Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What makes a law unconstitutional?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 1:43:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are you asking this in regards to the US Constitution? I have to assume so for the time being. In that case, this is a state issue, so only the Arkansas constitution is relevant. So, the short answer to your question is that it IS constitutional with reference to the US Constitution.

However, if it were found that something in the Arkansas constitution contradicts the 14th Amendment (the most pertinent to this law in question, I would think) to the US Constitution, then Arkansas would have a problem. But if the Arkansas constitution is in line with the US Constitution, and this emergency amendment is in line with the Arkansas constitution, then all is legal.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 1:48:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Disclosure: I am not an attorney and do not intend to supersede the opinion of an actual attorney on this if there is one around-- unless the person is a rather poor attorney or just claiming to be one. (I have come across at least one elsewhere)
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 1:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 1:43:42 PM, Fly wrote:
Are you asking this in regards to the US Constitution? I have to assume so for the time being. In that case, this is a state issue, so only the Arkansas constitution is relevant. So, the short answer to your question is that it IS constitutional with reference to the US Constitution.

However, if it were found that something in the Arkansas constitution contradicts the 14th Amendment (the most pertinent to this law in question, I would think) to the US Constitution, then Arkansas would have a problem. But if the Arkansas constitution is in line with the US Constitution, and this emergency amendment is in line with the Arkansas constitution, then all is legal.

Yes, I am referring to the US Constitution, since the 14th amendment would supercede any state issue, right? And, since it is not a 14th amendment issue, the US Constitution is irrelevant for this topic.
So, unless there is something in the Arkansas Constitution, the law is, in fact, Constitutional. Yet, there are others that seem to disagree.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 1:59:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do the ones who disagree have a cogent legal argument, or are they merely pissing and moaning about not getting their way?

It has been argued that the 14th Amendment also protects homosexuals-- I am one of them-- but it is still fresh and controversial territory on the national stage. Also, if an unconstitutional law is never challenged and found to be so, it remains in effect. So, goodness knows how many unconstitutional laws are out there that society has been okey dokey with all this time... the Louisiana Purchase is a prime example...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 2:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmm... already time for another disclaimer, I'm afraid-- above I made it sound as though I am one of the homosexuals. What I mean is that I am one who would argue that the 14th Amendment also protects homosexuals...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 3:56:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 2:47:16 PM, Fly wrote:
Hmm... already time for another disclaimer, I'm afraid-- above I made it sound as though I am one of the homosexuals. What I mean is that I am one who would argue that the 14th Amendment also protects homosexuals...

TOO late.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 4:32:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why does one have to be an attorney to interpret the constitution? Where is it written that only attorneys are allowed to interpret the constitution.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 4:32:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 3:56:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/9/2015 2:47:16 PM, Fly wrote:
Hmm... already time for another disclaimer, I'm afraid-- above I made it sound as though I am one of the homosexuals. What I mean is that I am one who would argue that the 14th Amendment also protects homosexuals...

TOO late.

Damn!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 4:44:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 4:32:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why does one have to be an attorney to interpret the constitution? Where is it written that only attorneys are allowed to interpret the constitution.

Well, I wasn't implying any of that at all. I even said that I would argue with a person who claims to be an attorney but whose reasoning is flawed. But wouldn't you rather have a person whose profession is in the related field being discussed be the one enlightening you rather than a dabbler?

And for constitutional interpretation to have the force of law behind it, then YES, one does need to be an attorney-- more specifically, a duly appointed judge of appropriate jurisdiction.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:44:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 4:32:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why does one have to be an attorney to interpret the constitution? Where is it written that only attorneys are allowed to interpret the constitution.

For the same reason it's best to trust religious scholars to the bible, it's best to trust those who've studied the history and various rulings to interpret the Constitution. But please tell us why some how your interpretation is more accurate..
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:50:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Off the top of my head I cant say this law is unconstitutional. Equal protection for gays is not a federal law, and the Arkansas law is written solely as a state issue.

