When One Right Conflicts With Another
We have a problem. The problem being when the Supreme Court legislates from the bench via its rulings. The Constitution is quite clear on the division of powers within the government, and yet the SCOTUS continually overstep their authority through their rulings. I'm going to tackle one of the MOST hot topic buttons there is:
Discrimination versus Freedom of Association
The Constitution encompasses the Freedom of Assembly in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is quite obvious that if you have the Right to Assemble, you also have the Right to NOT Assemble. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS through various rulings but the most famous of these would be the ban on being forced to join a Labor Union in order to work if you don't want to. even though the SCOTUS has also done the reverse by ruling you cannot discriminate based on Race, Creed, Religion, Sex, or Sexual orientation. In other words, you have the Right to NOT associate with a group, but you are being FORCED to associate with another! The bottom line is this is a legal conflict of opposing rulings. The question becomes which Rights are predominate over another?
Where exactly are the lines being drawn? As we all know, it really depends on the makeup of the SCOTUS itself as to which way the Rulings will lean. This Court is supposed to be two main things; Impartial, and ruling on the Constitutionality of the Laws in question before it. It is indeed a very rare occasion when you will find the SCOTUS itself in complete agreement which illustrates the conundrum I am bringing before you. With the appoint for Life to the bench, a Supreme Court Judge may actually be holding views which have become outdated, or too progressive for the majority of Voters, and yet they will still be imposing their outdated or progressive views upon the Nation at large simply because of their longevity. This is hardly fair to the Public because it is their opinions that are coloring their Rulings, not the letter of the Law and the Constitution. The ONLY question they should be ruling on is does the case before them violate either the Letter of the Law, or the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution as written. If it does not, then it is up to the Legislators to decide whether the Law itself needs to be changed. The Legislators are elected by the People and better reflect the views of the Voters (and of course the special interests who fund their campaigns--a whole different topic).
How do we solve it?
So how should we address this issue? Is it time to do away with these Lifetime appointments? Maybe a better idea would be to expand the size of the Court itself? Maybe a combination of the two ideas? There is no designated number of Judges for the Supreme Court in the Constitution. The number is set by Statue which Congress can increase it at will. Considering the length of time between the bringing of a case to The Supreme Court and the length of time to receive a Ruling, this may be a good idea so that Cases can be broken up between panels and therefore speeding the process. A special rule could be employed whereas a Bill would have to pass BOTH House of Congress by a 2/3's majority and must also be signed by the President, ordering the new, full, expanded Court to review a Ruling issued by one of the panels. Maybe, just maybe, by expanding the Court we can finally get a Ruling on exactly which Rights are greater than the others and their ranking?????
Trump is NOT the topic of this discussion.
[REMOVED]
Just gotta say, I don't see how people are forced to be with people they don't like.
As far as lifetime appointments, I would say it is definitely better than letting them be voted on by the public.
Like when a baker is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple in violation of not only their Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof, but also when a girls sports team is forced to admit a transgender to compete in an athletic event. I get it; most of us don't really have a pony in this race because as far as we are concerned, all of the people who it is legal to still discriminate against are ones we probably don't want around us in the first place. We allow our acceptance to be forced upon others who are not so willing and justify it because we have no bias against that group because we have never personally had a bad experience with them. On the other hand, if you were one of those girl athletes that lost the State Title to a boy who identifies as a girl when he clearly isn't biologically, your "acceptance" may be a little more challenged.
Different animal in the public sphere. Don't want to deal with the public, have a private business.
This is a unintended consequence that is going to piss people off when it comes into play
It already has...
All businesses are already Private, they are just open to the Public.
And if they want to be open to the public, they have to be open to all the public. There is no right to choose who will or will not be served.
As I said, if they don't want to serve all the public, make it private.
No shoes, no shirt, no service sound familiar? How about Jacket and Tie Required? How about a taxi cab that refuses to pick you up because you are too drunk and puking? Do you sit quietly in a Courtroom with your cellphone turned off? Are you forced to pull up your pants in that courtroom? What happens if you don't?
As I said in the article, legal discrimination is okay with most of us because we agree with the views that allow it to go unchecked.
That is not discrimination, it is requirements.
