I cun't fulloo zee ergooment...

Thees is vhet I knoo tu be-a reeleety. Lefft/Reeght Gey/Streeeght Ifeel/Guud Yeen/Yung.

Surry, Bork Bork Bork!, Bork Bork Bork!.

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/fee...html#post29576

Who do you think you're fooling?
Or do you really not understand the distinction I am making?

It is amazing how you LIE and claim I am calling you a "racist" even when I explicitly state that is NOT what I am doing.
Your tactic has been tried before on this board. The person who attempted it then failed to garner any support for the pseudo-argument.
I will not be swayed (but I will be bored) by your false claims.

Try to claim that anti-gay tactics are "pro-heterosexual" again, and I'll prove why your claim is false. And I'll do it the exact same way I did it last time.
Count on it!


"Once again" you repeat yourself.
Did you ever stop to try and figure out if the "civil rights act of 1964" "is an equal protection clause", then WHY do we need the civil rights act of 1964?
If the ONLY THING the civil rights act of 1964 is doing is repeating the "equal protection clause", then what's the point?

Your arguments fail even rudimentary scrutiny.


Reviewing the web-site shows several areas (which I never argued) which the amendment ACTUALLY deals with:

"Wait a minute, what do you mean, "a right"? Nobody ever said we had a right to a job.
But if your employer decided to lay you off tomorrow for no good reason, wouldn't you feel your rights had been violated? Don't you think everybody deserves a chance to provide for themselves and for their families? "

I never claimed we had a "right" to not be fired for any "bad" reason.

There is an incredibly small list of things we cannot be fired for.

I could conceivably be legally fired because my hair is too short, or my political affiliations, or the fact that I like sweetener in my coffee.

This legislation adds MANY things which I never even hinted were "rights".



Boring...
I am not "citing" equal protection.
NOWHERE have any of my links mentioned "equal protection".
You FALSELY CLAIM (with no substantiation to date) that the Civil Rights Act is actually about "equal protection", but even the name of the actual legislation laughs at your argument.


Learn to realize what I AM and AM NOT saying.


Where did I claim it did?


Cite where I said it says that...


It DOES declare those as a right.
It doesn't have a name as "Job Rights Act or the House Right Act".
But what it DOES do is obvious. It's called the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, and inside of it is discussed the rights of HOUSING and EMPLOYMENT.

What we have here is a "Fruit Box" with apples and bananas in it.
You come along and insist that they are vegetables, and proclaim that the box would have to be labelled "Apple Fruit box" for you to admit the obvious...


Voting is a right, correct?
But as a resident of California, can I go to Kansas and insist on my right to vote? No.
Does that mean I don't have a right to vote? No.

You keep trying to define the situation with a tunnel vision that ignores the reality of the right.


I have highlighted the appropriate portion of the article.
THAT is what they are really talking about.


And I am appending the section you failed to address last time.
Stop bringing up the "Equal Protection" crap.

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.

Also, you can kindly explain WHY is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 necessary if it's just an "Equal Protections" issue, which was already in the constitution for many decades in 1964.

Teaching With Documents:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Background

In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing....................

Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.

Your only right is to not be discriminated against in several areas. No where is there a right to a job. You only have a right to have the same OPPORTUNITY to get one as anyone else.

Other than that your post is just argumentative and I have no interest in your rantings.

I grow bored with this.
Quote me where I said otherwise...

Originally Posted by Stinger
No where is there a right to a job.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger

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


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

Shown to be otherwise

I was absolutely correct in what I said.
Employment and Housing ARE under "civil rights".
Just like voting is one of our fundamental rights.
But does that mean we can vote anywhere we please? In any state we please?
Nooooooooo....

Likewise, there is no stated right "to" a job.
And I never claimed there was....

Try to get the difference between what IS and is NOT being said.
All this time you have been fixating on one phrase, while I have been adding in "the rest of the story".

PC poots a smeeley fece-a oon ifeel.., Bork Bork Bork!

Dr. Idmund Bergler, (1) vhu treeted oofer a thuoosund humusexooels, cunclooded thet geys (Genereec Leffterds) tended tu: prufuke-a ettecks egeeenst zeemselfes und zeen cuoont zeese-a "ettecks" es injoosteeces zeey hed sooffffered

deespley deffenseefe-a meleece-a tooerd oozeers,
ixheebeet a fleeppunt etteetoode-a in oorder tu cufer underlyeeng depresseeun und gooeelt, (selff luetheeng) (dm)
deespley ixtreme-a nerceesseesm und sooperceeleeuoosness,