As for what makes a law unconstitutional? Kinda obvious that it must contradict the Constitution.

Do you have any arguments either way?
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 1:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.

There are no federal protections based on sexual orientation (http://www.nolo.com...).

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.

Given that gays are not a protected class, where does the constitution say they must be treated equal based on their sexual orientation? Before you say it's discrimination, discrimination legally happens all the time, especially when it comes to taxes.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:07:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 1:22:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Given that gays are not a protected class, where does the constitution say they must be treated equal based on their sexual orientation? Before you say it's discrimination, discrimination legally happens all the time, especially when it comes to taxes.

Or children and felons are legally discriminated against, since they cannot vote, or that the non-elderly are discriminated because they cannot access their social security until the proper age.
Charities discriminate all the time in who they help out, especially those that specifically target a certain group (like United Negro College Fund or Women for Science), and welfare discriminates based on its own metric. I could use a handout, but me making $50K disallows me from food stamps, which I could definitely use.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:17:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.
Where?
Further, THE STATE cannot discriminate, not its citizens, and this law in particular does not discriminate; however, it makes discrimination by its citizens easier.
You are aware that a federal law that imposes a protected class would negate any state/city laws that prohibit such class status, right? So, why can the feds do it, but not the state?

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.
Are protected classes not discriminatory?
Every law in the history of man is discriminatory, as it exists to force, at least one person, to do something (or avoid doing something).
So, since I am not allowed to discriminate in hiring practices, does that mean I cannot not hire the buy who has sued his last three employers?
Government can't discriminate, so does that mean I can go marry my mother?
As I said, if this law was designed to negate a city law that protects felons from discrimination, is it still unconstitutional? This law prevents that as well, and felon rights is likely the next big thing.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:18:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????
From the school of hard knocks. You?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:33:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 1:22:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.

There are no federal protections based on sexual orientation (http://www.nolo.com...).

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.

Given that gays are not a protected class, where does the constitution say they must be treated equal based on their sexual orientation? Before you say it's discrimination, discrimination legally happens all the time, especially when it comes to taxes.

The constitution does not specify sexual orientation. It is due process and EQUAL protection under the law for all. That means you can't treat ANY group of people differently under the law without having a VERY good reason.

Protected class has to do with how the courts examine (or scritinize) a case.There are 3 levels of scrutiny. The presence of and level of animus can cause a case to come under increased scrutiny.

It's pretty complex. I read 3 different articles about it that I googled on the internet. All were from law schools. I am by no means an expert on it. They are. If you really want to know, google "courts scrutiny animus".
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 8:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:33:19 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 1:22:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.

There are no federal protections based on sexual orientation (http://www.nolo.com...).

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.

Given that gays are not a protected class, where does the constitution say they must be treated equal based on their sexual orientation? Before you say it's discrimination, discrimination legally happens all the time, especially when it comes to taxes.

The constitution does not specify sexual orientation. It is due process and EQUAL protection under the law for all. That means you can't treat ANY group of people differently under the law without having a VERY good reason.
And a state is opting to have a uniform classification of protected classes. THAT IS EQUAL!!!
Further, the law does not discriminate. The effects of the law may allow private citizens to discriminate, but that is not something the Constitution deals with (due process and/or equal protection under the law).

Protected class has to do with how the courts examine (or scritinize) a case.There are 3 levels of scrutiny. The presence of and level of animus can cause a case to come under increased scrutiny.
That's great, but not relevant. Where is the discrimination in this law? Is it not equal protection under the law, to ensure that a gay man in Little Rock can expect the same legal treatment when he moves to the next county?
Your concern is the effect the law allows, not the law itself.

It's pretty complex. I read 3 different articles about it that I googled on the internet. All were from law schools. I am by no means an expert on it. They are. If you really want to know, google "courts scrutiny animus".
It is complex, but feel free to tell me why a protected class warrants more scrutiny than a non-protected class, and how that is equal. This is the law and the government after all, not a contract between two private individuals.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 9:06:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 1:59:30 PM, Fly wrote:
Do the ones who disagree have a cogent legal argument, or are they merely pissing and moaning about not getting their way?
Well, naturally, they are concerned with discrimination, and are saying the law legitimizes/supports discrimination. I think it is a fair argument, which begs these follow up questions.