Baking cake is a business, not a religious practice. And owning a business is not a right either. If one wants to own/operate a business, then they agree to abide by business and city/state laws governing a business operation, including non-discrimination laws.
Clearly you don't know the difference. Private businesses are usually reserved for members, not the general public.
That has to do with health ordinances and is applied to ALL patrons of said business.
No, that would be Private Clubs which may or may not operate at a profit. Even your publicly traded businesses on the stock market are still private businesses. Enough with the semantics though. You're getting off-topic.
I would love to see where you can back that statement up! You may be limited on the types of business you can open due to statutes, but I can't imagine anyone being told they have no Right to own a business!
And this is what brings about the article I posted above; when Rights conflict!
And by imposing those requirements you are discriminating against those who do not conform to them are you not?
No, that is a choice a patron would make on whether or not to visit the establishment. Follow the rules set forth.
Being gay, male or female or the colour of ones skin is not a choice.
While I agree on sex and color not being a choice, I have to ask if being gay is not a choice, then why do we criminalize other sexual choices?
Consent, or lack thereof. Two consenting gay adults having sex violates nobody. Other "sexual choices", such as pedophilia, do.
If being gay is a choice, I challenge you to choose to be gay for an hour or so.
I have heard several times over the years people say they actually wouldn't have chosen it. Why would they want to choose to be different from everyone else? Choose ridicule and discrimination, harassment. Try to be hetero and fit a mold only not be able to make it work.
Every rule you mentioned applies to everyone regardless of sex, race, orientation, etc.
Each business necessarily must establish rules. It necessarily must determine what products and services it offers. And it certainly has the right to nor provide a particular product or service. But the denial must be to every customer equally. So if a baker, for example, does not wish to make a product that advertises a particular message they have the right to not offer the product. They cannot deny service to a customer based on the customer's personal attributes but they can deny to provide a particular product or service to every customer.
Before I make further comments I would like to confirm that you think homosexuality is a choice.
Are you suggesting being gay (sexual orientation) is a choice?
What "choices" are you referring to?
No, you are not. A person can freely choose to not patronize an establishment with those requirements in place. That's like saying if someone doesn't conform to the law and is subsequently arrested, they are being discriminated against.
Many business require a membership before allowing an individual to patronize that business. Warehouse stores like Costco is a basic example. One cannot simply walk in and purchase something without first having a paid membership card. Unlike regular grocery stores which anyone can patronize without needing membership.
Specify in the law books where it says owning a business is a right? It's a privilege which one can capitalize on and an owner must first have a state issued business license. But they must adhere to business laws as applicable in local and state laws.
When one opens and operates a business, they agree to abide by established law covering business practices and operations. They choose to do so. They are not being forced to open a business. So there's no conflict.
So you're talking about a professional 'girls sports team'.
High school sports teams are not covered by Title VII, they're covered by Title IX of the Higher Education Act.
It isn't discrimination if EVERYONE is required to wear a shirt and shoes. That's how that shit works.
No, you're not.
Only an hour? I am so disappointed.
So you are saying that all that prison sex going on isn't because of a decision, but because all those prisoners engaging in it were always gay to begin with??? I find that difficult to believe.
And yet it IS discrimination if you require that everyone in your employment must be a heterosexual???
You can't have it both ways. If you place requirements on providing something to someone and refuse to provide the same thing to someone who refuse to meet those requirements, you are engaging in discrimination. It doesn't matter if the requirement has to do with the manner of their dress, or the color of their skin, or their sexual preferences, it is still being discriminatory.
Nope. I'm saying that having sex with someone of the same sex, especially under extraordinary circumstances, doesn't make one gay. That is not where their attractions would normally take them. Sometimes, it's not really about sex at all, but domination.
On leaving prison, with whom do they have relationships? With members of the sex to whom they were attracted before entering prison. If they were gay before, then yeah, they'll still be gay. If they weren't, they don't continue to have sex with members of their sex.
I believe that the very definition of "Privilege" in law counters your argument.
Now the SCOTUS has ruled that even though we have Right's that are recognized by the Constitution, those Rights can be subjected to regulation by government. This is why you may have the Right to bear arms, but not necessarily to carry them with you into a courtroom. Since ANYONE can own a business if they so choose, this shows it is a Right, not a Privilege as defined in Law.
