It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Restaurant Bans Gay Couple Because ‘We Do Not Like Fags’

page: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

The 14th amendment is most certainly valid. I didn't say a marriage license was a right. I said it was a privilege of being a U.S. citizen. You cannot remove a privilege from a group of citizens who haven't broken any laws removing their privileges.



There is no privilege to marry within any of that.

It is differed to the States, because the Constitution does not have a statement about it.


Just because marriage licenses are deferred to the states doesn't mean that states can refuse to give them out to whomever they want. Interracial marriage licenses is a perfect example. States are no longer allowed to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, because it was ruled as discrimination. If a state tries to legalize discrimination, the Federal government can use the Constitution to stop it. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court does this regarding gay marriage, but they will probably wait for most of the states to correct themselves. It will be the few remaining hold outs in the South that will be forced to comply, just like what happened with interracial marriage.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Just because marriage licenses are deferred to the states doesn't mean that states can refuse to give them out to whomever they want.

Yes, yes it does. Unless you are either a revisionist or think that the Constitution is a living document.
It states very clearly that items addressed are left to the state to decide, so long as they don't violate items addressed within it. Items like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and so on.



originally posted by: kaylaluv
Interracial marriage licenses is a perfect example. States are no longer allowed to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, because it was ruled as discrimination. If a state tries to legalize discrimination, the Federal government can use the Constitution to stop it. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court does this regarding gay marriage, but they will probably wait for most of the states to correct themselves. It will be the few remaining hold outs in the South that will be forced to comply, just like what happened with interracial marriage.


Doing the right thing the wrong way is still wrong.
The Supreme Courts ruling goes against what is stated.
The States not allowing interracial marriage is/was wrong, but....it was the State's right to decide this, driven by the voters.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Unless you are either a revisionist or think that the Constitution is a living document.
It states very clearly that items addressed are left to the state to decide, so long as they don't violate items addressed within it. Items like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and so on.


Correct, like discriminating against a group by removing privileges afforded to other citizens.



Doing the right thing the wrong way is still wrong.
The Supreme Courts ruling goes against what is stated.
The States not allowing interracial marriage is/was wrong, but....it was the State's right to decide this, driven by the voters.


Nope, the states don't have a right to legalize discrimination against a group of law-abiding citizens.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv


Correct, like discriminating against a group by removing privileges afforded to other citizens.


Nope, the states don't have a right to legalize discrimination against a group of law-abiding citizens.


You have got to be kidding me.

There is no right being discriminated. There is no right to marry. It is not defined, stated or outlined in the Constitution, therefore it is left up to the States to define.
You used the word privilege, which it is. A privilege is just that, and is not guaranteed.

I think people need to actually read and understand the difference between a right and a privilege.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
You used the word privilege, which it is. A privilege is just that, and is not guaranteed.


But the 14th amendment states:



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
...
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


A state that makes or enforces a law that abridges the privilege of it's citizens (like making a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman - whose SOLE purpose is to abridge the privilege of marriage for gay people) is violating the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

as i'm sure many people have a problem with the "In Your Face" attitude of the Church or other Religions, or the "In Your Face attitude of everything.


the Parade issue, i'm going to assume you don't know much about gay Herstory, the reasons for pride Parades etc. so ignorance of such topics is expected, like i am ignorant of many Religion, and "Legalities" and "Laws" Etc

but if you are going to base your entire thought on Parades, as many do it's kind of sad

If you want to come to a Pride parade just to complain that is you on you, it's like me going to Mardi Gras and complaining i see females flashing their breast to everyone.

if you notice people only bring up the Sensationalized notions of the Pride Parades, they don't mention the other parts about it, its okay if you only believe what the Media Tells you, most people do.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Your alibi doesnt answer the question I asked.

1 - Providing a direct definition of a word is not an 'alibi'.
2 - You asked who gets to say what equal rights are. I gave the definition of the word. The definition of the word decides what equal means.
3 - I provided information of the United Nations declaration on APPLICATION of equal rights. I suggest you read it.

Just WHO said ''equal rights'' means gays can get married.?

I didn't say anything about gay people getting married. I asked you ..... should humans all have equal rights? I gave the definition of equal. Should humans have rights that are nondiscriminatory? Yes or no? Very simple.

You said that people should have to earn 'equal rights'. So you said 'no'. Earn by whose standards? Your religion that is based on fictional stories made up by a murdering thief? No thanks.


originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
congrats you just earned your 'bigot' badge.

Says the guy who refuses to say that all humans should have equal rights ... and who refuses to acknowledge equal rights for women ... and who has awful things to say about people who don't believe like him .... atheists for example.
edit on 6/3/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.



LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.

After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.

But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.



LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.

After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.

But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.



But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH...c'mon you know that they do not believe in that part of the constitution, that is just "liberal made up stuff"



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.



LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.

After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.

But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.



But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.


My mother was disabled. A polio victim in the '51/52 epidemic.

The Federal Disability Act was 1986. That's 34 years of discrimination, as a child, I personally witnessed against my mother, for something she had no control over.

Go tell someone else it doesn't matter.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.




The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And the Constitution does not grant privilege or right to marry. Therefore, the State deciding does not go against the Constitution with it.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.


There shouldn't be discrimination. But there is. People (employers, realtors, business owners), if left to their own devices, will discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. History has proven this.

What do we do about a utility (let's say, the electric company) that is run by a bigoted person who refuses to turn on the electricity for a black couple that's new in town? Do we tell the couple to move to another town where they MIGHT be able to get electricity?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.




The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.


It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
And the Constitution does not grant privilege or right to marry.


The Constitution does not "grant" rights or privileges at all. The rights and privileges are ours. The Constitution protects us from the government infringing on those rights and privileges.

The Bill of Rights does not read: "The people have the right to ... whatever." It says ""Congress shall make no law… abridging the rights of the people."

The rights are OURS. They are not "granted" by the Constitution.



Therefore, the State deciding does not go against the Constitution with it.


The 14th amendment disagrees with you.
edit on 6/3/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.


There shouldn't be discrimination. But there is. People (employers, realtors, business owners), if left to their own devices, will discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. History has proven this.




So all discrimination should be outlawed and nobody should have the freedom to choose?

Do you agree with affirmative action? United Negro College Fund? Racial preferences in federal contracts? Should those race based discrimination by the government be banned as well?

I disagree with the quoted point. You honestly believe that unless the government is holding a gun to people's head's in the 21st century that discrimination and bigotry will be widespread and that the only one pure enough to stop bigotry is the federal government?

And you leftists call gun owners paranoid and fearful...
edit on 3-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.



LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.

After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.

But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.



But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.


My mother was disabled. A polio victim in the '51/52 epidemic.

The Federal Disability Act was 1986. That's 34 years of discrimination, as a child, I personally witnessed against my mother, for something she had no control over.

Go tell someone else it doesn't matter.



One victim card coming right up!!! Shwing!!!


So because someone has difficulty walking they should have more rights than others who don't have the same issue? That they are a special class?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.




The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.


It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.


It doesn't have to specify?????

This truly is mind boggling.

So, how can a state restrict someone with poor eyesight from driving?
It isn't implied nor addressed in the Constitution, and according to you, doesn't need to be specifically addressed.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join