By Beavis’ same logic, we should also oppose Loving too.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:09 pmWhat an odd response...bmw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:29 pmFine. But once again, just don't call yourself a Constitutional Conservative. It is not the role of the judicial branch of government to re-write the law. That is the role of the legislative branch. And if the legislative branch isn't doing what you want it to do, that is what we have elections for.
How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?
Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 7333
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
Then lobby the legislature to correct the law as is in their purview. Brian hit the nail on the head with his dissent.
Remember Matt, Judicial activism can swing both ways. No pun intended.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
Being as the 14th amendment, along with the Equal Protection Clause contained within, was written specifically to protect the rights of Black citizens, the ruling in Loving was absolutely correct.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:38 pm
By Beavis’ same logic, we should also oppose Loving too.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
If it's a law, it should come from the legislative branch.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
My point was already made clear. Are you suggesting I'm scared to challenge MW?
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
- audiophile
- Posts: 9236
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
Great discussion!
And he did eventually come around...at that is a good thing!
I stood on principal even when I stood alone, at first.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
In case you haven’t paid attention in class… this is how most high court decisions of note are decided. The impartiality thing is bullshit.bmw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:29 am You both need to knock off the bigotry towards religion. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, as is audiophile. Has he ever once attacked either of you once (let alone repeatedly) for your religious (non) beliefs?
As to the court decision, the dissent sums up my view perfectly.
Yay for judicial activism."... this court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be," Zahra wrote. "But this is exactly what a majority of this court has done here."
The Legislature explicitly chose not to include sexual orientation in the 1976 law, Zahra wrote, and the reference to "sex" in the law refers only to whether an individual is a biological male or biological female.
"No person familiar with the common usage of the English language in 1976 would have understood the ordinary meaning of 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,'" wrote Zahra, who argued the two terms are "distinct concepts."
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.