StrangeSox

Star Wars VII casting call fit, fit, fit, fit, fit, fit

Well yeah, because these states haven't defined sexual orientation as a protected class, they already can discriminate and are legally protected when they do. So they're really just redundant and meant to send a message. edit: crosspost, meant for iwc

Those states, Colorado and New Mexico, had explicit language defining sexual orientation as a protected class in those states.

Nothing remotely close to a finding that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun onto a property over the objection of that property's owner has happened. At best, you're talking about a hypothetical future finding of a constitutional right that there's no indication of today. Heller made reference to federal, state and local laws barring the possession of guns, not to any private restriction. Think through the implications here. If it's found that the 2nd amendment means you can carry your gun into a store or to work over the objections of the store owner or your employer, how does this apply to first amendment rights? Is your employer barred from ever firing you for your speech because of the first amendment? Can a store owner not refuse you service because you are using a bunch of racial slurs? Is SoxTalk's language filter unconstitutional because is suppresses my free speech? Was it unconstitutional to ban duke? How does this apply to equal protection? Public accommodations laws are found in things like the CRA, not in the Constitution, so are these suddenly redundant and it's now unconstitutional for a private actor to racially discriminate? On that note, how does it even make sense to find that your employer saying "don't bring guns" is unconstitutional? The Constitution defines what the government may do, not private actors. A state law saying that a gun cannot be carried into grocery stores could very well be found unconstitutional, but how would Jewel saying "no guns" be found unconstitutional? Does it even make sense to talk about something like Jewel committing unconstitutional acts? eta: if the day ever comes that we have a constitutional right to carry guns almost anywhere, even over the objections of private property owners, I'll send you a 12 pack of your favorite beer.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 02:29 PM) You'll never get rid of morons. There will always be racists, sexists, fascists, etc. So long as they're the 1% and are largely ignored. But you were talking about a hypothetical perfect world where free markets would actually solve problems of bigotry. If we're going that far into fantasy land, why not just one more step of magicking bigotry away all together?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) True but I know in Florida the signs don't mean anything and I thought I read a story that the trespassing angle didn't work. As I said this morning, this is the new area of the law that will be litigated. Seems to me though that you're restricting a constitutional right on the basis of what, a fear of shooting, which is an argument that hasn't gone over well with the courts in any other public area (other than airports, schools, courthouses, etc.). You do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun onto my property. Some states have passed laws saying that you have the legal right to do so, at least in some fashion (e.g. leave the gun locked in your car in the company parking lot). This is distinctly different from a federal constitutional right to do so. The second amendment doesn't apply to Wells Fargo's rights to limit what is brought onto their property any more than the first amendment limits their rights to fire someone for shouting political propaganda at customers. Refusing service to someone because of their protected class status is a violation of the Civil Rights Act (among other laws), but it isn't unconstitutional. Constitutional rights really aren't at question here. To emphasize the point here: Heller, McDonald and the case that forced Illinois to allow concealed carry were all about state or local laws. They were not about a non-government entity banning firearms from the premises. Nobody has come close to a legal ruling that says your right to bear arms trumps another individual's (or company's) property rights.