In some cases, YES! Science has determined that our sexual preferences are influenced on many, many levels starting as early as the womb. After the genetics and the hormones have had their influences, then it becomes environmental factors that guide our sexual appetites. So is it a choice? As much as any sexual preference is a choice I suppose. Just because I prefer redheads doesn't mean I can't choose to have sex with a blonde. Just because I prefer women doesn't prevent me from having sex with a man. So in that regards, it is indeed a choice!
Not really.
Of course it is, because you are excluding a portion of the population from the possibility of being employed.
You have to have the money to start, the acumen to operate a business successfully. That business, as a legal fiction created by the government of the controlling authority, must abide by the codes and laws of the same.
So, no. It is not a right to have a company.
I see that you're still having an issue understanding discrimination on the basis of sex. Maybe if you read Gorsuch's opinion it would help you get it.
I wonder if you would support an employer requiring that everyone in their employ must be male, or white, or baptized.
You're seeing 'both' when there is only ONE way.
Nope. It isn't discrimination to require a person to be 21 to buy alcohol and tobacco, or 16 to get a drivers license, or 62 to receive Social Security or 65 to receive Medicare. Those are REGULATIONS applicable to EVERYONE.
Drivers are required to wear a seat belt.
Food service employers are required to test employees and are NOT allowed to employ people with hepatitis whether they want to or not.
States refuse licensing of un-certified plumbers or electricians or doctors or pharmacists or, or, or...
Those aren't discriminatory practices, they're regulations instituted to set a standard of service.
Yes it DOES matter what 'manner' of requirement is put in place. THAT is what the Civil rights Act of 1964 and other laws like the ADA are all about.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, NOT a sexual ACT.
Who is saying that having a company is a Right. I'm saying owning and operating a business is.
And we do the same when we require drug tests. We discriminate against those who use drugs. But once again, we are fine with that because we endorse that type of discrimination in general.
I'm really beginning to believe that too many people are getting hung up on semantics when they actually are not as familiar with what the words they use actually encompass.
If I choose banana cream pie (which I like) over okra (which I don't) , I have discriminated against okra. Why I dislike okra does not affect the fact that I have discriminated against it. In the process, I have also discriminated in favor of banana cream pie. I suggest everyone who is arguing that they first read the definition of the root word Discriminate and the derivatives of it.
Think of it this way. You are heterosexual. Do you think that you chose to be attracted to women instead of men? Could you have chosen to be attracted to men instead of women? If so, make the choice (temporarily) to genuinely be attracted to men instead of women. Tell me how you accomplished that.
To me this clears it up nicely. Speaking for myself, there is no way I could choose to be attracted to men. Flat out impossible. My sexual orientation is determined by my biology, not my consciousness. All I can do is choose how I act on my orientation.
From your source:
Your argument here is one of exception. The norm is that public businesses (vs. private clubs) cannot discriminate. Those who can due to loopholes in the law are exceptions and I predict those loopholes will continue to close.
In principle, public businesses have the right to choose the products and services they offer, but they cannot discriminate against their customers based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
The normal way that is accomplished is by denying someone their preference. while leaving their base animal instincts intact for prolonged periods of time.
I did not ask about behavior. I asked about orientation. How would you choose to genuinely be attracted to men rather than to women?
As explained, by having the other option removed from the table and still wishing to engage in sexual activity with another person.
CK,
If I may interject, it has been proven scientifically, that homosexuality is real. Homosexuality even exists in the animal world. Do you think they are making a choice or that they are biologically wired that way?
You are still conflating behavior with sexual orientation (attraction).
Of course you may!
Already covered that in this previous comment .
I can't tell for sure because I do not have first hand knowledge of the animals in question, but as noted in the linked previous comment, science has determined that while there may be genetic influences, environment also plays a large and important part in it.
You know supposed "gay reparative therapy" is a crock of shit right? What you suggest is simply forcing someone to pretend to be straight just so you don't have to see a gay couple on the streets. You do know that most men who rape in prison aren't gay, they're just being forced into what you suggest. To intentionally do that to those who have expressed their personal sexual orientation but wasn't what religious bigots want to hear so they deny them access to the gender they are in love with is no different than putting that person in prison. So essentially you are suggesting making homosexuality illegal again all to appease your own personal preference.