It has been argued that the 14th Amendment also protects homosexuals-- I am one of them-- but it is still fresh and controversial territory on the national stage. Also, if an unconstitutional law is never challenged and found to be so, it remains in effect. So, goodness knows how many unconstitutional laws are out there that society has been okey dokey with all this time... the Louisiana Purchase is a prime example...

The 14th amendment protects everyone, doesn't?
To me, the issue in this case, is allowing contracts and associations to discriminate. Oh, wait, that is not even what the law is about, since this law is about uniform business regulations.
This is wholly different than same-sex marriage, which deals with legal application of the law.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 9:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:50:21 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Off the top of my head I cant say this law is unconstitutional. Equal protection for gays is not a federal law, and the Arkansas law is written solely as a state issue.

As for what makes a law unconstitutional? Kinda obvious that it must contradict the Constitution.

Do you have any arguments either way?
Not really.
I believe this law is wholly constitutional. Even if gays were a protected class at the federal level, this law would still be constitutional, as it affects ALL laws of this nature, and if gays were protected at the federal level, it would be at the state level, so, again, the law is still legal.

I see this as whining and knee-jerk reaction to a law that people don't like, and are trying to use legal concepts that sound good, but do not apply.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 11:35:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 8:52:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/10/2015 8:33:19 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 1:22:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:54:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:33:05 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/9/2015 1:15:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
On point, we'll take this law:
https://legiscan.com...

In plain terms, it prevents any governing bodies ability to create anti-discrimination laws based on any basis except those that are protected classes at the state level. The likely reason for this, and the likely effect, is to negate anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation that have been passed in a few cities.
The reasons cited for this is to regulate intrastate commerce, regarding business practices. A valid point, so the law has merit to it. Lastly, the law does not single out sexual orientation, nor does it ban protected status to anyone.

So, is this law unconstitutional? If so, what makes it so?
If this law was enforcing a universal protected class, would it be unconstitutional? Instead of negating anti-discrimination laws, it would be negating discriminatory laws.
If this law's intent was, instead, to dictate different governing bodies can only establish a minimum wage law based on the state's current minimum wage, is it unconstitutional? What if the intent was to negate a rogue town's law that has anti-discrimination laws regarding felons or sexual predators?
If there were already a state a law stating sexual orientation was a protected class, would this law be unconstitutional?

So, is it the intent, the law, or the circumstances that make a law unconstitutional?

Duh ???????? Where did you get your law degree????

OK, the state of Arkansas may or may not have the power to force such legislation on lower level governmental bodies within their state. But the state of Arkansas (or any other state's ability to discriminate against ANYONE OR ANY CLASS of individuals is trumped by the US Constitution.

There are no federal protections based on sexual orientation (http://www.nolo.com...).

These state legislators are woefully stupid if they think the first time they try to enforce one of these blatantly discriminatory law, it will not be challenged under the US constitution, and more than likely, struck down. All they are doing now is providing ammunition for SCOTUS review the level of animus in such legislation and increase the level of scrutiny they fall under. Such legislation may very well cause a new protected class.

Given that gays are not a protected class, where does the constitution say they must be treated equal based on their sexual orientation? Before you say it's discrimination, discrimination legally happens all the time, especially when it comes to taxes.

The constitution does not specify sexual orientation. It is due process and EQUAL protection under the law for all. That means you can't treat ANY group of people differently under the law without having a VERY good reason.
And a state is opting to have a uniform classification of protected classes. THAT IS EQUAL!!!
Further, the law does not discriminate. The effects of the law may allow private citizens to discriminate, but that is not something the Constitution deals with (due process and/or equal protection under the law).

