Comments on: Gay Rights Laws Limit Our Freedom

By: Chet Wyatt

Chet Wyatt — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:25:55 +0000

What a bunch of horse s**t you loser republicans spout.

You suck more than dick!

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:26:16 +0000

I don’t think these are actual gay people on here. I wanted to hear what gay conservatives think but,as usual, pushy straight conservatives can’t force themselves to shut up. Too bad, I thought there might be a place for me but it seems the religious and “patriotic” bullies have shoved their noses in again.

By: plutosdad

plutosdad — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:11:07 +0000

This is what I thought of when I saw eHarmony getting sued. The Psychologist that started that based his “patented algorithms” on his practice with hetero couples and it matches based (probably) on old fashioned ideas like women want men who are strong assertive provider types, etc. Of course that’s hard to translate to same sex couples and he even said “I don’t know how to match them”

eHarmony settled, but imagine if they lost? If they lost then every same sex dating site would be illegal, so too would be the jewish, over 30 and other dating sites, all be illegal if eHarmony had been sued and lost.

So now eHarmony will make a dating site for same sex couples, and it will probably suck. And so why is this good for anyone?

By: JazzyJ

JazzyJ — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:56:58 +0000

The writer indicates that the Constitution does not specifically protect from religious discrimination. The writer believes that as Christian business owners should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals, then homosexuals should have the right to discriminate against Christians, and that leaves us all more freedom.

That would be true; however, while the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from discrimination, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 do guarantee freedom from discrimination on the basis of some characteristics of humans – one of them being religion.

So while the Christian grocery store owner may refuse selling goods to homosexuals, the homosexual grocery store owner has no legal standing in refusing to sell goods to Christians. Once again, homosexuals stand on unequal ground.

Repeal the Civil Rights Acts, and I would be more inclined to agree with the writer.

By: JazzyJ

JazzyJ — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:04:28 +0000

I have to disagree with a portion of this commentary because it is not factual.

The writer explains that businesses should be allowed to ban gays from their businesses/employment just as gays could deny employment/business with Christians. That last part is false, and actually has very little to do with our Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (specifically Title II, Sec. 201) restricts businesses from discriminating on the basis of religion.

So while the Christians may be able to discriminate against homosexuals in business, homosexuals cannot legally discriminate against Christians in business.

While I am a Libertarian, I do not think a freedom to discriminate would be justified or workable unless the Civil Rights acts were also repealed to ensure that we all had this same freedom to discriminate.

By: Scottland

Scottland — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:16:01 +0000

The court is using the traditional power that is has, it’s judgement, and in it’s judgement it found, however minor, a grey area on the issue of legislative intent.
The constitution can be seen as a limited or unlimited document. Nothing in the clause expliticly says that the courts cannot pass judgement on laws created in the name of enacting the clause. I refer to Mr. Hamiltons comments above. Legislation works the same way. If the NJ legislature doesn’t want the courts to look at their decisions, they can strip them of jurisdiction.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:44:57 +0000

LOL.

Activist court modifies an activist ruling to achieve an activist end.

The problem is they had no business moving the date to begin with.

The constitution calls for the legislature, NOT the courts, to determine times, places and manner in which elections will be held.

Subsequently, there is legislation introduced into the NJ legistlature designed to explicitly prohibit the kind of behaviour that the democratic party legitimately(at the time) practised. To be honest, it kinda looks like the system, yâ€™know, working.

Thats because youre a hack for the Democrats who has no interest in the rule of law.

To anyone else, your own statement proves the system ISN’T working. The law made the filing deadlines perfectly clear, a fact that not even the Lautenberg case argued. And now, because the courts have exceeded their proper role, the legislature is forced to go back and REPEAT what the law made clear in the first place.

The only way that is “the system working” is that the legislative branch is acting as a check on activist courts that have usurped powers that dont belong to them.

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:29:29 +0000

A second example of Obama Party "creativity".

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:18:59 +0000

Ah, slight misunderstanding of the case in connection to A1677. Current cut off point is 48 days, in the kilmurray case it was 34 days, Lautenberg got on the ballot 35 days, so he was one day inside the bracket for the kilmurray case. Now, there’s legislation in the system which seeks to declares that you can’t file a vacancy later than 48 days before an election, something that previous election law did not specify. It makes a certain amount of sense to me. It’s a little creative, but it’s nothing particularly egregious.