Zee Psychulugy ooff Humusexooeleety

Zee Psychulugy ooff Humusexooeleety


Thuoogh muny vuoold leeke-a tu theenk oozeerveese-a, zee fery ixeestence-a ooff oooor suceeety depends upun iech indeefeedooel cuntreebooteeng tu zee soorfeefel und vell-beeeng ooff ell, Bork Bork Bork! Nu oone-a – ixcept zee oold, zee seeck, zee hundeecepped – hes ifer beee ixempt frum leedeeng a prudoocteefe-a leeffe-a. In preemeeteefe-a suceeeteees, zee guud mun hoonted fur zee soostenunce-a ooff zee inture-a treebe-a und zee guud vumun bure-a und reered cheeldree tu insoore-a zee soorfeefel ooff zeeur keend. In mudern cooltoore-a, zee rules hefe-a chunged in sooperffeeceeel veys, boot unteel recently hefe-a remeeened issenteeelly zee seme-a, Bork Bork Bork! Guud ceeteezens led prudoocteefe-a leefes und bruooght cheeldree intu zee vurld tu repleneesh zee cummooneety veet furtooe-a.
Thuse-a vhu deed nut eccept zeese-a respunseebeeleeteees – vhu efueeded vurk oor feeeled tu eccept zee "sveet yuke-a" ooff merreeege-a und perenthuud – vere-a cunseedered soospect und ifee feeceeuoos, dependeeng oon zeeur cepebeeleeteees und zee degree-a tu vheech zeey fluooted zee rooles ooff suceeety, Bork Bork Bork! Booms und ne’er-du-vells vere-a boot tvu ixemples ooff thuse-a vhu shurked zeeur dooty tu meke-a a puseeteefe-a cuntreebooteeun tu zee icunumy ooff zee cummooneety. Theeefes und imbezzlers vere-a vurse-a becoose-a zeey ecteefely preyed oon thuse-a vhu vere-a hunest und deeleegent. Rekes und humusexooels vere-a sexooelly selffeesh und irrespunseeble-a, nut oonly becoose-a zeey vere-a selff-indoolgent, boot elsu becoose-a zeey sev sexooeleety es deefurced frum zee respunseebeeleeteees ooff perenthuud.
Qooeete-a epert frum Beebleecel injooncteeuns, humusexooels hefe-a beee cunseedered nun-prudoocteefe-a und hence-a ineemeecel tu zee vell-beeeng und ifee zee soorfeefel ooff zee cummooneety. In eddeeteeun, zeey hefe-a beee regerded es dungeruoos, becoose-a zeey preyed oon zee yuoong und perferted zeem frum nurmel, heelthy, prudoocteefe-a leefes. In zeeur selffeesh preuccoopeteeun veet geneetel pleesoore-a, zeey suooght tu rebel egeeenst zee netoorel oorder ooff hoomun leeffe-a itselff – zee mootooel respunseebeeleety ooff oone-a fur ell thet furms zee besees ooff zee suceeel cuntrect. Unyune-a vhu oopts oooot ooff thet cuntrect fur reesuns oozeer thun illness oor deesebeeleety is "vrung heeded," "vurthless," "immurel, Bork Bork Bork!" Oone-a need oonly ixemeene-a zee vurld’s greet herueec teles – frum zee Ileeed tu zee Eeneeed tu zee Guspels tu see-a zee furtooe-a ooff mee und vumee purtreyed in terms ooff zeeur veelleengness tu be-a prudoocteefe-a und unselffeesh, es ooppused tu selff-centered und destroocteefe-a, Bork Bork Bork!

You have no right to a job or a house, your opportunity to get one just like anyone else cannot be discriminated against because of your race or gender.

And you don't have a right to vote, the government(s) allow voting for somethings and you cannot be discriminated against if they allow the public to vote on some things.

You do know you have no right to vote for President and Vice-President, it is up to your state legislature whether you get to vote on them or not.

Most Americans believe that the "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.

The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative individual right to vote!

Even though the "vote of the people" is perceived as supreme in our democracy - because voting rights are protective of all other rights - the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution - "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
Center for Voting and Democracy

Jesse Jackson Jr has a bill to create an Amendment which would give every citizen a "right to vote", if there is already such a right why is he trying to get such an amendment passed?

1) Housing is a civil right.
2) Citizens do not have a right TO housing.
Those are two separate statements that do not contradict each other.
No matter how many times you say #2, it does not invalidate #1.


You're taking this to a new step of lunacy.
What you are about to quote will PROVE you WRONG.

Other resources to prove you wrong...

Amendment 15:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Over and over again, it acknowledges it IS a right.
The trick you keep trying to pull, or maybe you just can't get past, is that just because a right can be discriminated against or denied IN A SPECIFIC WAY does not mean the right never existed.
I can't think of ANY right, explicit or implicit, which is absolute and without restriction.
Freedom of religion, expression, right to bear arms...
None of them is without an exception.
But they are ALL still RIGHTS.

So let's move on to where you prove yourself wrong...


First, LOOK at how the first sentence is phrased...
It does NOT say "Most Americans believe that we have a "legal right to vote"..."
NO.

It says "Most Americans believe that "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws."
And I wholeheartedly agree that it is NOT explicit.
As I previously pointed out, and you failed to address, the 9th amendment means IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE for it to be a right.

The second statement explains what the Constitution EXPLICITLY says. It never states that this is ONLY what our Constitution protects...

But let's move on ...


There is that pesky word "explicit" again....


I always have to chuckle when people try to quote only PART of the story.
It inevitably makes them look foolish.

HERE is the FULL quote from Bush v Gore...

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

See that "unless and until".
The WHOLE sentence, which was deceitfully left out, explicitly demonstrates that there is a PRECURSOR to there being a "federal constitutional right to vote"...
When that condition is met, "the state legislature chooses...", THEN the "federal constitutional right" DOES exist.


You know, when I asked him, his explicit words ACKNOWLEDGED a "right to vote"...

Voting in the United States is based on the constitutional principle of states' rights. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a "state right." Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.: The Right to Vote

As you see from his words, he acknowledges such a right exists...
The move would make it EXPLICIT in the constitution...
EXPLICIT is the defining factor.
Just because it is not "explicit" does not mean it isn't protected ...