Protected class has to do with how the courts examine (or scritinize) a case.There are 3 levels of scrutiny. The presence of and level of animus can cause a case to come under increased scrutiny.
That's great, but not relevant. Where is the discrimination in this law? Is it not equal protection under the law, to ensure that a gay man in Little Rock can expect the same legal treatment when he moves to the next county?
Your concern is the effect the law allows, not the law itself.

It's pretty complex. I read 3 different articles about it that I googled on the internet. All were from law schools. I am by no means an expert on it. They are. If you really want to know, google "courts scrutiny animus".
It is complex, but feel free to tell me why a protected class warrants more scrutiny than a non-protected class, and how that is equal. This is the law and the government after all, not a contract between two private individuals.

After, I recommend you google the subject. The articles I read also covered the 14th amendment, due process, equal protection, levels of scrutiny, animus, discrimination, and protected classes. It is not my responsibility to educate you and you would probably dispute much of what I might say anyway. Knowledge requires effort on your part. The choice is yours.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 11:42:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 11:35:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

After, I recommend you google the subject. The articles I read also covered the 14th amendment, due process, equal protection, levels of scrutiny, animus, discrimination, and protected classes. It is not my responsibility to educate you and you would probably dispute much of what I might say anyway. Knowledge requires effort on your part. The choice is yours.

The question is quite simple, so answer it.
Why is a law that allows discrimination of felons not subject to a law that allows discrimination of a protected class? How is that equal protection under the law, if the laws aren't even interpreted equally?

And, I see that you ignore all my other posts as to why you think this law is unconstitutional. Tell me, if there were no laws that this law negates, is it still unconstitutional?
Are you afraid to answer these hypotheticals, because it weakens your position, or do you just feel better insulting me, like your friend Brian?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 11:42:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:35:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

After, I recommend you google the subject. The articles I read also covered the 14th amendment, due process, equal protection, levels of scrutiny, animus, discrimination, and protected classes. It is not my responsibility to educate you and you would probably dispute much of what I might say anyway. Knowledge requires effort on your part. The choice is yours.

The question is quite simple, so answer it.
Why is a law that allows discrimination of felons not subject to a law that allows discrimination of a protected class? How is that equal protection under the law, if the laws aren't even interpreted equally?

The answer is not as simple as you would like it to be. But as simply as I can answer it, convicted criminals are not a protected class because the states have shown legitimate interest in some forms of discrimination against them. LGBTQs are, as yet, not a protected class. However, as lesislation is enected against them with the intent to discriminate, and those laws are rightfully challenged in court, the state must show legimate interest to impose such discrimination. If it can be shown the laws are based in part or totally on animus, the court imposes a higher level of scrutiny, or a higher level of proof of the states "legitimate interest ". And that lack of sufficient legitimate state interest in imposing the discrimination is where I believe they will fail, and be declared unconstitutional. The more instances where animus can be shown, the more likely LGBTQ will become a protected class.
And, I see that you ignore all my other posts as to why you think this law is unconstitutional. Tell me, if there were no laws that this law negates, is it still unconstitutional?
Are you afraid to answer these hypotheticals, because it weakens your position, or do you just feel better insulting me, like your friend Brian?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:31:02 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:42:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/10/2015 11:35:58 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

After, I recommend you google the subject. The articles I read also covered the 14th amendment, due process, equal protection, levels of scrutiny, animus, discrimination, and protected classes. It is not my responsibility to educate you and you would probably dispute much of what I might say anyway. Knowledge requires effort on your part. The choice is yours.

The question is quite simple, so answer it.
Why is a law that allows discrimination of felons not subject to a law that allows discrimination of a protected class? How is that equal protection under the law, if the laws aren't even interpreted equally?

The answer is not as simple as you would like it to be.
I said the question is simple, not the answer.

