Matthew 25, "deeply Held Religious Beliefs", And Discrimination

[Daniel2]

 

Tacenda, you have already received the info in other threads.  Perhaps you've forgotten that a new, ad hoc taxonomy makes man on boy sex abuse a non-homosexual phenomenon, and this is why this is even worth having a conversation about.

 

Tacenda, in the original claim of USU's for which you are asking for a CFR (and which he has been consistently making for years), USU78 is using "homosexual" to identify tthat the gender of the adult abuser is most often the same as the gender of the child victim. 

 

He doesn't use the term "homosexual" to describe the sexual orientation of the adult abuser. 

 

This is different from the majority of mental health and medical organizations, which designate such abusers' pedophilic sexual orientation as one distinct and different than a homosexual sexual orientation.

[wenglund]

Wade:

 

No one is forcing you bake a cake or provide flowers, or take photos for any wedding tradition or otherwise. When you take out a business license to do a business you agree to follow the rules of state. That forms a regular binding contract. You are not entitled to unilaterally change the terms/rules of that contract. The state has as part of their rules that you can not legally discriminate against potential customers on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, or increasingly sexual orientation. At one time it was considered a deeply held religious belief to discriminate against the blacks/Irish/Chinese/Jews/Mormons/etc./etc./etc. in this country. If equal protection under law means anything to you then I suggest you get over this I don't want to discriminate in business except for ___.

 

While the terms of the so-called "binding contract" are unilaterally changed all the time by the state when it frequently alters its business regulations. and while the difference between "forced" and "binding" is relatively meaningless in this context, neither of those points strike at the heart of the issue. What is really at issue is whether there are and ought to be limits on the "state rule," particularly in regards to religion. Constitutionally, as well as pragmatically, there are limits. See, for example cases involving Blue Laws, particularly Sherbert v Verner. See also the recent ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tonie]

As an LDS, I would have no problem renting apartments to homosexuals or fornicators or adulterers or porn addicts or adult beverage imbibers or even Miley Cyrus fans. Their money is as good as anyone else.

Nor would I object to hiring the same to work for me and my company as long as they were the most qualified and capable candidates.

However, I do object to creating laws based on manufactured controversy rather than in response to legitimate and substantive concerns. I don't like it when the legal system is manipulated into propagandizing certain quasi-religious immoral agendas, particularly using absurd comparisons with real and serious forms of discrimination like Jim Crow laws.

For that matter, I wouldn't decline baking a cake or providing flowers or take photos for a SSM wedding, or a wedding between a man and his canine best friend, or toga parties, or a heathen feast, etc., though I strenuously object to creating laws forcing others to do so against their religious wishes. I don't like it when the government imposes its immoral and irreligious views onto the religious, particularly in ways that may violate the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is the outrage in support of discrimination also manufactured? If it is not, can one rightly claim the controversy manufactured?

Edited August 26, 2014 by tonie

[USU78]

Your quotes of the Bible do not support your implied premise. Nor do the quotes you provide address the question presented to you. And it is very clear me that you "don't see" in regard to the topic at hand. I can not think of any easier or more simplistic way of putting than what has already been presented; I quoted the Church, I quoted Jesus, and asked a question.I can think of no other way of presenting the issue in a way that you would be able to comprehend. Allbeit, I highly suspect you ignorance is strained and feigned as to what the topic is about. I will also note you misguided attempt to derail the conservation into a ssm debate.

 

I return to my initial question:  where is there the evidence that homosexuals (a) lack housing and (b) are being denied housing on the basis of being homosexual?

 

Without any agreement on those points (i.e., a good faith belief in the existence of an actual problem) what is the fuss about?

 

You claim this is off topic:  de minimis arguments are always on topic, and I say the whole "problem" is no problem at all.

[USU78]

Tacenda, in the original claim of USU's for which you are asking for a CFR (and which he has been consistently making for years), USU78 is using "homosexual" to identify tthat the gender of the adult abuser is most often the same as the gender of the child victim. 

 

He doesn't use the term "homosexual" to describe the sexual orientation of the adult abuser. 

 

This is different from the majority of mental health and medical organizations, which designate such abusers' pedophilic sexual orientation as one distinct and different than a homosexual sexual orientation.

 

Yes .  .  . there exists an irrational, ad hoc and misleading if not fraudulent taxonomy, which no fair-minded person accepts.

[USU78]

Is the outrage in support of discrimination also manufactured? If it is not, can one rightly claim the controversy manufactured?

