Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    No-one "got around" the Constitution. What a pathetic argument.

    The Civil Rights Act was "An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes." To give it its full title.
    Tass when it came to private business and the CRA, did the Congress use the Fourteenth Amendment or Commerce Clause? And where in the Commerce Clause does it speak to discrimination? And BTW - there are no protections in the CRA for homosexuals, the protected classes are clearly laid out and they are not included.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Tass when it came to private business and the CRA, did the Congress use the Fourteenth Amendment or Commerce Clause? And where in the Commerce Clause does it speak to discrimination?
      Private businesses come under the heading of Public Accommodations. “Public accommodations, in US law, are defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments..." etc.

      It used both clauses to achieve this end.

      And BTW - there are no protections in the CRA for homosexuals, the protected classes are clearly laid out and they are not included.
      The Civil Rights Act provides for the protection of ALL citizens against discrimination. Or do you think it means, when it refers to providing “injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations” that it means “except for homosexuals”?
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Private businesses come under the heading of Public Accommodations. “Public accommodations, in US law, are defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments..." etc.
        I will ask again Tass, when it came to private business did the Congress use the Fourteenth Amendment or Commerce Clause? Please, a direct answer, for once.

        The Civil Rights Act provides for the protection of ALL citizens against discrimination. Or do you think it means, when it refers to providing “injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations” that it means “except for homosexuals”?
        Well no it doesn't, it is limited to specific classes: race, color, sex, religion or national origin. You are perfectly free to discriminate on other criterion. You do get to make up your own interpretation Tass... And you agreed on the Civics Board that it is OK to discriminate against Christians in that Billboard case.
        Last edited by seer; 08-09-2018, 07:04 AM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I will ask again Tass, when it came to private business did the Congress use the Fourteenth Amendment or Commerce Clause? Please, a direct answer, for once.
          I repeat: “It used both clauses to achieve this end.” Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. Cited Wiki.

          Well no it doesn't, it is limited to specific classes: race, color, sex, religion or national origin. You are perfectly free to discriminate on other criterion. You do get to make up your own interpretation Tass...
          Homosexuality is not concerned with sex? Really!

          The Supreme Court has made several rulings grounded in the Civil Rights Act that precluding legal protection of homosexual rights is unconstitutional.

          And you agreed on the Civics Board that it is OK to discriminate against Christians in that Billboard case.
          I don’t think it is OK to discriminate against any citizen who is acting legally
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            I repeat: “It used both clauses to achieve this end.” Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. Cited Wiki.
            Tass, we are speaking of private business. The rest of the CRA does fall under the Fourteenth Amendment (as it applied to state-actors), but they could not and did not apply that to private business since the Supreme Court already shot that idea down. Which means there is no inherent Constitutional right not to be discriminated against.


            Homosexuality is not concerned with sex? Really!
            Are you an idiot? The CRA is not speaking of the act of sex, but gender, explicitly male and female.

            The Supreme Court has made several rulings grounded in the Civil Rights Act that precluding legal protection of homosexual rights is unconstitutional.
            Again, that had to do with state actors, not whether a private business could or could not discriminate. And they did not use the CRA in their reasoning because it does not apply.

            I don’t think it is OK to discriminate against any citizen who is acting legally

            That is not what you suggested on the Civics board, you just dismissed it there.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Tass, we are speaking of private business. The rest of the CRA does fall under the Fourteenth Amendment (as it applied to state-actors), but they could not and did not apply that to private business since the Supreme Court already shot that idea down. Which means there is no inherent Constitutional right not to be discriminated against.
              You are wrong:

              Romer v. Evans (1996) In this case, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which sought to preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional.

              Lawrence v. Texas (2003) The Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional.

              Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws.

              Are you an idiot? The CRA is not speaking of the act of sex, but gender, explicitly male and female.
              Incorrect! See above.

              Again, that had to do with state actors, not whether a private business could or could not discriminate. And they did not use the CRA in their reasoning because it does not apply.
              Yes it does.

              That is not what you suggested on the Civics board, you just dismissed it there.
              Different thread, different argument.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                You are wrong:

                Romer v. Evans (1996) In this case, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which sought to preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional.

                Lawrence v. Texas (2003) The Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional.

                Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws.
                Tass, try and stay on topic, all these have to do with state actors what the state can not or can do. We are speaking of private business and the fact that the congress did not use the Fourteenth Amendment concerning private business, but the Commence clause. So when it comes to discrimination by private business there is no inherent Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. Perhaps you can quote the article in the Constitution that does so.