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:12:25 +0000

Just looked at the NJ Supreme Court opinion for the Lautenberg case. They modify existing precedent by one day, and back it up with previous opinions. Sounds like judicial review to me, not cheating. It’s a decision that they know is open to interpretation, and they direct the legislature as to why this is allowed. Subsequently, there is legislation introduced into the NJ legistlature designed to explicitly prohibit the kind of behaviour that the democratic party legitimately(at the time) practised. To be honest, it kinda looks like the system, y’know, working.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:39:31 +0000

Scott,

Some examples, Al Franken getting courts to order the unequal treatment of ballots (in violation of Minnesota statute, federal law and the constitution), courts allowing Frank Lautenberg to take the place of Torricelli on the ballot long after the statute mandated filing deadline had passed and ballots were already being printed — simply because Democrats forced Torricelli to pull out because polls showed he was going to lose…

None of which has ANYTHING to do with congress or the next clause.

Its simply cheating. Which is what Democrats do.

By: Roberto

Roberto — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:38:54 +0000

President Obama has spoken; America is not a Christian nation. With those word he has obliterated our Judeo-Christian heritage whose values are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the Constitution. Certain Christian groups whose doctrine claims that homosexuality is a sin should have the right to not to hire a gay or lesbian and to fire said person because the gay lifestyle is incompatiible with their doctrine. By the same token a gay business should not have to be forced hire a Christian who is opposed to the lifestyle of the ownership and staff. The radical left wants to force its agenda down the throats of the opposition. It was the left who was so vocal about sex abuse in the RC Church. It wasnÂ´t concern for the victims as much as it was about diminishing the authority of the church; much the same as they did to usurp parental authority by turning teachers into gestapo agents having students inform on their parents so that the school authority replaces parental authority.

By: Roberto

Roberto — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:17:03 +0000

President Obama spoke, America is not a Christian nation, thus obliterating our Judeo-Christian heritage and values as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and implied in the Constitution. Obama having said that has open the door for every piece of radical left legislation that shoves their agenda down the throats of those who oppose them. Denominstions whose doctrine is opposed to homosexuality should not be forced to hire or be prohibited from firing a gay employee. Liberls want it both ways. They were the most vocal in the denouncing sexual abuse by RC clergy. The object was to destroy the authority of the Catholic Church, just as they destroyed parental authority by making teachers gestapo agents to have students inform on their parents. Thus, the school replaced the parents as the churches become subject to the government.

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:04:18 +0000

But of course. And as I said earlier, government intrusion into the private and economic is very much based on the commerce clause. It has served as a profoundly effective route to national power, and it has been interpreted extremely broadly by the courts. If an organization uses products from more than one state, such as a restaurant buying toothpicks from another state, then the federal government has the power to regulate the behaviour of that organization, including the processes by which is hires staff and serves consumers. I mean, that is my understanding of elements of the constitution, and I appreciate that some clauses are treated as more important than others. What clauses would you stake opposition to such government activities on?

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:58:35 +0000

Elections are public and political. What we seek to limit is government intrusion into regions that are private and economic. Do try and keep up.

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:58:05 +0000

from Federalist 78: ‘If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution…The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.’

By: James Sherman

James Sherman — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:58:31 +0000

Now you want to regulate a companies’ ablity to fire whomever they want?
One man’s regulation is another man’s injustice.

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:27:53 +0000

And, as an additional question, if the state legislature has passed election laws that, for instance, have the practical affect of limiting certain communities ability to vote, due to unequal distribution of polling sites, can’t any concerned individual go to court and challenge those laws under the 14th ammendment? What’s so egregious about bringing the courts in?

By: Scottland

Scottland — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:11:28 +0000

AE, thankyou for that very broad answer that didn’t provide any examples or take into account the very next line of the clause:
but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Are you saying that every time democrats (or republicans) challenge an election, there has been no legislative action that has allowed recourse for those particular processes?

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:08:19 +0000

Oh yes, because blacks in the South were doing just fine before the civil rights laws were passed.

What are you talking about, TP?