It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our fundamental rights shouldn't be regulated.
Either one. No one should have superior rights.
That is completely out of character for Moore.
Rights are not granted by a government; they are granted by God the Creator.
Got a link?
"The transgenders don't have rights," Moore said Wednesday [. . . ] "They've never been denominated as having rights by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Democrat Doug Jones) believes in transgender bathrooms and transgenders in the military. I disagree with him 100 percent," Moore said.
I see no problem with the decision.
Is having the same rights as others considered "superior rights?"
1. higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.:
a superior officer.
2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.:
superior math students.
3. of higher grade or quality:
4. greater in quantity or amount:
5. showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others:
6. not yielding or susceptible (usually followed by to):
to be superior to temptation.
7. higher in place or position:
We moved our camp to superior ground.
11. one superior to another.
12. Also called superscript. Printing. a superior letter, number, or symbol.
Compare inferior (def 11).
13. Ecclesiastical. the head of a monastery, convent, or the like.
Like, equal rights? Then who is someone like Moore to say transgender (or Muslims) shouldn't have the same rights, as given by god and recognized by the government?
That's him saying they don't have rights by virtue that the government hasn't granted them
I'm not sure he did.
that's him saying they don't have additional rights, due to their transgender status, by virtue that the government hasn't granted them.
In other words, they have equal, not superior rights
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Phage
That would violate privacy laws and with the inaccuracy of such tests it would unduly deny people their civil rights. But since there's no inaccuracy in determining whether a man and man or woman and woman can create a child, it's common sense to exclude them from marriage as it is in no way fundamental to our survival.
However, I would also accept that the government get out of the marriage business. Our fundamental rights shouldn't be regulated.
I know what it means, thanks.
I quoted his words.
That's him saying they don't have equal rights, because of their "transgender status" which has not been officially recognized by the SCOTUS. Couched discrimination.
No bolding necessary.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
There is no right to serve in the military
and there is no right to use a restroom designated for someone of the opposite gender.
Moore was being asked about endowing transgenders with these superior rights to others, and he refused.
All citizens have the same rights. That's in the Constitution.
No one should have any additional rights by virtue of their skin color, gender, sexual preference, or sexual identity. Period.
If you can't understand this, I can post the definition of 'equal' for you...