 

So . . . if I want Maypo and not oatmeal, even though my Mom only cooked Maypo and we are out of oatmeal, and I cry and cry and throw myself on the ground at the unfairness of being out of oatmeal and having to eat Maypo, is my fit of brattiness manufactured?

[wenglund]

Is the outrage in support of discrimination also manufactured? If it is not, can one rightly claim the controversy manufactured?

 

The so-called "outrage in support of discrimination" in relation to the specific issue at hand, is a figment of your imagination. In that sense, then, it is very much manufactured. So, that leaves me free to rightly claim that the controversy is manufactured. Sorry.

 

More to the point, since there isn't a rash of landlords and employers baring homosexual from housing or employment in Provo, SLC, or throughout the state of Utah, most certainly not within miles of what Blacks experienced in relation to Jim Crow laws, the controversy then is manufactured.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

SEE Barry Goldwater and the Southern Strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

Ps; Even George Romney was opposed to the Southern Strategy of Barry Goldwater.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/11/01/rethinking-george-romney/

 

The fruits of racehucksterism:

 

A 32-year-old Marine was beaten by a group of men outside of a Mississippi restaurant after he was warned it wasn't safe for white people in the wake of the Michael Brown killing in Missouri, the serviceman's friend claims.

Ralph Weems, an Iraq war veteran, was in fair condition at North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, a hospital spokeswoman said Monday. But his brother-in-law said that Weems had undergone brain surgery. The hospital would not respond to The Associated Press regarding that claim.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/marine-beaten-warned-wasn-safe-wake-michael-brown-killing-article-1.1917685#ixzz3BXz217vF

[tonie]

The so-called "outrage in support of discrimination" in relation to the specific issue at hand, is a figment of your imagination. In that sense, then, it is very much manufactured. So, that leaves me free to rightly claim that the controversy is manufactured. Sorry.

The Church response for not supporting non-discrimination is a figment of my imagination. The words I heard a representative of the Sutherland Institute (which mirror the response of the Church) is a figment of my imagination?

More to the point, since there isn't a rash of landlords and employers baring homosexual from housing or employment in Provo, SLC, or throughout the state of Utah, ...

The non-discrimination law failed to pass with the Utah Legislature, in part because landlords and employers want to discriminate.

most certainly not within miles of what Blacks experienced in relation to Jim Crow laws, the controversy then is manufactured.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Non-sequitur, and I would an argument that insults your intelligence, reasoning, and articulation that I am accustom to reading from you. It does not follow that less frequency, noteriety, publicity, laws du jour, equals manufactured.

[thesometimesaint]

The fruits of racehucksterism:

 

???

 

A 32-year-old Marine was beaten by a group of men outside of a Mississippi restaurant after he was warned it wasn't safe for white people in the wake of the Michael Brown killing in Missouri, the serviceman's friend claims.

Ralph Weems, an Iraq war veteran, was in fair condition at North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, a hospital spokeswoman said Monday. But his brother-in-law said that Weems had undergone brain surgery. The hospital would not respond to The Associated Press regarding that claim.

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...5#ixzz3BXz217vF

 

OK that's pretty bad. There is no excuse for it. but I fail to see the causal connection to the goal of the Southern Strategy.

Edited August 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

The Church response for not supporting non-discrimination is a figment of my imagination. The words I heard a representative of the Sutherland Institute (which mirror the response of the Church) is a figment of my imagination?

The non-discrimination law failed to pass with the Utah Legislature, in part because landlords and employers want to discriminate.

Non-sequitur, and I would an argument that insults your intelligence, reasoning, and articulation that I am accustom to reading from you. It does not follow that less frequency, noteriety, publicity, laws du jour, equals manufactured.

 

You are clearly not getting it, so let me attempt to clarify once more. As USU78 and I have repeatedly intimated, you have yet to demonstrate a statistically significant rate of housing and employment discrimination against homosexuals in Utah or relevant counties, thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination in relation thereto, sufficient to warrant legislation, are manufactured and figments of your imagination. You are whipping up drama where none really exists. Did you get it that time?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

You are clearly not getting it, so let me attempt to clarify once more. As USU78 and I have repeatedly intimated, you have yet to demonstrate a statistically significant rate of housing and employment discrimination against homosexuals in Utah or relevant counties, thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination in relation thereto, sufficient to warrant legislation, are manufactured and figments of your imagination. You are whipping up drama where none really exists. Did you get it that time?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

At what level would it be a statistically insignificant enough of a rate to deny "If you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me?

