Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Protects Abortion, 'Looks Other Way' on 2A
(www.breitbart.com)
🔥 FIRE & FURY 💥
Comments (339)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
These policies do not respect individual rights. It establishes policy in which individual property rights and freedom of speech are subordinate to collective rights.
It is not illegal to dislike gay people or to dislike a race of people. Then why is it illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act? This is a criminalization of thought, similar to hate crime law.
It's the same premise that forces someone to "bake the gay cake". Because it establishes, that in fact, it is legal to deny service, but not deny service while having "bad thoughts."
"Protected classes" (collective rights) are an poison to a society founded on and purporting to defend individual rights.
I don't follow. It's not illegal to dislike someone, and it's also not illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act. You can still have ideas and it certainly isn't criminalizing thought.
The case we are talking about revolves around employment not an artistic form of speech. One is a sex discrimination case and the other is a free speech case.
I don't really mind protected classes. I think if we added a few more we'd all be happy with it 99% of the time.
I'm not really sure what you're worried about. Can you give me a single example?
A person can fire anyone. But if they THINK negative things about that person relating to their "class", then it is illegal. A person can assault anyone. But if they THINK negative things about that person relating to their "class", then it is a hate crime. This is criminalizing thought. The government decides what counts as bigotry, then punishes those thoughts.
What classes are missing? Age, race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, pregnancy, and veteran status are all included. The presence of these classes has not reduced bigotry, as it is supposed to do. It has not reduced "inequalities" as it is supposed to do. And it has not provided equal protection, as whites, asians, christians, and men are still openly and legally discriminated against.
So what do these categories do? They violate the rights of the individual for the benefit of politically favorable groups. They advance collectivism as a moral good. It advances the philosophy that people who are not harmed by an act are no less entitled to reparations by simple fact of their class. That people who belong to the offending class deserve group class punishment.
This collectivist "good" is the basis for affirmative action. It's the basis for excluding certain classes from government programs, benefits, grants, and hiring. It's the basis for every law and policy that proudly declares discrimination is good...if directed at the right people.
No it's not. You can hate veterans. You can fire a veteran while still hating that veteran if you catch the veteran stealing your shit on the job and that is 100% legal. What is illegal, however, is firing someone solely because of that status.
i.e. You can't, and imo shouldn't, be able to fire a veteran simply because they are a vet.
If you say they are legally discriminated against, this is wrong. No protected classes are legally allowed to be discriminated against. It sounds like you're upset about the application / enforcement of the law.
You missed the other sentence there. If you think "Boy, I hate verterans." that is legal and protected under the first amendment. If you think "Boy, I hate veterans" while you fire them from a job, then it is illegal. The thought is what makes it illegal. Hate crime laws just made a legal, constitutionally protected thought illegal.
Not only that, but the government decided what thoughts to make illegal. They have no right to do so. And they are not trustworthy enough (no one is) to make that decision.
And let's stop for a second and think of victims of crime. Two people can both be assaulted, but only one gets "extra" justice because certain words (thoughts) were said to them? Clearly this is not equal protection under the law.
Yes, the application is bad. Because the underlying foundation is bad. Group rights have no place in a society which values individual rights. Can you justifiably punish a group? No, that will punish people who have done no wrong. Can you justifiably reward a group? No, that will reward people who have done no good.
What point is there is having laws that are not applied equally, do not solve the problems they aim to fix, and violate constitutional rights?