                Different thread, different argument.
                Of just as likely you are inconsistent.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Tass, try and stay on topic, all these have to do with state actors what the state can not or can do. We are speaking of private business and the fact that the congress did not use the Fourteenth Amendment concerning private business, but the Commence clause. So when it comes to discrimination by private business there is no inherent Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. Perhaps you can quote the article in the Constitution that does so.
                  The Supreme Court of the US doesn't interpret the Civil Rights Act that way, as I've demonstrated with some of its rulings. It makes very clear that any attempt to "preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional." Romer v. Evans (1996)
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    The Supreme Court of the US doesn't interpret the Civil Rights Act that way, as I've demonstrated with some of its rulings. It makes very clear that any attempt to "preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional." Romer v. Evans (1996)
                    Tass, are you rally this dense? Romer v. Evans has to do with what a STATE can or can not do. This has nothing to do with private business, which we were actually discussing. Again, you were wrong when you suggested the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied to private business, it can't - it only applies to the STATE. Again there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents private businesses from discriminating, yet there is the Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
                    Last edited by seer; 08-13-2018, 06:57 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Tass, are you rally this dense? Romer v. Evans has to do with what a STATE can or can not do. This has nothing to do with private business, which we were actually discussing. Again, you were wrong when you suggested the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied to private business, it can't - it only applies to the STATE. Again there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents private businesses from discriminating, yet there is the Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
                      The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection under the Law, including in Public Accommodations. It is grounded in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment’s and it remains the law of the land.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection under the Law, including in Public Accommodations. It is grounded in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment’s and it remains the law of the land.
                        No it is NOT, Terraceth made this clear to you as have I. The Fourteenth Amendment has NOTHING to do with Public Accommodations. You don't get to just make up your own meaning here. And since they had to use a Commerce clause (interstate commerce) the Public Accommodations part would not even apply to a restaurant or a hotel that did not accept out of state travelers as Terraceth also made clear to you.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The Civil Rights Act guarantees all citizens equal protection under the Law, including in Public Accommodations. It is grounded in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment’s and it remains the law of the land.
                          You should actually go and study the CRA. You consistently get parts or all of it wrong. Then when corrected, you simply repeat yourself like a broken record.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            No it is NOT, Terraceth made this clear to you as have I. The Fourteenth Amendment has NOTHING to do with Public Accommodations. You don't get to just make up your own meaning here. And since they had to use a Commerce clause (interstate commerce) the Public Accommodations part would not even apply to a restaurant or a hotel that did not accept out of state travelers as Terraceth also made clear to you.
                            I didn’t say the Fourteenth Amendment did have something to do with Public Accommodations. I said that the Civil Rights Act does. It was legislated by Congress under several different parts of the Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              I didn’t say the Fourteenth Amendment did have something to do with Public Accommodations. I said that the Civil Rights Act does. It was legislated by Congress under several different parts of the Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
                              When I said: Tass I already proved that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private business, the Supreme Court long ago shot that idea down.

                              You said: Nonsense! From your own link: “In short, these rulings meant that owners of places of public accommo¬dation could no longer discriminate with impunity. They could no longer shield themselves with the state-actor requirement in the Fourteenth Amend¬ment. And they could no longer perpet¬uate the slowly dying Jim Crow, even through private (not state-sanctioned) discrimination. Post 382

                              So you quoted from the link that we were using, like Shuny, thinking it supported you when it was just the opposite. And the CRA does not guarantee all citizens rights in public accommodations, since it only applies to interstate travelers under the Commerce clause.
                              Last edited by seer; 08-15-2018, 06:51 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                When I said: Tass I already proved that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private business, the Supreme Court long ago shot that idea down.

                                You said: Nonsense! From your own link: “In short, these rulings meant that owners of places of public accommo¬dation could no longer discriminate with impunity. They could no longer shield themselves with the state-actor requirement in the Fourteenth Amend¬ment. And they could no longer perpet¬uate the slowly dying Jim Crow, even through private (not state-sanctioned) discrimination. Post 382

                                So you quoted from the link that we were using, like Shuny, thinking it supported you when it was just the opposite. And the CRA does not guarantee all citizens rights in public accommodations, since it only applies to interstate travelers under the Commerce clause.
                                Again, I didn’t say the Fourteenth Amendment was directly connected with Public Accommodations. I said that the Civil Rights Act was and it was legislated by Congress under several different parts of the Constitution...including the Commerce Cause. The whole point of public-accommodations laws are to further the goals of several provisions of the Constitution including the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                427 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,510 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X