Edited August 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

At what level would it be a statistically insignificant enough of a rate to deny "If you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me?

 

Last I checked, state and local laws (which is what is under discussion) tend not to be formulated based on the principle you quoted. Since you have been outspoken against interjecting religion into politics, I would think you would have know this and not suggested otherwise.

 

Rather, in a non-micromanaged democracy, laws and policies ought to be based on statistically significant state interest--i.e the parties proposing laws bear the burden of demonstrating that a given problem is widespread or serious enough to warrant costly government intervention. Practicality demands it. It doesn't make sense to take away limited resources of the government from significant issues and devote them instead to every piddly squabble anyone may have. 

 

But, then, I am not an advocate of big government, and I don't look to the government to solve the most minute social ills, particularly those that are entirely imagined as the case may be.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[USU78]

 

???

 

A 32-year-old Marine was beaten by a group of men outside of a Mississippi restaurant after he was warned it wasn't safe for white people in the wake of the Michael Brown killing in Missouri, the serviceman's friend claims.

Ralph Weems, an Iraq war veteran, was in fair condition at North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, a hospital spokeswoman said Monday. But his brother-in-law said that Weems had undergone brain surgery. The hospital would not respond to The Associated Press regarding that claim.

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...5#ixzz3BXz217vF

 

OK that's pretty bad. There is no excuse for it. but I fail to see the causal connection to the goal of the Southern Strategy.

 

 

That what Goldwater and others saw very clearly in 1964 actually has happened . . . and that there was and is a better way to address the rampant racism in black circles . . . as well as white . . . than stupidly as was then done.

[thesometimesaint]

Last I checked, state and local laws (which is what is under discussion) tend not to be formulated based on the principle you quoted. Since you have been outspoken against interjecting religion into politics, I would think you would have know this and not suggested otherwise.

 

Rather, in a non-micromanaged democracy, laws and policies ought to be based on statistically significant state interest--i.e the parties proposing laws bear the burden of demonstrating that a given problem is widespread or serious enough to warrant costly government intervention. Practicality demands it. It doesn't make sense to take away limited resources of the government from significant issues and devote them instead to every piddly squabble anyone may have. 

 

But, then, I am not an advocate of big government, and I don't look to the government to solve the most minute social ills, particularly those that are entirely imagined as the case may be.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

OK. If you want to go with that track At what level would it be a statistically insignificant enough of a rate to deny Equal Justice Under Law.

 

I'm not a Big Government fan either just one big enough to do the things an individual or small group can not do.

[thesometimesaint]

That what Goldwater and others saw very clearly in 1964 actually has happened . . . and that there was and is a better way to address the rampant racism in black circles . . . as well as white . . . than stupidly as was then done.

 

Goldwater and company clearly saw the problem. How to divide the white racist democrats of the south(formerly known as Dixiecrats) from the white less racist democrats from the north. Effectively splitting the democrats, so republicans could be elected. They actually succeeded in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.

 

As President Johnson himself said “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,”

[tonie]

You are clearly not getting it, so let me attempt to clarify once more. As USU78 and I have repeatedly intimated, you have yet to demonstrate a statistically significant rate of housing and employment discrimination against homosexuals in Utah or relevant counties, thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination in relation thereto, sufficient to warrant legislation, are manufactured and figments of your imagination. You are whipping up drama where none really exists. Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not whipping up drama. The Church claimed peoples rights to discriminate should be protected - which the Church asserted was based in "deeply held religious belief", Sutherland Institute has made the same claim, many others have made the same claim.

What is the statistical threshold that US democracy mandates, that if not met, a proposed law SHALL NOT be passed - not vote percentage, the statistical occurrence of the event the law seeks to regulate? (Wait, there isn't a statistical threshold which must be met before a something can become law)

You are imposing your arbitrary philosophy and acting as though your arbitrary philosophy is the philosophy which binds the actions of society at large.

[USU78]

Goldwater and company clearly saw the problem. How to divide the white racist democrats of the south(formerly known as Dixiecrats) from the white less racist democrats from the north. Effectively splitting the democrats, so republicans could be elected. They actually succeeded in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.

 

As President Johnson himself said “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,”

 

Blah blah blah

 

Name the long list of Southern Dems who switched sides because Repubs were the new racist party in the '60s.

