|
Post by erictheblue on May 2, 2009 17:32:49 GMT -5
The EO in question has the same weight as law, acts as law, and is for all intents and purposes the same thing as law. No, it isn't. EOs only cover the Executive Branch. (My work involves several EOs, and it gets interesting when we have to work with employees of the Legislative or Judicial Branches as they do not have to follow the same rules we do.) Besides, the EO specifically says it only covers employees of the Executive Branch.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on May 2, 2009 17:40:17 GMT -5
Texas had these laws because Texans hate gays. The thing is I cant think of any group besides the GOP *and we all know their stance on homosexuals* that has influence over half the population here, it seems like with that kind of power if they wanted something as simple as repealing a law against arresting gays for existing it would be done. Its almost like they didnt do a goddamn thing about the law and anyone claiming they fight for or even support gay rights is completely full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 2, 2009 17:50:17 GMT -5
FYI - "homosexuality" isn't listed under the "protected" classes in federal employment discrimination law. Wrong.Granted, it only applies to Federal employees, but it's a start, a precedent, and a Federal law against discrimination regarding sexuality, homo- and hetero- alike. Yet homosexuals aren't a "suspect class", or at least they haven't been recognized as such by the Supreme Court. A "suspect class" includes race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion and in cases dealing with laws which target those groups, the government usually loses. In fact, sexual orientation doesn't even make a quasi-suspect class which includes sex. So even if there is a law that discriminates against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, and the Constitutionality of that law comes into question, it is likely that the law will be upheld based on those standards.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on May 2, 2009 18:55:31 GMT -5
Who gives a flip what Mormonism -- or any other religion -- has to say about an issue?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on May 2, 2009 19:00:03 GMT -5
Ah. Got it. I yield to persons more experienced (and versed in important terminology) than myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 2, 2009 19:01:46 GMT -5
Old Viking: Mormons (or members of any other religion) . And people who live in states where Mormons (or any other religion) can influence the law.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 2, 2009 19:15:17 GMT -5
Civil unions are also a hot topic nation-wide, and many other states also had anti-homosexuality laws on the books as well. In fact, here in Texas one of the state-authorized health textbooks listed the anti-homosexuality laws in the back of the book along with a few other laws. Do they include the ones struck down by the courts? Other states have them, a certain group went out of their way to make them in a completely different state despite the lack of citizenship. I think that could be the talking point.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 2, 2009 19:19:18 GMT -5
Who gives a flip what Mormonism -- or any other religion -- has to say about an issue? I'm betting gays in California do. As long as they're dictating civil policy, I give a flip what they say. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't care. But religion was one of the main reasons there were so many laws against so many minorities for so long.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on May 2, 2009 19:51:21 GMT -5
Mormons in Utah believe in seperation of church and state which is why they have stayed out of the political arena. Prop 8 was different because it would have allowed gays to marry which is wrong in the eyes of the lord If that were remotely true they'd be fighting against rights for athiests and adulterers. Yet this is the only sin any of these 'religious' groups ever seem to spend a dollar or waste an hour protesting. Ever see animal rights activists harass the Hell's Angels for wearing leather? It's pretty much the same deal here. They need an enemy to unify themselves but lack the courage to challenge an opponent that might be capable of winning.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 2, 2009 19:57:48 GMT -5
Ever see animal rights activists harass the Hell's Angels for wearing leather? It's pretty much the same deal here. They need an enemy to unify themselves but lack the courage to challenge an opponent that might be capable of winning. Come to think of it, why does PETA spend so much time hating on people who wear fur and never say a word about leather, which is far more commonplace?
|
|
|
Post by Death on May 2, 2009 20:16:09 GMT -5
A mormon poster on another site, in reference to the Miss California debacle, wrote that she doesn't agree that homosexuals should marry. She qualified it by pointing out that such a statement does not actually disparage homosexuals. They really believe what they are saying and don't mean any harm. I think it's just that they don't think things through all the time. Seems like Bigotry by convenience. it's more a case of they themselves deny the hate They don't see their beliefs or actions as denying the humanity of others and hence hateful.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on May 2, 2009 20:53:20 GMT -5
Civil unions are also a hot topic nation-wide, and many other states also had anti-homosexuality laws on the books as well. In fact, here in Texas one of the state-authorized health textbooks listed the anti-homosexuality laws in the back of the book along with a few other laws. Do they include the ones struck down by the courts? I had the class in question about 10 years ago, so I imagine that the books have changed since then.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on May 2, 2009 20:55:01 GMT -5
Come to think of it, why does PETA spend so much time hating on people who wear fur and never say a word about leather, which is far more commonplace? You attack your enemy where he is weakest, not where he is strongest. In this case PETA is picking an opponent that is small and unlikely to be vigorously defended by society at large. If they win that fight they will move on to the next weakest (and so on and so on) until eventually they meet all their objectives.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on May 2, 2009 20:57:40 GMT -5
Ah. Got it. I yield to persons more experienced (and versed in important terminology) than myself. The anti-discrimination laws come up quite frequently in business classes, such that the basic laws are pretty well drilled into the average business student by the time they've gotten their bachelor's. I myself had to go through the relevant laws again this semester as I just got through with a Business Law course. As it is, homosexuality is such a gray area under the law that it's actually difficult to do sexual harassment claims if the harasser is of the same gender as the victim because the courts don't always recognize it. The prof actually brought up an incident in which a bisexual manager discovered that a husband / wife pair was working in his section and tried to proposition both because he wanted into a threesome; the spouses tried to bring a sexual harassment suit against him, but the court dropped it because the manager was going after both of them and so there wasn't any law or precedent in regards to homosexual conduct and they apparently didn't want to be the first court to make any.
|
|
|
Post by renaissanceblonde on May 2, 2009 22:05:59 GMT -5
Ah. Got it. I yield to persons more experienced (and versed in important terminology) than myself. The anti-discrimination laws come up quite frequently in business classes, such that the basic laws are pretty well drilled into the average business student by the time they've gotten their bachelor's. I myself had to go through the relevant laws again this semester as I just got through with a Business Law course. As it is, homosexuality is such a gray area under the law that it's actually difficult to do sexual harassment claims if the harasser is of the same gender as the victim because the courts don't always recognize it. The prof actually brought up an incident in which a bisexual manager discovered that a husband / wife pair was working in his section and tried to proposition both because he wanted into a threesome; the spouses tried to bring a sexual harassment suit against him, but the court dropped it because the manager was going after both of them and so there wasn't any law or precedent in regards to homosexual conduct and they apparently didn't want to be the first court to make any. You've got an anecdote for everything, don't you? Citation needed.
|
|