What's the distinction there?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Um, all of them that say concealed carry is legal? The rule is you can carry a gun wherever you want, except for some exceptions. The rule isn't "here is where you can have guns" but it's excluded everywhere else. The rule in some (most?) states is you're allowed to carry unless the property owner says you aren't. There's no jurisprudence that says you are constitutionally entitled to carry again over the objections of the owner of the property you're on.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Because those people would be outed and out of business quickly. As I said a while ago, the "market" and society would drive the change, not the government forcing people to do something they don't want to do. I wonder why s***head racists simply don't exist in your perfect world? In the real world, the "market" historically has always done a horrible job of fighting against this sort of discrimination whereas government intervention has been incredibly effective.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) If I had to guess, Jenks is coming at it from the point that unless the applicable court says you do not have a right to carry a gun in a certain place, then you do have a right to carry a gun in that place. You seem to want the opposite -- a baseline of not having a right to have generally have guns in public, unless specifically allowed. In several (most?) states, business owners are allowed to post "no firearms" signs on the doors, and anyone who carries one onto the premise is trespassing. It's no different from me having the right to wear shorts but a fancy restaurant having a dress code for diners. So the right to carry is generally allowed, but owners of individual businesses or homes have the right to exclude them from their property.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:26 PM) And really, on top of all of this is the fact that I could say I don't want to serve you in 20 different ways that would be acceptable and not a violation of the law. You don't have to be "eww, you're gay! get out of here!" Which sort of brings us back around to my point a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it can be to actually enforce anti-discrimination laws and claims.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) While I don't agree with him on this, I will say that Jenks made pretty clear that it comes down to how you value different Constitutional rights. He values them equally. No one save for illinilaw has really done a good job of responding to him on that main point. Like it or not, the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere. Since it's admitted that there are restrictions on that right, the question really becomes what restrictions are reasonable. What court ruling says you have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment, to carry a gun wherever you want (barring some exclusions like government buildings and airports)?

I'm really struggling to see why a perfect world enables explicit racial discrimination.

I don't think the idea that the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want is universally accepted or all that old. Even the rulings that say a state can't have a blanket ban on carrying don't preclude individual businesses from barring them from their property. Some states have laws that allow you carry wherever, but it's not universal and it's not something that's found in any of the federal rulings.

There's religious exceptions to these sorts of laws. No churches are being required to perform same-sex marriage against their will.

same with West Virginia

You're still treating objects as equivalent to people.

I heard a story about their giant laser on the radio the other week that they had, for the first time, achieved a net gain of energy from fusion, but going from a tiny net gain to industrial production is still a long way off.

Nuclear fusion power production has been about 30 years off since the 1950's.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) As to your edit 2, yes, i think progress society has made makes some of these laws unnecessary, or at least less necessary than before. Affirmative action laws are a good example. SCOTUS specifically said we hope in 25 years we won't need this anymore. Are you saying we should never change laws over time and we should accept them always and forever? I'm saying that public accommodations laws should never be repealed. The only thing that would accomplish would be enabling bigotry--there's zero good reason to do it.

In your hypothetical, Balta wants to ban an inanimate object from the premises. Human beings are not inanimate objects; a gun owner can leave their gun in the car/at home, a black person can't leave their black at home and their black isn't literally a deadly weapon on top of that. Places can discriminate based on dress code, and nobody really cares. Places can not allow pets, they could not allow people carrying skateboards or bring their bicycle in or any number of different objects. Nobody really gives a s*** because these things are not in any way equivalent to banning someone because of an innate trait. Carrying a certain object with you wherever you go is not like being gay or being black or being Jewish. You can just leave the damn thing at home.

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone? edit: jenks' arguments remind me of libertarian economist Bryan Caplan's argument that women really were more free in the Gilded Age than they are now. both arguments say much more about how limited this conception of freedom is than anything else. edit2: why does the reason not matter "in 2014"? If it's because racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are so rare (lol) that we wouldn't have to worry about it, then doesn't that mean public accommodations law isn't really hurting anyone?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 07:58 AM) So I googled "Bank robbery suspect apprehended in louisville" and came up with a story about Benjamin Boswell, is this the guy? http://www.wave3.com/story/24834959/jeffer...d-in-louisville Did you know the guy outside of the fact that he is your neighbor? It is weird to me that bank robbers continue to walk into banks with nothing covering their faces except sunglasses Then you have guys like these: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21...atex-masks.html

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 09:24 PM) Shopping in general is a choice. Do you have a constitutional right to be able to go into private businesses? If it's a public business here, then you have a legal right. Participating in the economy and society isn't really a "choice." Public accommodations are a CRA right, not a constitutional right. Either way, a person can't stop being gay or stop being black, but you can leave your gun in your car or at home very easily.

Because again carrying a gun is just like being gay or black.