Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

While I agree with the principle of the recent United States SC decision, I strongly disagree with it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-supreme-court-lgbtq-1.5612327

"Civil Rights"? WTF?

If a person doesn't want to marry/have sex/talk to another person - for whatever reason, the State should not intervene.

In the words of a famous Canadian politician, "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

===

IMHO, the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 - while well-intentioned - is the wrong way to achieve social peace.

BLM, 50 years later, is more evidence of the wrong direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In principle, Canada's Charter of Rights restricts what the State can do.

The first 13 amendments of the US Constitution restrict what the federal State can do - Amendment 10 makes this clear..

====

Make no mistake, this is what Trudeau intended in his Charter:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1766147078

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, August1991 said:

In principle, Canada's Charter of Rights restricts what the State can do.

The first 13 amendments of the US Constitution restrict what the federal State can do - Amendment 10 makes this clear..

 

Charter rights for sexual orientation were explicitly removed from original drafts because of political expediency.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. While I agree with the principle of the recent United States SC decision, I strongly disagree with it.

2. "Civil Rights"? WTF?

3. If a person doesn't want to marry/have sex/talk to another person - for whatever reason, the State should not intervene.

4. In the words of a famous Canadian politician, "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

5. IMHO, the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 - while well-intentioned - is the wrong way to achieve social peace.  BLM, 50 years later, is more evidence of the wrong direction.

1. How can you disagree with the principle, but disagree with the decision ... when the implementation is so basic and aligns with past civil rights decisions ?
2. Yes by definition.
3. You have this ass-backwards.  "Marriage" is a legal status granted by the state.
4. Trudeau Sr.
5. Flawed reasoning.  Nobody ever thought that the Civil Rights Act would end racial strife once and for all.  You have no idea what the US would be like today without that law.

As a straight person, I have the privilege of never having to worry about violence or discrimination because of my relationships.  People feel that LGBTQ people need protection, and so it shall be.  That's how laws work in a 'civil society'.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2020 at 6:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:

4. Trudeau Sr.
 

The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nations.

 

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I make this make more clear?

A Civilised State should never restrict relations between adult/consenting individuals.

=====

Trudeau Snr talked about a "Just Society".

I prefer a "Civilised Society".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If two people decide not to be together/trade - for  whatever reason - that is their choice.

The State should not force two people to be together.

So, I fundamentally disagree with the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

=====

Should a civilised State be indifferent to a person's skin colour/sex/gender/choice of life?

Yes, why not?

Can I speak to my State in my own language?

Uh, what language?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, August1991 said:

If two people decide not to be together/trade - for  whatever reason - that is their choice.

The State should not force two people to be together.

So, I fundamentally disagree with the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You have done something very difficult: articulated a social issue in a logical way that frames "common sense" (ie. forced segregation) as being incorrect.

But, on a wider scope you have to recognize that governments are created to solve collective problems.  This means that ANY individual rights are worthless if the collective sees them to be in the way.  Boo hoo, but gather your own army or buy an island and secede if you don't like that.

I'm ambivalent, but I definitely wouldn't put myself out to defend that some shopkeeper can make "God hates f**s" cakes ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...