EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1343
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
And since US already recognize corporations as a person and grants them protection of 14th amendment (as evidenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Corporate_personhood_in_the_United_States ) i can easily see same reasoning being used to slam on some energy policies. All whats needed is general public support for such an action. Legal bounderies have already been crossed. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
http://washingtonexaminer.com/emission-free-nuclear-industry-blasts-epa-plan/article/2554318 http://atomicinsights.com/foes-manipulative-legal-strategy-closing-nuclear-reactors/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/09/29/closing-vermont-nuclear-bad-business-for-everyone/ | ||
|
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 13 2014 22:15 KwarK wrote: That is not the meaning of the word that people use when talking about homosexuals having unequal rights. You are literally not talking about the same thing as the rest of us, seriously. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, they're a protected group. Nuclear power plants are not a protected group. Actually, when it comes to federal law, homosexuals are not a protected group, which is why all of these courts have been contorting to overcome the hurdle of rational basis scrutiny when striking down anti-gay marriage laws. In other words, homosexuals really aren't protected more than nuclear power plants under federal law. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 13 2014 22:26 oneofthem wrote: should change that 'are' to 'were' since le precedents law is ever changing. Whether a group is "protected" is a question of statute, not case law and precedent. Until Congress plugs in sexual orientation as one of the protected classes in Title VII (and related statutes), homosexuals won't be "protected" at a federal level. But yes, when you're talking about these court decisions striking down anti-gay marriage laws, the legal reasoning is a bit wanting, which is why it would appear at first glance that homosexuals are now "protected." EDIT: Just to underscore this point, I went back and reviewed the Windsor decision and some of it progeny. It's a mess of a decision and lower courts aren't even in agreement regarding what the actual reasoning was. The only thing that's clear is the result. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
I just assumed you'd have one because that's like a fundamental right that I assumed every first world country had, right there with the one that makes it illegal to refuse to hire blacks. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 13 2014 23:01 KwarK wrote: Wait, you guys really don't have a law protecting homosexuals from discrimination in stuff like housing, employment, services etc? I just assumed you'd have one because that's like a fundamental right that I assumed every first world country had, right there with the one that makes it illegal to refuse to hire blacks. Correct, we don't have a federal law protecting homosexuals. Many of the states have enacted their own, but in many cases, the analog state anti-discrimination statutes don't have the same teeth as the federal statutes. In other cases, the state statutes are far more punitive. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 13 2014 22:30 xDaunt wrote: Whether a group is "protected" is a question of statute, not case law and precedent. Until Congress plugs in sexual orientation as one of the protected classes in Title VII (and related statutes), homosexuals won't be "protected" at a federal level. But yes, when you're talking about these court decisions striking down anti-gay marriage laws, the legal reasoning is a bit wanting, which is why it would appear at first glance that homosexuals are now "protected." EDIT: Just to underscore this point, I went back and reviewed the Windsor decision and some of it progeny. It's a mess of a decision and lower courts aren't even in agreement regarding what the actual reasoning was. The only thing that's clear is the result. well it is only a matter of time before equal protection clause is read as full equality for homosexual couples. time is already ripe for the court to take up this turning point but alas | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 14 2014 05:31 oneofthem wrote: well it is only a matter of time before equal protection clause is read as full equality for homosexual couples. time is already ripe for the court to take up this turning point but alas This is true. The Windsor Court probably took us half way there, which is why you see other courts interpreting that decision to mean that intermediate scrutiny should be used in these cases as opposed to rational basis scrutiny. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 14 2014 05:44 farvacola wrote: It isn't exactly much of a leap to go from gender or sex to gender, sex, or sexual orientation when establishing a basis for intermediate scrutiny Well intermediate scrutiny is kind of a horseshit level of scrutiny anyway when you look at its history. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 14 2014 00:13 KwarK wrote: Yours is a very strange country. Well, yes. But on this, it's not surprising. The law has been changing at a pretty fast clip for the last two decades, even though the US system (intentionally) makes it harder to change the law than other first world countries. Incidentally, it would be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals if homosexuality was still defined as a disability, since the ADA would cover it. As a final point "no federal law" is misleading. US law works differently than the UK. It was possible to get gay married in the US in 2004. Massachusetts was the 6th jurisdiction in the world to pass such a law (and the only one outside the low countries and Canada). That's before any major European country, and a decade before anyone in the UK. And that is the US system. Experiments in some states, then moving slowly toward universal acceptance, with the final call usually made by the courts. Discrimination is the same way, already illegal in many states, and on its way to being fully illegal. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 14 2014 05:58 xDaunt wrote: Well intermediate scrutiny is kind of a horseshit level of scrutiny anyway when you look at its history. Yeah, it definitely has that smell to it, but because it's moving in a direction I know that I like far more than you do, I've no doubt that I can tolerate its inadequately hedged nature a bit more. I think both sexual orientation and gender ought to justify strict scrutiny in judicial statutory review to be frank. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 14 2014 06:58 Atreides wrote: As someone who actually lives in Alaska where the verdict in question was handed down against, its not like you could discriminate against homosexuals in the way you are talking anyways. Jobs, housing, etc. I spent quite a bit of time last couple weeks screening rental applicants because my parents went on a cruise while having adds out etc for their apartment and that is definitely on the no-no list of things to turn people down for. People drag this topic so far off track all the time. The Alaska legislature had just passed a statute legally defining marriage. It's not like it legalized discriminating against gays. Of course it is "legally defining marriage" because if it was called "legally discriminating against gays" that wouldn't fly. They're not taking rights away from gays, they're just protecting marriage! They're not taking privacy rights away from citizens, they're just providing more safety! They're not trying to keep the races separated, they're just offering sweet bonus schools/restrooms/drinking fountains! If you've got a terrible idea that you really can't defend you frame it as not attacking the people, but being pro or defending something else. | ||
| ||