But as simply as I can answer it, convicted criminals are not a protected class because the states have shown legitimate interest in some forms of discrimination against them. LGBTQs are, as yet, not a protected class. However, as lesislation is enected against them with the intent to discriminate, and those laws are rightfully challenged in court, the state must show legimate interest to impose such discrimination. If it can be shown the laws are based in part or totally on animus, the court imposes a higher level of scrutiny, or a higher level of proof of the states "legitimate interest ". And that lack of sufficient legitimate state interest in imposing the discrimination is where I believe they will fail, and be declared unconstitutional. The more instances where animus can be shown, the more likely LGBTQ will become a protected class.
Wow, none of that addressed the point of equality that I asked.

Further, you, again, make the assertion that you refuse to back up, that SB 202 is discrimination against gays; it is not. The state's interest is stated, which you have not refuted. Further, you have not stated why this law is unconstitutional given other hypothetical, which suggests it is, in fact, not unconstitutional at all.
So, either you believe the effect and/or intent of the law is what makes a law unconstitutional, or you must agree this law is constitutional.

And, if you state that it is the effect and/or intent, then explain how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was Constitutional, since it expressly discriminates against communists.

And, I see that you ignore all my other posts as to why you think this law is unconstitutional. Tell me, if there were no laws that this law negates, is it still unconstitutional?

Are you afraid to answer these hypotheticals, because it weakens your position, or do you just feel better insulting me, like your friend Brian?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 12:59:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For your further eludication :

Legal definitions :
State's Interest :
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Animus
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Protected Class
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

I will leave it to the attorneys at the ACLU, HRC, and SPLC to explain it to the courts. They are more qualified. However, I will state that I do not believe the states can show sufficient interest to uphold the discrimination. I also believe the courts will examine ANY law where the intent is to discriminate against ANYONE more critically, as well they should. Also, I believe the intent of many of these laws can be shown to be based to a great degree on animus.

I know this won't satisfy you. I don't HAVE all the answers. And neither do you.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 1:08:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as An 202, while it's intent is clearly to discriminate, it may be held that the state has the legitimate interest in uniformity of laws statewide. But when the state then begins (or continues) to impose discriminatory laws without legitimate state interest, they will most likely be challenged and struck down.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 1:18:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 12:59:29 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
For your further eludication :

Legal definitions :
State's Interest :
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Animus
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Protected Class
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

WOW!!!!
I totally didn't know any of that, as evidenced by my usage of these terms. /sarcasm


I will leave it to the attorneys at the ACLU, HRC, and SPLC to explain it to the courts. They are more qualified. However, I will state that I do not believe the states can show sufficient interest to uphold the discrimination. I also believe the courts will examine ANY law where the intent is to discriminate against ANYONE more critically, as well they should. Also, I believe the intent of many of these laws can be shown to be based to a great degree on animus.


I know this won't satisfy you. I don't HAVE all the answers. And neither do you.

This is disappointing, as you have no qualms about opining on legal matters, but now you stop? It must hurt to admit defeat as you admitted it is not unconstitutional (although, you still mislabel it discrimination). So, there is hope for you yet.
I'll leave you be to lick your wounds.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 1:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 1:18:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/10/2015 12:59:29 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
For your further eludication :

Legal definitions :
State's Interest :
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Animus
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Protected Class
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

WOW!!!!
I totally didn't know any of that, as evidenced by my usage of these terms. /sarcasm


I will leave it to the attorneys at the ACLU, HRC, and SPLC to explain it to the courts. They are more qualified. However, I will state that I do not believe the states can show sufficient interest to uphold the discrimination. I also believe the courts will examine ANY law where the intent is to discriminate against ANYONE more critically, as well they should. Also, I believe the intent of many of these laws can be shown to be based to a great degree on animus.


I know this won't satisfy you. I don't HAVE all the answers. And neither do you.

This is disappointing, as you have no qualms about opining on legal matters, but now you stop? It must hurt to admit defeat as you admitted it is not unconstitutional (although, you still mislabel it discrimination). So, there is hope for you yet.
I'll leave you be to lick your wounds.

Lol lol lol lol. You are quite the wit, aren't you. :-) (sarcasm)