There are majorities of everyday people who have "agendas".


No they aren't, no one has a "right" to a job or a "right" to a house.

Thank god we live in an America that clearly DOES put employment and housing under "civil rights", despite your personal opinion...

That has nothing to do with what you first stated and what I replied to. You cannot be descrimated against when you are vying for a job or a house based on your race, religon or gender. But you have NO right to a job or a house.

1) So much for being on "ignore"...

2) You're quibbling over meaningless semantics.
I could also say "voting is not a right, but you cannot be discriminated against based on race, religion, or gender".
Wouldn't mean the claim of "not a right" is somehow valid...

I'mn hoping you have dropped your insinuations.

No you are confused as to what a right is and how it applies in our law.

And you would be correct.

If your state or local government decides to allow you to vote on a matter then they cannot descriminate as to who is allowed to vote, that's called equal protection.

BIG difference.

You do NOT have a right to a job or a house and no where can such a right be found.

I change nothing, cause I did nothing wrong.
It is you that needs to drop these passive aggressive attempts to falsely insinuate wrong where none was done.


You're back to blindly contradicting, while offering no support for your position.
Meanwhile, I can refer to the civil rights act, which does include housing and employment.

Can I expect your response to be a simple "No, that's wrong." with little more to add?


That's a meaningless response.
Like trying to argue the car isn't red, by pointing to the garage painted yellow.

Yes. Equal protection exists.
Rights ALSO exist.
Saying "equal protection" doesn't negate the existence of rights.


There is a difference between a yellow garage and a red car.
But the yellow car doesn't negate the existence of a red car.

Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not called the "Equal Protection" act.
It is rightfully called the Civil Rights Act.

Anymore racist connotations and we'll see.



No I am shooting straight as an arrow. You have NO right to a job or a house, when YOU can prove YOUR assertion then do so. Equal protection is another thing entirely.

When your assertions is yes it is, the burden is on you to prove a right to a job and a house exist.

No one said that but again you confuse a right to a job with a right to an equal opportunity to get one.


You hav yet to prove the red car exist. Just because there is a yellow car doesn't mean there is a red car.

So let's dispense with the juvenile analogies and cite for me where in the constitution the right to a job and a house exist or what court case declared such a fundimental right.

That is what it is based on in the constitution, equal access.

Just as the laws which demanded school desgreation were not based on a right to an education they were based on equal access. If the state is going to provide an education to some it must provide it to all and do so equally.

really, no kidding

it's pretty transparent to others, as well

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

If the analogy is right for the situation, I will make it.
If you try to argue something is "pro-heterosexual" when the truth of the matter is that it is just plain "anti-gay", then the comparison will be shown.


You're back to blindly contradicting, while offering no support for your position.
Meanwhile, I can refer to the civil rights act, which does include housing and employment.


And I never even said anything about "equal protection".
YOU keep trying to change the subject to "equal protection" to ignore the fact that we do have employment and housing rights in this country.


Already proven.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one HUGE example of acknowledgement of housing and employment as a civil right.


I never even mentioned "equal opportunity" or "equal protection".
Those were strawmen YOU brought to the table.


I never said "yellow car means there is a red car".
I pointed to the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 to prove the red car.


I have no need to pigeon hole the argument with pointless qualifiers, like your demands dictate.
As for the "constitution", the 9th amendment addresses you quite solidly. The 9th amendment makes your question meaningless, as the absence of the explicit listing of a "housing right" doesn't mean we do not have one.

And I see no need to bring up "court cases" when you repeatedly fail to address the biggest possible piece of evidence there is.
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.


Point of order.
It's not called the "Equal Access Act of 1964".
It's called the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964.

You keep ignoring the red car by pointing to the drive-way, to the garage, to the picket fence, but NONE of your antics address the fact that there is a RED CAR.


One glaring problem with your argument...
"Equal Protection" talks about what the GOVERNMENT must do in THE GOVERNMENT'S dealings with the people.
For example, the Boy Scouts of America have a right to PRECLUDE gays from working in the BSA. Based on freedom of association.

If it were JUST about "Equal Protection", then the GOVERNMENT and ONLY the government would be prevented from discriminating.
But it goes much further than that to cover NON-GOVERNMENTAL employers.

You try to bring out the racist/bigotry hammer when you can't win on the merits and it will be called again.


Which once again is an equal protection clause.

Are you aware that there IS a move to pass an amendment which would make a job a right? Why would that be needed if you already had it?

Qs & As of the 28th Amendment


I know because you are ignorant of the fact that that is what you are citing.

But not a right to them, you have equal protection in trying to obtain them, you cannot be discriminated against, but not a right to them. Learn the difference.


If someone is selling or renting a house and you apply for it you cannot be discriminated against based on your race or religion or gender. It didn't give you a right to a house.


Because you are ignorant of what right you actually have.


Cite from the act where it declared everyone has a right to house and a job.


Cite the clause that says everyone has a right to a job and a house.


But not the Job Rights Act or the House Right Act. It protects you from being discriminated vis-a-vis other people when you try to obtain a job or a house, it does not quaranty you a job or a house nor does it declare either a right.

You keep pointing to a red car that doesn't exist.


Originally Posted by Stinger
Just as the laws which demanded school desgreation were not based on a right to an education they were based on equal access. If the state is going to provide an education to some it must provide it to all and do so equally.


Here from legal expert who believes there SHOULD be a right to a job

"Our constitution contains our national promises to each other. We promise to protect free speech. We promise to protect the right to vote. While we have not been able to fulfil these promises perfectly, over time we continue to make progress. As constitutional rights these promises stay on our agenda and we keep working on them. I think the American people are ready to talk about adding a constitutional right to a job at a living wage as a national promise to each other. "
JURIST - Quigley: Ending Poverty By Creating a Constitutional Right to a Living Wage

If it were already a right then we wouldn't need an amendment to add it.

Here from one state

"North Carolina law does not guarantee anyone the right to a job. The basic legal concept that governs the relationship between employer and employee is called "employment at will." This means that an employer may fire an employee at any time, for any reason, as long as it does not discriminate on the basis of a few categories specified in federal and North Carolina law: age, sex, race, religion, national origin or disability. The other side of the coin is that an employee can quit at any time, for any reason. Although recent cases have suggested that an employee may be able to sue for money damages if his or her firing "violates public policy," the chance that this will be applied to lesbians and gay men in the near future is not likely."
Employment