[wenglund]

OK. If you want to go with that track At what level would it be a statistically insignificant enough of a rate to deny Equal Justice Under Law.

 

One of the keys to effective problem resolution and policy making, whether in terms of government/social ills or otherwise, is to ask the right questions. The question you just posed is patently inane in large part because it gets several things exactly backwards (i.e. who has the burden of proof, and for what, etc.), and this in relation to a nebulous and highly debatable and subjective notion like "equal justice under the law," all the while ignoring critical matters of feasibility and practicality.

 

The legislative process doesn't, nor can it, operate on that basis. Rather, as stated before: laws and policies ought to be based on statistically significant state interest--i.e where the parties proposing laws bear the burden of demonstrating that a given problem is widespread or serious enough to warrant costly government intervention. Practicality demands it. It doesn't make sense to take away limited resources of the government from significant issues and devote them instead to every piddly squabble anyone may have. 

 

In other words, the parties proposing the housing and employment laws in question bear the burden of demonstrating that there is sufficient (any?) discrimination against homosexuals that would rationally warrant enacting the laws.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Blah blah blah

 

Name the long list of Southern Dems who switched sides because Repubs were the new racist party in the '60s.

 

Sure. 1960s

early 1960s – Arthur Ravenel, Jr. of South Carolina, before running for the South Carolina Senate

1960s – James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, after endorsing many Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s

1961 – Charlton Lyons to run for Louisiana's 4th congressional district seat

1961 - Billy J. Guin of Shreveport, to support Charlton Lyons for Congress

1962 - Dave Treen, later became U.S. Representative for Louisiana (1973-1980) and Governor of Louisiana (1980-1984)

1962 – Jack M. Cox, to run for Governor of Texas; losing to later Republican convert John B. Connally, Jr.

1962 – James D. Martin, to run for the U.S. Senate from Alabama

1962 – Ronald Reagan of California, while an actor and former Screen Actors Guild president [43]

1962 – Floyd Spence, while a South Carolina state Representative; ran for the House of Representatives as a Republican and lost, later elected to the state senate before making a successful run for the House

1964 – Strom Thurmond, while U.S. senator from South Carolina switched to the Republican party on September 16, 1964.[2]

1964 - Howard Callaway, in order to run successfully as U.S. Representative from Georgia.

1965 – Albert Watson, while U.S. Representative from South Carolina (resigned before switching parties and re-won his seat in a special election)

1965 – Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, while running for Philadelphia District Attorney; in 2009, he switched back to Democrat [44].

1965 – Roderick Miller (LA) after unsuccessfully run for judgeship in 1964

1966 – Thomas A. Wofford, before write-in campaign for State Senator from South Carolina

1966 – Len E. Blaylock, to support Winthrop Rockefeller for Governor of Arkansas

1966 – Jerry Thomasson of Arkansas, switched from Democrat to Republican while an state Representative to run for Attorney General of Arkansas

1966 – Henry Grover of Texas, switched from Democrat to Republican while a state Representative before successfully running for Texas Senate.

1967 – William E. Dannemeyer, while serving as a superior court judge before returning to the California State Assembly

1967 – Allison Kolb of Louisiana, while seeking a political comeback running unsuccessfully for state Treasurer, lost 1956 Democratic primary for state auditor

1968 – William Reynolds Archer, Jr., while a member of the Texas House of Representatives

1968 – Will Wilson, former Texas Attorney General switched to support Richard M. Nixon in the 1968 presidential election

1968 - Comptroller General of Georgia James L. Bentley switched to Republican.

[edit] 1970s1970 – Jesse Helms, two years before running for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina

1970 – A. C. Clemons, while serving in the Louisiana Senate

1970 – William Oswald Mills, before running for U.S. Representative from Maryland

1970 - Bob Barr, was U.S. Representative from Georgia from 1995-2003.

1971 – Tillie K. Fowler

1972 – Robert R. Neall, before serving in the Maryland House of Delegates. He switched back to Democrat in 1999

1972 – Trent Lott, prior to running for the House of Representatives from Mississippi. He was administrative assistant to Rules Committee chairman William Colmer, who endorsed Lott as his successor despite Lott's party switch.

1973 – Mills E. Godwin Jr., Democratic governor of Virginia from 1966 to 1970, moved to the Republican Party and was reelected, serving as governor again from 1974 to 1978.