We all do have a choice, whether to be a stupid piece of shit bigot who tries to force our personal beliefs and opinions on others, or to accept people as they present themselves and take them at face value. Gay persons are not making a choice about their sexual orientation, but every one of us can make a choice to either hate and malign that person, to discriminate and shame that person, to try and bully others into compliance with some worthless fantasy religious code, or we can choose to be compassionate humans who show love to others regardless of their sexual orientation. I think those who are so vehemently against being a compassionate human are simply repressed gay persons so indoctrinated and told to hate themselves that they have to project their own bitterness and anger for having to struggle for decades against something others are now telling them is normal. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
In a short term scenario, this might be true. Over the long term though, constant exposure would probably change orientation. Maybe you've heard of the behavior modification programs they have experimented with?
They way it is done in those places? Yes! Morally speaking, it shouldn't even be attempted. A person has the Right to be attracted to whomever they like.
Nevermind CK, your responses show you understand that orientation is not a choice.
No, it doesn't. The law regulates what business practices are acceptable or not.
Wrong! People can own a business if they want to. But they must still go through all legal motions and licensure to operate a business. And their permission to operate can be revoked if they fail to abide by established guidelines or conditions. To be able to operate a business, one must agree to abide by such legal regulations or risk losing permission to operate.
No, it's not. One does not choose whom they're attracted to. The choice is how one acts upon it.
See previous statement.
Again, you confuse behavior with orientation.
That idea has been debunked.
Ck
MRIs have shown that the brains of homosexual people are radically different and those of straight people the same findings have been found in animals too. I can give you the long list of animals that engage in homosexual behavior. it can’t be environmental because they’re not seeing it in their family units.
There is so much data out there that shows this does NOT work and has also shown to cause actual harm in people undergoing conversion therapy, that I'm surprised you pulled this out. The original author of conversion therapy has admitted in court (CA Prop 8 case) his data was based in faulty research.
You suppose wrong.
You are conflating sexual attraction with sexual orientation.
Again, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, NOT a sexual act. You having sex with a man would not make you a homosexual.
Yes, sexual attraction is a choice.
Perhaps you missed the predicate. It required 'genuinely be attracted', not mere expediency.
I think you need to expand a little more on exactly where you see the issue. I'm not in favor of changing the size or makeup of SCOTUS. I do want a SCOTUS that follows the rule of law and the constitution and does not legislate from the bench althought Congress has failed so many times over the years and seems to be more interested in partisan politics than working for the people... But IMO if the people want change they need to get Congress to pass laws to make those changes. The people's opinions should never color the decisions of SCOTUS.
But please expand a little more, I went out to dinner tonight (first time since this virus fun all begain, oh dining out how I've missed you) and my brain is a little befuddled...
I actually wouldn't want to change the makeup of the court either. Keep it at the nine.
I think the problem is congress trying to put in ideologues.
Enjoy yourself! I did today when I took my son to a sitdown breakfast. I tipped well too!
When a SCOTUS ruling expands a law rather than just ruling on its merits as to whether it is Constitutional or not. A good example would be the current ruling on whether or not an employer can discriminate based upon sexual orientation. While I agree with the premise behind the ruling that it should not be a deciding factor in the hiring or firing process, I'm not running a religious college that teaches homosexuality is a sin. If I were, and I firmly believed that it was, then this ruling has undercut one of the tenets of my religion and forced me to accept what I would not encourage,
I may be wrong but I think a college is a private institution.
No one is forced to hire someone, one just cannot indiscriminately fire someone if they decide they don't want that orientation around.
Under this new ruling you can be if your only reason for not hiring them is sexual identity or preference (unless their sexual preference is animals, dead people, relatives, or children; then it is perfectly okay to discriminate against them).
Who is going to know that? The only thing I could see is someone hiring someone then finding out they are gay then firing them.
An owner still has a right to decide who will work for them. That has not changed.
The purpose of the court is to determine the constitutionality of a law and interpret its intent.
Religious colleges tend to be private institutions and therefore are free to discriminate.
If one refuses to hire someone or fires them based solely on sexual orientation, then that is discrimination and therefore illegal. I can't imagine why someone would actually defend discriminatory practices in a business.
So you agree that sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination? Is this because a person has no control over what excites them sexually?
