(06-11-2018 05:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, when the heck did I ever call Lance evil?

You're awful. Don't put words like that in my mouth. Back to hiatus - I can't stand the way in which you debate on this forum.

Well the words you *have* used in the last couple of hours are:
Lance is 'uninformed'
Lance 'duped'
Opponents (Lance) 'created an issue that was non-existent' (in other words, they lied.)

They are, if you notice, on the whole not terribly positive terms (to say the least). How dare I replace your negative connotations with another, I guess.

(06-11-2018 05:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It's simple. Just look at the pictograph. If you are wearing a skirt, use the one with the skirt pictograph. If you are wearing pants, use the one with the pants pictograph.

Problem solved.

Auch, lad!

http://www.scotclans.com/where-in-scotla...come-from/

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.
So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).
To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.
And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.
In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

I know several contributors on here that I know who are attorneys. I would trust their ability to interpret the law over yours. They have all weighed in that HERO does in fact include bathrooms.

Again, I refer you to the question that you haven't really addressed directly. So the trans person has some right to pee and poo in a place where he or she is comfortable. But you are either ignoring or denying the rights of non-trans persons to do the same. Which is it? And if you don't ignore or deny, whose rights prevail? Because there is clearly a conflict of rights here.

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

Only if you decide to ignore en toto the 14th Amendment and the entire body of civil rights laws (i.e. non-discrimination based on race, national origin) that flowed directly out of it and the other Civil War Amendments

Kind of huge leap to ignore those, imo.

If you are trying to bootstrap the analogy of black discrimination and its root legal basis and graft it onto the bathroom issues, it would help to have the same background and legal basis, which it does not.

(06-11-2018 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 05:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, when the heck did I ever call Lance evil?

You're awful. Don't put words like that in my mouth. Back to hiatus - I can't stand the way in which you debate on this forum.

Well the words you *have* used in the last couple of hours are:
Lance is 'uninformed'
Lance 'duped'
Opponents (Lance) 'created an issue that was non-existent' (in other words, they lied.)

They are, if you notice, on the whole not terribly positive terms (to say the least). How dare I replace your negative connotations with another, I guess.

It's a rather big leap between criticizing someone and using negative terms, and calling them evil, no? I admitted that I was uninformed - does that mean I was also calling myself evil? I suggested others contributing to this thread were also uninformed (based on what they said), so was I calling them evil too? A bridge too far, Tanq, a bridge way too far.

This is now the second time I can remember where you took a criticism I had of someone and twisted that into a situation where I somehow was condemning the issue to my fullest ability - in this case with vehemence (the other was the conversation regarding interfering with foreign policy before or after an election). As if one can't have a scale upon which they evaluate how much they disagree or agree with someone, or how strongly new information affects their opinion of a situation.

With Berkman, I've never said that my opinion of his decision to advocate against HERO wasn't based on that choice - it certainly is. When I connected it back to my new understanding of how HERO was written, I said that I felt a bit worse about Lance. So you aren't too far off that my opinion is 99% about Lance's stance and 1% about my revelation that HERO did not, as I and others though, have a specific provision dealing with bathroom accessibility.

And if you want to tie this back to the original conversation, I still don't think his public advocacy should disqualify him from the Rice job. Which seems shocking since, per your opinion, I think Lance is evil.

(06-11-2018 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

Only if you decide to ignore en toto the 14th Amendment and the entire body of civil rights laws (i.e. non-discrimination based on race, national origin) that flowed directly out of it and the other Civil War Amendments

Kind of huge leap to ignore those, imo.

If you are trying to bootstrap the analogy of black discrimination and its root legal basis and graft it onto the bathroom issues, it would help to have the same background and legal basis, which it does not.

Not sure I follow your comment. Hasn't the 14th amendment been used to settle gender discrimination cases? So wouldn't gender access to restrooms fit into that?

(06-11-2018 07:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.
So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).
To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.
And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.
In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

I know several contributors on here that I know who are attorneys. I would trust their ability to interpret the law over yours. They have all weighed in that HERO does in fact include bathrooms.

Again, I refer you to the question that you haven't really addressed directly. So the trans person has some right to pee and poo in a place where he or she is comfortable. But you are either ignoring or denying the rights of non-trans persons to do the same. Which is it? And if you don't ignore or deny, whose rights prevail? Because there is clearly a conflict of rights here.

Jesus, you too? I really have to be careful with my language. Apparently I was too flippant when discussing the non-explicit discussion of bathroom issues...

I said in other responses that it did not EXPLICITLY included language bathrooms, something you too thought it did. Once I read through HERO it was clear that of course bathroom use would be covered because it did not allow discrimination based on gender identity.

And I have addressed your last question - I've bolded it in the response you quoted... If you're asking me specifically to say whose rights win out, I would say that the trans-rights would win out for the reasons I stated. Let's just look back to seperate-but-equal to see that our courts have decided that, in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

In the end, aren't many rights of one person often in conflict with with those of another?

(06-11-2018 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

Only if you decide to ignore en toto the 14th Amendment and the entire body of civil rights laws (i.e. non-discrimination based on race, national origin) that flowed directly out of it and the other Civil War Amendments

Kind of huge leap to ignore those, imo.