1973 – Michele Bachmann, US Representative from Minnesota. She switched parties in her senior year of college

1973 – Samuel I. Hayakawa, three years before running for the U.S. Senate from California

1973 – John Connally, not then in office; six years before he sought the Republican presidential nomination

1975 – Elizabeth Dole, while employed by the Federal Trade Commission

1975 – John Jarman, while U.S. Representative from Oklahoma. He had served for 24 years in the House and said he was fed up with the Democratic party, which had been "taken over by liberals". He retired in 1976.

1977 – A. J. McNamara, while serving in the Louisiana House

1977 – Lane Carson while serving in the Louisiana House

1978 – Robert G. Jones, after leaving the Louisiana Senate

1978 – Chris Smith, managed the unsuccessful 1976 New Jersey Senate primary campaign of Democrat, Steve Foley, switch parties to run for U.S. Rep. in 1978 (lost)/ran again 1980 (Won) still holds office [45].

late 1970s – Thomas Bliley, after being Mayor of Richmond, Virginia, and before election to U.S. House of Representatives

late 1970s – Michael F. "Mike" Thompson, while serving in the Louisiana House

1979 – Charles Grisbaum, Jr., member of the Louisiana House from Jefferson Parish

1979 – Ed Scogin, member of the Louisiana House from St. Tammany Parish

[edit] 1980s1980s – S. S. DeWitt, after having left the Louisiana House of Representatives

1980 – Sam Yorty, While trying to make political comeback bid for the Republican n

Update : 1980 – Sam Yorty, While trying to make political comeback bid for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate

1980 – Mac Collins, while county commissioner

1980 – Jim Donelon, to run for Congress in a special election

1980 – Jesse Monroe Knowles, while serving near the end of his term in the Louisiana Senate

1980 – Frank D. White, to run for governor of Arkansas

1980s – J.C. "Sonny" Gilbert, after having left office as a member of both houses of the Louisiana legislature

1981 – Bob Stump, while U.S. Representative from Arizona

1981 – Eugene Atkinson, while U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania

1982 – Condoleezza Rice, changed to Republican cites influence of her father, who switched from Democrat to Republican after being denied voting registration by the Democratic registrar (Al) 1952.

1983 – Jimmy Fitzmorris, to attempt to regain the office of Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana

1983 – Phil Gramm, while U.S. Representative from Texas (resigned before switching parties and re

Update 2: 1983 – Phil Gramm, while U.S. Representative from Texas (resigned before switching parties and re-won his seat in a special election)

1983 – Bob Martinez, while mayor of Tampa, Florida

1984 – V.J. Bella, while serving in the Louisiana House of Representatives

1984 – Andy Ireland, while U.S. Representative from Florida

1984 – H. Edward Knox; became an independent in 2005

1985 – Jeane Kirkpatrick, while U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations [46]

1985 – Edward J. King, former governor of Massachusetts

1985 – Dexter Lehtinen, while serving in the Florida House of Representatives

1985 – Kent Hance, former U.S. Representative, after losing the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Texas

1985 – Jock Scott, near the end of his tenure in the Louisiana House of Representatives

1985 – Carole Keeton Strayhorn, former Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (she ran for Texas Governor as an independent in 2006)

1986 – William Bennett, while U.S. Secretary of Education

1986 – Richard Baker,

Update 3: 1986 – Richard Baker, While in Louisiana House of Representatives later in the year elected to U.S. House seat which opened up shortly after party switch.

1986 – Charles T. Canady, while serving in the Florida House of Representatives

1986 – Frank Rizzo, before running for Mayor of Philadelphia in 1987

1986 – James David Santini, before running for U.S. Senator from Nevada

1987 – Paul Hardy, before running for Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana

1987 – Roy Moore, prior to being appointed to an Alabama circuit judgeship

1988 – Jim McCrery, while running for U.S. Representative from Louisiana. He had been a staff member for Buddy Roemer, but switched parties before the special election after Roemer was elected governor.

1988 – David Duke, prior for running for a seat in the lower house of the Louisiana state legislature

Mike Johanns, was The Governor of Nebraska (1999-2005), United States Secretary of Agriculture (2005-2007) and in 2009 became the United Staes Senator for Nebraska.

Update 4: 1989 – Edward Vrdolyak, After running for Mayor of Chicago as Solidarity Party candidate earlier in the year switched to Republican on September 16, 1987 [47]

1989 – Bill Grant, while U.S. Representative from Florida

1989 – Tommy F. Robinson, while U.S. Representative from Arkansas

1989 – Rick Perry, before running for Agriculture Commissioner of Texas

1989 – W. Fox McKeithen, while Louisiana Secretary of State

[Tacenda]

TSS very fine research, you're officially not a troll!   

