are using an involuntary means to effectuate their edicts.

Equality of subservience to an edict, from a "Supreme" is not equality of right to self determine, would you agree with that ?

 

[howellman howell]

equal rights are commonly understood by most to mean due process or equal protection under the law.

So if you want to self determine fine but dont take that right from me

If you deny me employment based on my identity then you have infringed in my self determination

Its really simple

I have things to do today so i suggest you might read some supreme court arguments

These are not my opinions they are theirs

If you prefer you may call them "the highest court in the land"

 

[Rob Roy]

If you deny me employment based on my identity then you have infringed in my self determination

Except, that makes no sense. You aren't "self determining" in your example. You have involved another party, which is outside of your "self" (your body, your property).

In any kind of "equal right" situation, the only kind of interaction which would be equal, would be when both parties agree to it.

If I come to your house, even though you'd rather I didn't and start making sandwiches and leave the bread crumbs all over your counter top and don't even put the pickle jar back in the fridge, would your tossing me out be a denial of my "self determination" or would it be an example of you defending your right to self determine the use of YOUR property ?

 

[schuylaar]

This was inevitable after the fourteenth amendment was passed. All persons have equal rights and due process. It continued with Brown v board of education of topeka ks. You do not have to associate with anyone, but you may have to hire them.

Rob is from Island of Lost Boys..he got to get his Peter on first.

 

[Rob Roy]

equal rights are commonly understood by most to mean due process or equal protection under the law.

Equal rights are commonly MISUNDERSTOOD by most to mean due process and equal protection under the law.

The reason that is so, is the law has an origin in an institution which arises from force, rather than mutual consent, therefore, the maker of the law uses a means which negates equality of choice. That's like a rapist serving on a panel of judges, judging what consent means.

 

[schuylaar]

equal rights are commonly understood by most to mean due process or equal protection under the law.

So if you want to self determine fine but dont take that right from me

If you deny me employment based on my identity then you have infringed in my self determination

Its really simple

I have things to do today so i suggest you might read some supreme court arguments

These are not my opinions they are theirs

If you prefer you may call them "the highest court in the land"

ohhhhhhhhh, we have a taker!

welcome new friend!

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob is from Island of Lost Boys..he got to get his Peter on first.

I didn't think you would be able to refute what I've said.

 

[CunningCanuk]

Except that doesn't define what "equal rights" actually are. I'm speaking in the actual real meanings of words, not in the word smithed meanings governments often use and you provided.

He pointed out that your argument was unconstitutional. You asked him to show you how and he did. Now you call the constitution “word smithed”.

Tsk tsk, Bob. Tsk tsk.

 

[schuylaar]

This was inevitable after the fourteenth amendment was passed. All persons have equal rights and due process. It continued with Brown v board of education of topeka ks. You do not have to associate with anyone, but you may have to hire them.

i will have a go with you on the above.

only if you have money do you have equal rights and due process

 

[Rob Roy]

He pointed out that your argument was unconstitutional. You asked him to show you how and he did. Now you call the constitution “word smithed”.

Tsk tsk, Bob. Tsk tsk.

Are you saying that any disagreement with the constitution is an indication of being wrong ?

 

[schuylaar]

He pointed out that your argument was unconstitutional. You asked him to show you how and he did. Now you call the constitution “word smithed”.

Tsk tsk, Bob. Tsk tsk.

well he did default to rape..so you knew he was at the end of the argument.

 

[Kassiopeija]

 

[Rob Roy]

i will have a go with you on the above.

only if you have money do you have equal rights and due process

I'm afraid you may be missing my point. Certainly if you are claiming laws are applied unequally, I agree with you. Yes, governments are corrupt.

Except, my point is, for something to be an actual "equal right" it can't negate another persons right to self determine and remain a right.

The thing about equality and rights, is when they are combined, they can only mean the right to self determine, since the right to initiate force against another person is not an application of equality, it is an application of an attempted inequality.

To make an unwilling person associate with you, is an example of initiating force. We know that, since rape and kidnapping are universally seen as "initiating force" against unwilling people and we know that is bad behavior and isn't an action applying "equal rights".

Feel free to read the foregoing several times and then tell me which part is in error.

 

[Rob Roy]

View attachment 4597794

Remember....social distancing!!!

 

[schuylaar]

I'm afraid you may be missing my point. Certainly if you are claiming laws are applied unequally, I agree with you. Yes, governments are corrupt.

Except, my point is, for something to be an actual "equal right" it can't negate another persons right to self determine and remain a right.

The thing about equality and rights, is when they are combined, they can only mean the right to self determine, since the right to initiate force against another person is not an application of equality, it is an application of an attempted inequality.

To make an unwilling person associate with you, is an example of initiating force. We know that, since rape and kidnapping are universally seen as "initiating force" against unwilling people and we know that is bad behavior and isn't an action applying "equal rights".

Feel free to read the foregoing several times and then tell me which part is in error.

stop right where i highlighted..you can do as you please and as long as it coincides with law of the land when interacting with others..you choose to partake in services that have accepted social norm whether legal or familiar..you are expected to follow.

don't want to pay taxes? don't own a home..rent..your closing statement is a legal agreement in which you acknowledge your tax debt to the city and state..walk on the left side of the sidewalk, i'm sure people get out of your way but the right side is a familial norm socially accepted.

don't want to hire pan sexual? don't go into business..employees are your largest expense- by far..rules and regs abound..why? because of shitty employers with prejudice..the circle of American life.

see Rob? you have choice.

 

[Kassiopeija]

Remember....social distancing!!!

View attachment 4597796

 

[Rob Roy]

stop right where i highlighted..you can do as you please and as long as it coincides with law of the land when interacting with others..you choose to partake in services that have accepted social norm whether legal or familiar..you are expected to follow.

don't want to pay taxes? don't own a home..rent..your closing statement is a legal agreement in which you acknowledge your tax debt to the city and state..walk on the left side of the sidewalk, i'm sure people get out of your way but the right side is a familial norm socially accepted.

don't want to hire pan sexual? don't go into business..employees are your largest expense- by far.

see Rob? you have choice.

Your default assumption, that subservience to other persons edicts (laws which remove self determination ) is also the thing which makes you "equal" is a logical impossibility.

You would be using words correctly, if you called what you are describing as "equal revokable privileges" under a forcible hierarchy , rather than equal rights.

Actual equal rights, means the right to self determine, which of course if you must follow an edict, imposed under threat of force, you can't possibly be talking about equality.

See schuylaar, words have meaning and when they are intentionally manipulated they can easily fool those who consistently hold two opposing beliefs at once.

 

[UncleBuck]

He’s such a deranged bigot that he wants people to treat his own son like shit just because he’s gay

 

[Rob Roy]

In case anyone is wondering, the bigots own son is gay

His family hates him as much as we do

One of my sons is gay.

Does his being gay, give him the right to force somebody to associate with him, if the other person prefers not to ?

Does his being gay, give anyone else the right to use force against him, if he refuses to associate with the person attempting force ?