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.

 

BREAKING: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

olaru12

bbracken677


I find it odd how many supposed progressive thinkers are extremely intolerant with regards to people who think differently from them. Intolerant towards conservatives, intolerant when it comes to religion....






Oh please....

Iv'e been labeled, dismissed, insulted, and ignored as a "people like you" by the ATS conservative faction more times than I can count.
Intolerance isn't the private domain of progressives and you know it

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!
edit on 23-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


How can you even claim a shred of progressive thinking considering the intolerance you display? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and there is no denying it.

To advance your thoughts as you do denies and negates any credibility you could possibly claim.

"Intolerance isn't the private domain of progressives"?? umm...scuse me, but progressive thinking is supposed to be one of tolerance. Progressives love to point out the intolerance on the right, manufactured or otherwise.

A more correct statement would be "Intolerance is not the private domain of the Right, but flourishes on the Left as well"...as you well know.




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





This proposed Law would be one reason.


Um...but if the Civil Rights Act supersedes the Arizona law (which it does), why would there need to be anything else but taking it to court and getting it struck down? Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it seems like some kind of statement rather than a legit legislation meant to exist.

The protected classes are nothing more than the granting of additional rights to those classes. Right thinking wrong execution as far as the concept goes. There are already laws in place that protect us ALL. Either we are all equal, or we are not.

If you, as a business owner, run background checks on all potential employees regardless of race, sex, creed etc and deny employment to, say, a black man, the EEOC can, by their finding, (and have begun to) find discrimination due to the fact that such a large percentage of blacks have felony records. Even though you are applying background checks in a totally neutral and non-discriminatory fashion you can be found to be discriminatory if you deny employment to a black based on criminal history. But if you deny employment to an asian, or a white person...the finding is you are well within your rights.

This is govt sponsored and coerced discrimination. Period. This is why I find the concept of protected classes abhorrent.

BTW...this same finding is being applied towards the housing industry as well.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


The Civil Rights Act doesn't protect sexual orientation.

Now as far as the background checks... I'm not sure how to even begin to sort that mess. I can't logically disagree that it is discrimination to only do background checks on white people. Though it's muddy where disproportionate justice has been metered out, non whites have overwhelming not been treated equally by police, courts, juries and prison sentences. I think another solution needs to be found though.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


The Civil Rights Act doesn't protect sexual orientation.



The Civil Rights Act does indeed protect sexual orientation for one single fact. Those rights are granted to us all. I believe it expressly says that if not implied. The CRA was passed in the effort to protect and affirm black's rights, but it applies to all.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


If it did, DOMA wouldn't have stood so long. You are right on the face of the issue. For that matter the Constitution should have always applied to all citizens regardless of ANYTHING... but it didn't and still sadly doesn't.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


If it did, DOMA wouldn't have stood so long. You are right on the face of the issue. For that matter the Constitution should have always applied to all citizens regardless of ANYTHING... but it didn't and still sadly doesn't.


It does, even with the current Admin attempting to shove it into the toilet. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but grind they do.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


In practice it doesn't.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Jan Brewer Vetoed the Bill.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Thank goodness for small favors, eh?

I knew she would. I heard her say to reports that she had til Friday. I guess there was so much bad press for Arizona over this bill she vetoed it 2 days early!



edit on 26-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by Kali74
 


Thank goodness for small favors, eh?

I knew she would. I heard her say to reports that she had til Friday. I guess there was so much bad press for Arizona over this bill she vetoed it 2 days early!



edit on 26-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


Then again, maybe she just thought it was a bad idea anyway.

Never made it to the courts. I would have been interested in seeing how that would play out. Problem is, probably, it would have taken way way too long. This is a nice and tidy solution.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Kali74


What part declares that they can?


Wow, for someone who thinks she is a scholar, you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law.

Seriously???
edit on 1-3-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Kali74


If it did, DOMA wouldn't have stood so long. You are right on the face of the issue. For that matter the Constitution should have always applied to all citizens regardless of ANYTHING... but it didn't and still sadly doesn't.


What sections of the Constitution do not apply to everyone in regards to this case?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join