Subject:
|
Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:36:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Hmmm, I have to agree with you, Dave! Here is the problem.
Okay, so you have a group of bigots. They have every right to be bigotted
(let’s for the sake of argument forsake any governmental affiliations
here) and live in their bigotted world.
|
|
|
|
Yes, they do. As long as the forsake any governmental affiliation is strictly
adhered to. That’s tough to do today though.
| |
| |
| |
| |
So why do groups such as the ACLU
constantly swoop in and stir the pot? If pluralism is valued, why is it
only when the values agree with their agenda? It’s always “tolerance,
tolerance, tolerance” except regarding the intolerant. Then it’s
intolerance and lawsuits.
JOHN
|
Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of
those that they are bigoted against.
|
So I should not be able to form a club that excludes LEGO clone-lovers
because I am limiting the freedom of Dave! to becoming a member?
|
Not the same example. What you want to do is forcibly evict Dave! from
Lugnet because he (for the sake of this argument) plays with Brand X, even
though he is not doing it on Lugnet.
|
But LUGNET, being completely privately funded, ought to (under the free
association clause) be completely within its rights to make that a condition of
the ToS, if it chooses to.
(of course the marketplace won’t long tolerate such a change in ToS and
competing sites would spring up to demonstrate that it’s a silly idea)
This is totally different, we have a government (with monopoly power) that wants
to exclude people, not a privately held organization, and that violates the
equal protection clause.
In fact this seems an example of the general case... just as marriages are such
an example.
Private organizations can make whatever rules they like about who can or can’t
associate under the aegis of their organization, including requiring (or
banning) one man-one woman, for to require them to behave differently is to
violate the free association clause.
Meanwhile, governments should not be in the business of making value judgements
about contracts and thus ought not to be placing any restrictions whatever on
who can appear before them and say “we want a government sanctioned contract” or
state that certain of these contracts have one name and others have a different
one, or state that certain contracts entitle you to preferential treatment while
you are in them, for to do otherwise violates the equal protection clause.
This all seems so blindingly obvious to me, I confess I find the whole gay
marriage debate rather confusing. What is there to debate?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
