• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rand Paul Making New Friends

RJKarl said:
Marriage vs. civil unions is simply a version of separate but equal.

There are two over two dozen states where you can be fired or denied a place to live just for being gay.

Let's say you believe being gay is a choice. There's no question a person's faith is a choice. If a Christian employer finds out you chose to be gay, he can fire you in those states. But if he discovered were a Satanist or Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jew, he could couldn't fire you for that choice.
Click to expand...

I agree it is separate but equal, with the emphasis on equal. The SCOTUS has said, with respect to race, separate is never equal, but that same conclusion doesn't apply outside the context of race. If it did, we couldn't have separate men's and women's bathrooms, which, outside of Houston, we do.

As for employment, employers can fire employees for all sorts of choices that have nothing to do with work. And Title VII isn't as obviously inapplicable to homosexuals as you are making it out to be. Gender (as well as sex) is a protected class, and some courts have essentially interpreted that to de facto protect homosexuals.
 
If marriage is a sacred institution beholden to religious rules, the government should have nothing to do with marriage.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
If marriage is a sacred institution beholden to religious rules, the government should have nothing to do with marriage.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. States have always restricted marriage based on age and consanguinity. And for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I agree it is separate but equal, with the emphasis on equal. The SCOTUS has said, with respect to race, separate is never equal, but that same conclusion doesn't apply outside the context of race. If it did, we couldn't have separate men's and women's bathrooms, which, outside of Houston, we do.

As for employment, employers can fire employees for all sorts of choices that have nothing to do with work. And Title VII isn't as obviously inapplicable to homosexuals as you are making it out to be. Gender (as well as sex) is a protected class, and some courts have essentially interpreted that to de facto protect homosexuals.
Click to expand...

http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them

Why should one's choice of religion be protected, but one's choice of whom they love?
 
Junebug said:
Not gonna happen. States have always restricted marriage based on age and consanguinity. And for good reason.
Click to expand...
The state and federal governments should never be beholden to religion, broadly or specificly. The regulations you've just mentioned are not religious whims, as same sex restrictions are.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them

Why should one's choice of religion be protected, but one's choice of whom they love?
Click to expand...

You quoted my post, so I assumed you read it, but your chart reveals otherwise. That chart reflects state law, not federal law. As I said, some federal courts hold that homosexuality is de facto a protected class under Title VII.

Religion has always enjoyed a favored place in this country. Read the first amendment. The prohibition on religious discrimination has nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

I think employers should be permitted to discriminate against employees who engage in activity the employer thinks is immoral. This is not a Jim Crow situation where the class being discriminated against has massive barriers to entry into the market. Banks don't care (and likely don't even know) if a loan applicant is gay.

ETA--I also think landlords should be permitted to discriminate against homosexual tenants for similar associational reasons. I own a rental that is exempt from the FHA, and I have rented to homosexuals and homosexual couples, but I think landlords who are not exempt should have the right not to rent to homosexuals if that is how they want to handle their affairs.
 
Last edited:
Someone against the Civil Rights Act in 2010 was willingly on the wrong side of history and aggressively against rights for black Americans. You don't need legislative experience to realize that.
 
PhDeac said:
Someone against the Civil Rights Act in 2010 was willingly on the wrong side of history and aggressively against rights for black Americans. You don't need legislative experience to realize that.
Click to expand...

I'm not steeped in Paul's thought, but being opposed to the CRA doesn't mean you are against black rights. The theory is that the market will correct itself.
 
And in a market that hasn't corrected, that is against. If it's raining and you refuse to wear a raincoat, you're against protecting yourself from the rain even if you believe the weather will correct itself.
 
PhDeac said:
And in a market that hasn't corrected, that is against. If it's raining and you refuse to wear a raincoat, you're against protecting yourself from the rain even if you believe the weather will correct itself.
Click to expand...

Being opposed to it now is very different from being against it in 1964.
 
Junebug said:
Being opposed to it now is very different from being against it in 1964.
Click to expand...

Yet you asked the question about Obama and gay marriage. hmmmm

I guess that's only allowed by people you like, on issues you support.
 
I can't believe you don't understand ONW's premise without having to shown it.
 
Junebug said:
Walk me through why you think this is the case. I can't imagine how anyone could think this.
Click to expand...

First of all, go back and read Paul's comments. He isn't against it based on how things are now. He believes or at least believed a few years ago that the Civil Rights Act was government involvement in property rights.

Second,
Junebug said:
Racism in the areas addressed by the CRA is much less pervasive today than it was in 1964.
Click to expand...

It is working. Why mess with effective legislation?

Being against the Civil Rights Act in 2010 is akin to being against Brown v. Board in 2000. It's a horrible outdated and indefensible position.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The state and federal governments should never be beholden to religion, broadly or specificly. The regulations you've just mentioned are not religious whims, as same sex restrictions are.
Click to expand...

I would expand that to include secular religions, including political correctness.
 
PhDeac said:
Someone against the Civil Rights Act in 2010 was willingly on the wrong side of history and aggressively against rights for black Americans. You don't need legislative experience to realize that.
Click to expand...

Would anyone like to address Ran Paul's points?
 
Paul makes a naive point that ignores all the ways in which Republican politicians and the rank and file antagonize and marginalize black people and our concerns.

It's great that he's trying to court black voters. That's long overdue. But Paul's biggest enemy will be fellow Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top