[thesometimesaint]

One of the keys to effective problem resolution and policy making, whether in terms of government/social ills or otherwise, is to ask the right questions. The question you just aposed is patently inane in large part because it gets several things exactly backwards (i.e. who has the burden of proof, and for what, etc.), and this in relation to a nebulous and highly debatable and subjective notion like "equal justice under the law," all the while ignoring critical matters of feasibility and practicality.

 

The legislative process doesn't, nor can it, operate on that basis. Rather, as stated before: laws and policies ought to be based on statistically significant state interest--i.e where the parties proposing laws bear the burden of demonstrating that a given problem is widespread or serious enough to warrant costly government intervention. Practicality demands it. It doesn't make sense to take away limited resources of the government from significant issues and devote them instead to every piddly squabble anyone may have. 

 

In other words, the parties proposing the housing and employment laws in question bear the burden of demonstrating that there is sufficient (any?) discrimination against homosexuals that would rationally warrant enacting the laws.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Utter rubbish.

 

Murder is statistically insignificant, and all but impractical to totally prevent. You illogical proposition would eliminate all law.

[thesometimesaint]

TSS very fine research, you're officially not a troll! 

 

It is generally not in my nature to make unsubstantiated claims just to gain attention. However I do have my moments.

[wenglund]

I am not whipping up drama. The Church claimed peoples rights to discriminate should be protected - which the Church asserted was based in "deeply held religious belief", Sutherland Institute has made the same claim, many others have made the same claim.

What is the statistical threshold that US democracy mandates, that if not met, a proposed law SHALL NOT be passed - not vote percentage, the statistical occurrence of the event the law seeks to regulate? (Wait, there isn't a statistical threshold which must be met before a something can become law)

You are imposing your arbitrary philosophy and acting as though your arbitrary philosophy is the philosophy which binds the actions of society at large.

 

Wrong.

 

You, like the sometimesaint, are evidently unacquainted with the legislative process and the fundamental principles upon which it operates (particularly the nature of hearings and reports and debates on the floor of congress)--which aren't all that different from decision-making principles by which most rational individuals operate (i.e. the basic economic principle of cost/benefits and maximizing happiness). I am not making them up or arbitrarily imposing them on the legislative process. Rather, they are so well established as to be blatantly obvious and go without saying. But, since it is evidently lost on you, here are a few links setting for the basic notion of state/government or national interest as well as cost benefit analysis (CBA):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Types_of_legitimacy (see in particular III. Rational-Legal Legitimacy)

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/3470

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Habermas_ConstitutionalDemocracy.pdf (pp. 771-772, 776, and 779)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest

 

All your hand-wringing will not detract from the salient point that you can't demonstrate that there is any, let alone significant problem where homosexuals are being denied housing or employment in Utah and select counties, and thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination is manufactured--vague press notices from the Church notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Wrong.

 

You, like the sometimesaint, are evidently unacquainted with the legislative process and the fundamental principles upon which it operates (particularly the nature of hearings and reports and debates on the floor of congress)--which aren't all that different from decision-making principles by which most rational individuals operate (i.e. the basic economic principle of cost/benefits and maximizing happiness). I am not making them up or arbitrarily imposing them on the legislative process. Rather, they are so well established as to be blatantly obvious and go without saying. But, since it is evidently lost on you, here are a few links setting for the basic notion of state/government or national interest as well as cost benefit analysis (CBA):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Types_of_legitimacy (see in particular III. Rational-Legal Legitimacy)

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/3470

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Habermas_ConstitutionalDemocracy.pdf (pp. 771-772, 776, and 779)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest

 

All your hand-wringing will not detract from the salient point that you can't demonstrate that there is any, let alone significant problem where homosexuals are being denied housing or employment in Utah and select counties, and thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination is manufactured--vague press notices from the Church notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You really a quite a funny guy, and not in funny Ha Ha way. I'm a child of the 50's and 60's I darn well know how our government functions, and lately how it isn't functioning.

 

Again. What level of discrimination is significant enough to warrant corrective legislation? How about 10% like the blacks in this country? How about the roughly 3% that is homosexual? How about the 2% that is LDS? We comprise an insignificant minority in this country. Would you favor laws that discriminate against us based on that fact?