Thanks. Yes, enjoyed it very much. Always nice having a filet so tender you can almost cut it with your fork. And yes, tipped very well also but then I always try to tip well for good service and it does seem like I almost always get good service. just lucky I guess.
I was not totally in favor of the recent ruling myself. I felt that should be with Congress to expand the law rather than how SCOTUS ruled. I also agree with the premise behind the ruling I feel that once again Congress let us down and basically forced this to SCOTUS.
I have been out and had the best, most tender steak. Then another time was no where near as good. I am thinking it is who is in the kitchen at the time.
As far as the ruling, it is sad to me that these things even have to be spelled out. A general rule should apply to all without having to delve into subsets.
Yes. I thought I was clear about that.
Whatever sexually excites a person is irrelevant.
Religious institutions are exempt from Title VII laws so NO conflict.
Thanks for playing.
And yet certain "proclivities" are still labeled aberrant behavior in need of at the very least psychological counseling and behavior modification.
Only if granted that status. Since when are you "granted" Rights? You either have them, or you don't.
I agree that this was the pervue of the Legislative branch. What sucks is that we even need such laws in the first place, but once again, it bumps up against the Rights of others to distance themselves from people they don't want to associate with for whatever reason.
Are you claiming that religious institutions shouldn't have to qualify for the plethora of 'special protections' that they are afforded in our society? That would exempt anyone and everyone who proclaims them self a religious institution from civil rights laws and taxation. That line would be endless.
Well then your 'argument' about conflicting rights is moot isn't it CK?
All the whining about the SCOTUS is irrelevant if rights are really inalienable right?
And here we have come full circle in the discussion--Finally! If these Rights are inalienable, then how can they be infringed upon by the SCOTUS decisions? YOU, and only YOU can decide who you want to be around. Forcing you to be around people you don't want to be is infringing upon an Inalienable Right:
You confuse behavior with orientation. And sexual behavior in a workplace from anyone, gay, straight, ect., is usually frowned upon by an employer and can result in sexual harassment claims and termination.
Even rights have limits.
If you don't want to be around certain people, then don't put yourself in a situation where that might be a possibility.
HOW does the SCOTUS decision infringe on anyone's rights and WHAT right is being infringed?
Re-read. It'll save us from going around in circles.
I have difficulty in considering a right to also be a requirement, or vice versa. A person could choose somewhere else to work if he is "required" to join a union that he refuses to join. He has the right to choose. If he is required to work at such a place, or is required to join a union he wishes not to join, then is that not a form of slavery?
The thing with unions is they work and negotiate for all the employees. The ones not in the union benefit from union activities while not having to take part.
There was a time, the era of the sweatshops, that unions were a necessity. These days there should be enough labour legislation to secure workers's rights without unions.
I use to think that yet then I was looking at data, there is a clear line showing a correlation between stagnant, lower wages versus the decline of unions.
Though I have to add that most places of work are really not made for unions, if that makes any sense. They have their use/place in factories and the like yet when most people work in the service industry, not likely to see one.
I understand your point though with federal and state laws. Though laws mostly deal with discrimination and the like where a union could work for better pay, benefits.
Forcing someone to do something that they do not wish to do is indeed slavery.
Are soldiers slaves then?
As close to it as the law allows!
A very good question when a draft is in place.
Right CK, OH the daily slavery of the 55 MPH speed limit.
Pffft.
Let's just say, in our 70 MPH zones people go 85.
Well, except that one ass that is going 60 and almost causing wrecks and backups.
And yet the Autobahn has a safer track records than our speed limited Interstate Highways...
Let's be honest here, speeding tickets are simply a source of un-apportioned taxation revenue. If cops really didn't want you speeding they would have the highway departments install speed bumps on roads and rolling roadblocks on highways.
You live in the Atlanta area? :D
Since the Autobaun has a speed limit, HOW is that relevant?
Yet speed bumps and rolling road blocks are STILL merely avenues to force you to do something you don't want to do, aren't they?
Removal of for profit tickets should be first part of police reform
From Wikipedia . Surprised you didn't know this...
The Autobahn ( IPA: [ˈʔaʊtoˌba:n] (
listen ) ; German plural Autobahnen ) is the federal controlled-access highway system in Germany . The official German term is Bundesautobahn (plural Bundesautobahnen , abbreviated BAB ), which translates as "federal motorway". The literal meaning of the word Bundesautobahn is "Federal Auto(mobile) Track".
