musings on discrimination and the constitution

[NotNow]

What is clear to me at least is that our laws are conflicted when it comes to this issue and others.  As was already pointed out, we do have laws that protect some in society based upon their race/color and gender when it comes to protecting the rights of women.  In this case the issue is protecting those who are GLBT from some of the same prejudice that the laws based on color were created for.  I think what is so frustrating and really what underlies the injustice with a situation like this is the understanding that we as a society have failed to reach the point where we accept people for who they are.  The fact that some people are unable to do that is what led to laws that attempted to correct societies moral compass and as such the civil rights of others. We are not there yet and have much growing to do.

While I get why this couple took the issue of being turned down by a photographer because of their sexual orientation to court on one hand, that being "the principal of the thing and rights", on the other I wonder if the better course of action is for folks to make a statement by "not patronizing" businesses that do not adhere to our personal code of ethics.  I think changing how society responds via public outcry and support or non support of businesses may be the way to achieve real change at a level that matters.  Personally, I would never want to do business with any one who did not respect me.   

It is a confusing subject to most of us.  GLBT?  There are so many uncertanties.  Very few of us care about whether a person is "gay" or not.  The concerns revolve around what society will be "forced" to accept.  California's Governor recently proved that by his decree that no child (that's 18 & under) could be denied the use of any restroom, dressing room, or sports team because of their sexual identification.  (I probably misstated that somehow).  Most of society sees that as the disaster that it is.  Most don't care if a guy wants to dress like a woman.  But most don't wan to be forced to hire him or let him represent their business.  Or let him use the ladies room if he desires to do so.

This subject requires much, much more thought.

[NotNow]

It is a confusing subject to most of us.  GLBT?  There are so many uncertanties.  Very few of us care about whether a person is "gay" or not.  The concerns revolve around what society will be "forced" to accept.  California's Governor recently proved that by his decree that no child (that's 18 & under) could be denied the use of any restroom, dressing room, or sports team because of their sexual identification.  (I probably misstated that somehow).  Most of society sees that as the disaster that it is. ....

Is it a disaster? 

Lets start off on a new foot here.

What is the disaster part of this?

I explained further in the same post.  Also, there are other groups who also want the same legal "protections".  On what basis do we grant, or not grant such protections?

[NotNow]

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

One of the true landmark cases in Supreme Court history, the Bakke decision found a way to uphold some parts of affirmative action while rejecting other parts. Allan Bakke, a white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times, despite having the required academic achievements, while minority applicants were given preference.

The court decided the University of California had to admit Bakke, arguing the rigid use of racial quotas at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But the court also found that race as part of admissions decisions was constitutional, as long as it was one of several admission criteria.

[NotNow]

No, you just restated the situation of a person using the bathroom they wish.  What is the 'disaster' part>

Most parents will not allow their children to be subjected to mixed sex bathrooms and/or dressing rooms.  I would not. 

Most businesses, as well as a majority of citizens, will find it unacceptable that mixed sex bathrooms be instituted.  While I am sympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish, the fact is that a man in a dress is still a man.

[NotNow]

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court said that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment didn't prohibit the University of Michigan's Law School from using race in admissions decisions. The court said that the law school's detailed review of each applicant ensured that all factors were considered along with race and that the program didn't harm non-minority applicants.

[NotNow]

Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

The court rules in a 7-1 vote against a lower court's decision about the University of Texas' affirmative action policy. With Justice Elena Kagan recused, the court sent the case back to a federal appeals court for review. The Obama administration had argued in favor of the University of Texas' system. By sending the case of Fisher v. University of Texas back to a lower court, the Supreme Court didn't make a sweeping ruling on the constitutionality of affirmative action.

[NotNow]

What this proves is that the USSC is swinging both ways, so to speak. 

[NotNow]

The court is allowing institutionalized racial discrimination based on race.    Who is penalized here?   Protected classes?  Ask anyone who works in a large comapany office. 

[NotNow]

No, you just restated the situation of a person using the bathroom they wish.  What is the 'disaster' part>

Most parents will not allow their children to be subjected to mixed sex bathrooms and/or dressing rooms.  I would not. 

Most businesses, as well as a majority of citizens, will find it unacceptable that mixed sex bathrooms be instituted.  While I am sympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish, the fact is that a man in a dress is still a man.

Children use mixed sex bathrooms at home usually.  And not having to provide totally separate bathrooms with handicapped accessibility will be a blessing to most businesses.

I don't think the law allows for full grown men in dresses to be in the bathrooms at elementary schools.  Did I miss that part?

Yes, brothers and sisters often use the same restroom at home, although not at the same time in my experience.  School restrooms and dressing rooms?  Used en mass.   There is a big difference.  And what would stop "Mr. Doe", the third grade teacher that chooses to be called Jane and dresses as Jane, from going in the girls restroom?

[NotNow]

It is a laughable situation, and one that is unacceptable to most citizens in this country.  It would certainly be the death knell for publicly funded education. 

[fsquid]

this thread took a detour.

[NotNow]

Give it time.  California is a continuing experiment.

[Cheshire Cat]

What is clear to me at least is that our laws are conflicted when it comes to this issue and others.  As was already pointed out, we do have laws that protect some in society based upon their race/color and gender when it comes to protecting the rights of women.  In this case the issue is protecting those who are GLBT from some of the same prejudice that the laws based on color were created for.  I think what is so frustrating and really what underlies the injustice with a situation like this is the understanding that we as a society have failed to reach the point where we accept people for who they are.  The fact that some people are unable to do that is what led to laws that attempted to correct societies moral compass and as such the civil rights of others. We are not there yet and have much growing to do.

While I get why this couple took the issue of being turned down by a photographer because of their sexual orientation to court on one hand, that being "the principal of the thing and rights", on the other I wonder if the better course of action is for folks to make a statement by "not patronizing" businesses that do not adhere to our personal code of ethics.  I think changing how society responds via public outcry and support or non support of businesses may be the way to achieve real change at a level that matters.  Personally, I would never want to do business with any one who did not respect me.   

It is a confusing subject to most of us.  GLBT?  There are so many uncertanties.  Very few of us care about whether a person is "gay" or not.  The concerns revolve around what society will be "forced" to accept.  California's Governor recently proved that by his decree that no child (that's 18 & under) could be denied the use of any restroom, dressing room, or sports team because of their sexual identification.  (I probably misstated that somehow).  Most of society sees that as the disaster that it is.  Most don't care if a guy wants to dress like a woman.  But most don't wan to be forced to hire him or let him represent their business.  Or let him use the ladies room if he desires to do so.

This subject requires much, much more thought.

What is so confusing Not Now?  I don't mean this with snark.  I would really like to know why this issue is so difficult for some to wrap their heads around. 

[carpnter]

Your list is a little out of date Stephen, FL, NM, OH, CO, and VA were blue in the 2012 election (and probably the 2008 one but I didn't check that electoral map).

I am also offended that my Thread Derailed pic did not make it onto this thread. 

[Cheshire Cat]

I demand to see the derailed pic.  I feel like I missed something.  lol