Well, there should have been legal repercussions since it would be in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act. I know nothing of the story beyond "slidecage says this happened" so there's not much else to comment on.
Well, when I said "should", I meant "In My Humble Opinion".
So, a baker can give someone a decorating kit to do the work themselves, but can't give someone a cake mix and tell them to do the work themselves.
Given the different in labor between making a cake from scratch and squeezing some piping onto it, I agree with you. It sounds very fair.
Thanks. I'm glad you're finally able to comprehend that there's a gradient between X and Y. I was worried about you for a while since it's such a basic concept but knowing that you've come around makes me a lot happier. As it turns out, the courts also agree with us so now you, me and the legal system are on the same page as to what's intelligent
So... a 50 year old man has an attraction to a 14 year old girl - and he has a choice on if he wishes to act upon that attraction or not.
Because they meet the general criteria for a protected class: A long and documented history of discrimination based on an immutable characteristic leading to undue economic and social hardship and loss of basic civil rights. Such people face those hardships purely because they are a member of said class and not as a result of malignant action on their part (or even one that could be broadly applied to their class).
Immutable =/= physical
Neither do I. So no reason to debate it.
No reason, since no one is making the argument that they should be. When you (or someone) makes a sincere argument for it, I'll see if there's flaws in it. Until then, you're just setting up strawmen to avoid the main topic.
Protected classes are explicitly called out as such. If a law making sexual orientation a protected class said "anyone of any sexual orientation" then maybe you'd have a point. They don't though so the comparison doesn't hold. Is there a specific law you're concerned bout that you feel too broadly casts a net over "orientation" that you think this example is meaningful?
I gave you the "why". I also don't think that the other classes you mention apply but I keep giving you the chance to argue otherwise and you keep passing on it. So I have to assume that you're not very serious about it.
But if that's your argument then you should give specific examples. In the case of UncleBob's apartment example, I could say "Well, the problem is that apartments meet the specific criteria of a building with more than three floors, twenty room and three restrooms" and defend each of those points and even present a solution (only applies to single family zoned residences, does not apply to rental tenants, etc).
I don't see how the other classes don't apply to your reasons as to why homosexuals should be a "protected" class. They fit every single one of the criteria you put out there.
If we can slaughter our livestock why can't we marry and have intimate relationships with them? Who is to say my attraction to my goat isn't "immutable". I mean nature made me this way afterall. You all are quick to call it an illness (and illegal) but it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was considered the same.
The results are skewed though. When you make something illegal, then the majority of the people who do it are going to be the type who don't mind breaking the law. And generally, it's the worst ones who get caught. Think of texting while driving. How many people do you think do it on a regular basis? Yet, how many people actually get caught doing it? Generally, the ones who cause some kind of traffic accident. Thus, the conclusion is that texting while driving is the most horrible thing one can do, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do it every day with no incident.
You said that hebephiles (per your example of a man attracted to 14 year olds) meet the same criteria. So, according to you, hebephiles have a history of discrimination, economic and social hardship and loss of civil rights that have nothing to do with their actions causing harm but purely as prejudice against their class. Correct? This is what you're saying? Because when you say that hebephiles qualify as a protected class, this is your argument.
Did I ever state that they were equivalent?
You stated it, but it's not true and you refuse to answer this simple question, instead weaving and ducking in a desperate attempt to admit that you're wrong:
So, according to you, hebephiles have a history of discrimination, economic and social hardship and loss of civil rights that have nothing to do with their actions causing harm but purely as prejudice against their class. Correct?
Adorable as your attempt to put me on the defensive is, and trust me you are tots adorbs when you try, it was because the scenario YOU gave was "a 50 year old man has an attraction to a 14 year old girl"
equal rights or special rights?
No clue. The story gives two different versions of the story and I have none of the testimony or evidence that was presented in court. There isn't enough to the story to get worked up either way unless you're just looking for an excuse to get worked up.
So the guy have a problem watching two girls make out.... lol
yea you need money if your white, cause if your black all you have to do is cry on TV and people will send you money.