German Autobahnen are widely known for having no federally mandated speed limit for some classes of vehicles. [1] However, limits are posted (and enforced) in areas that are urbanised, substandard, accident-prone, or under construction. On speed-unrestricted stretches, an advisory speed limit ( Richtgeschwindigkeit ) of 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph) applies. While driving faster is not illegal as such in the absence of a speed limit, it can cause an increased liability in the case of a collision (which mandatory auto insurance has to cover); courts have ruled that an "ideal driver" who is exempt from absolute liability for "inevitable" tort under the law would not exceed Richtgeschwindigkeit .
Yes they are,
That's because people are lousy drivers who don't know what they're doing half the time and our highways are generally curvier in design as opposed to the Autobahn. But even the Autobahn has speed limits put in effect when approaching populated areas.
Ever hit a speed bump going 55? Not good for the car.
So it does have a speed limit.
Well, at least the author recognizes that the Supreme Court is concerned with rights rather than laws. But the author seems to ignore the system of appellate courts and state courts that are supposed to be concerned with rights, as well.
At the heart of the matter is the Constitution. And it seems the question that needs to be asked is whether or not the Constitution is a document enumerating rights or a document enumerating laws.
In the United States the judicial branch is concerned with rights and the legislative branch is concerned with freedoms. Congress can't grant or revoke rights. Laws can grant, revoke, or modify freedoms but laws cannot grant the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others. That's where SCOTUS steps in and declares such a law unconstitutional. In the United States the only way to grant or revoke rights is to amend the Constitution.
Packing the Supreme Court so that granted freedoms are allowed to infringe upon rights undermines the purpose of the Constitution. That's why the United States is not, and cannot become, a democracy.
Indeed it is!
Apparently they can as the recent anti-discrimination on sexual orientation in employment ruling has proven. You DO have the Right to decide your sexual inclinations. You do NOT have a Right to be hired by someone who disagrees with your lifestyle choices--until now. This is infringing upon the Freedom of Association Right of the business owner. Just like Hate Speech laws infringe upon your Right to Free Speech also do.
Now don't get me wrong, I actually support the premise behind all of these Laws, but they are indeed infringing upon the Rights of others when we enforce these laws, which is why I wrote this blog. Where do we draw the line on infringing on others Rights simply to avoid someone else getting their feelings hurt? Hate Speech that does not encourage violence is not infringing on anyone's Rights. There is NO Right to NOT be offended by something.
A business is not a person and has no rights. A business is property and property doesn't have rights; otherwise a business could not be owned as property. In the United States it is unconstitutional to own a person. A business can only be granted freedoms. A business does not have the freedom to infringe upon the rights of people.
Laws can only grant, revoke, or modify freedoms. The Constitutional question is whether or not those laws infringe upon rights.
You are pointing out the unavoidable conflict between the judicial and legislative branches of government. People have a right to speak. But do people have the freedom to say anything they want to say?
According to the 1st Amendment? YES! According to the Supreme Court? NO! You would think that in order to limit Free Speech, the first step would be for the Legislators to modify the First Amendment.
Really? Does the 1st amendment grant the freedom to give false testimony, incite violence or insurrection, cause panic or terror, slander a person or group of people, and commit fraud or extortion?
The 1st amendment enumerates rights. But laws citing the 1st amendment can only grant freedoms. And freedoms can be granted, revoked, or modified.
'I thought it was very unfair for him to lose his whole business over not making a cake that was against his religion. If you want your rights, then you have to understand and respect the rights of others as well. That does not happen, its my way only or the highway. Yes.. it's the same principle, but only being recognized on one side. I am sure there were other bakers that would have made their cake, but no, lets put this guy out of business.'
He didn't lose his business over not making a cake. He lost his business (if he actually did) for discriminating. This bigot baker doesn't respect the rights of others.
HINT, HINT, dear, there's a law against that now, FINALLY.
"Rights" are nothing more than a "Game of Ping Pong" in Politics anymore.
One will always be right, until it's made wrong, until it's made right again, and so on" !
It's nothing more than the best "Flavor of the Day" anymore (Polls) !
It's not against his religion dear to bake a cake.