If you are trying to bootstrap the analogy of black discrimination and its root legal basis and graft it onto the bathroom issues, it would help to have the same background and legal basis, which it does not.

Not sure I follow your comment. Hasn't the 14th amendment been used to settle gender discrimination cases? So wouldn't gender access to restrooms fit into that?

First I mis-typed. Should have been 15th Amendment.

The issue of racial discrimination has deep legal roots into the Civil War Amendments. So when you are talking about discrimination of t-gendered and equating it to discrimination of blacks, it is a really bad 'real world' example legally.

The presence of anti-discrimination regimes based on racial identity are allowed (some say encouraged) to a great extent under a combined reading of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. It is not just a 'good idea' or an idea to make one group or another 'feel good'. It is part and parcel of our legal foundation -- literally. Same can be implied to a lesser extent to religious based discrimination as the under the 1st amendment that it literally an issue dealing with a fundamental right. (And the term 'fundamental right' is a term of art in this instance....)

In short, the term "on account of race or color" is part and parcel of the Constitution; "on account a hairy bearded guy wants to wear a miniskirt" is not.

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 07:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.
So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).
To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.
And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.
In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

I know several contributors on here that I know who are attorneys. I would trust their ability to interpret the law over yours. They have all weighed in that HERO does in fact include bathrooms.

Again, I refer you to the question that you haven't really addressed directly. So the trans person has some right to pee and poo in a place where he or she is comfortable. But you are either ignoring or denying the rights of non-trans persons to do the same. Which is it? And if you don't ignore or deny, whose rights prevail? Because there is clearly a conflict of rights here.

Jesus, you too? I really have to be careful with my language. Apparently I was too flippant when discussing the non-explicit discussion of bathroom issues...

I said in other responses that it did not EXPLICITLY included language bathrooms, something you too thought it did. Once I read through HERO it was clear that of course bathroom use would be covered because it did not allow discrimination based on gender identity.

And I have addressed your last question - I've bolded it in the response you quoted... If you're asking me specifically to say whose rights win out, I would say that the trans-rights would win out for the reasons I stated. Let's just look back to seperate-but-equal to see that our courts have decided that, in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

In the end, aren't many rights of one person often in conflict with with those of another?

Problem is 'separate but equal' is part and parcel of the Civil War Amendment thingy I just explained.

Are you saying that my wish to wear a mini-skirt is the same level of a suspect class as blacks, or any other sign of racial issue? Hate to tell you it is not.

But again, the solution seems to flow out of the 'mixing and matching' that permeates our ideas of 'fundamental rights' and such things as drawing 'suspect classes' that engender the highest judicial scrutiny possible.

(06-11-2018 08:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 05:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, when the heck did I ever call Lance evil?

You're awful. Don't put words like that in my mouth. Back to hiatus - I can't stand the way in which you debate on this forum.

Well the words you *have* used in the last couple of hours are:
Lance is 'uninformed'
Lance 'duped'
Opponents (Lance) 'created an issue that was non-existent' (in other words, they lied.)

They are, if you notice, on the whole not terribly positive terms (to say the least). How dare I replace your negative connotations with another, I guess.

It's a rather big leap between criticizing someone and using negative terms, and calling them evil, no? I admitted that I was uninformed - does that mean I was also calling myself evil? I suggested others contributing to this thread were also uninformed (based on what they said), so was I calling them evil too? A bridge too far, Tanq, a bridge way too far.

This is now the second time I can remember where you took a criticism I had of someone and twisted that into a situation where I somehow was condemning the issue to my fullest ability - in this case with vehemence (the other was the conversation regarding interfering with foreign policy before or after an election). As if one can't have a scale upon which they evaluate how much they disagree or agree with someone, or how strongly new information affects their opinion of a situation.

With Berkman, I've never said that my opinion of his decision to advocate against HERO wasn't based on that choice - it certainly is. When I connected it back to my new understanding of how HERO was written, I said that I felt a bit worse about Lance. So you aren't too far off that my opinion is 99% about Lance's stance and 1% about my revelation that HERO did not, as I and others though, have a specific provision dealing with bathroom accessibility.

And if you want to tie this back to the original conversation, I still don't think his public advocacy should disqualify him from the Rice job. Which seems shocking since, per your opinion, I think Lance is evil.

Then let me rephrase. Many liberals I talk to are not comfortable with having men in the same restroom as their daughters.

And, while the Houston ordinance might have been drawn in a sub-rosa fashion to transgender issues, the explicit language would have tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of places (their definition of 'public accommodations') subject to liability for any 'act of discrimination' based on 'sex' and 'sexual identity'.

Under this amazingly broad language, while allowing for the trans to choose their bathrooms, would also allow *any male* to use female facilities and vice versa. If hairy biker dude wants to amble into the women's room, there is no legal impediment whatsoever; in fact if there is an impediment the place is then subject to a civil action.

I mean no one begrudges the trans to use the restroom that they wish to use. But realistically speaking, to face a lawsuit because you impede hairy biker dude is stunningly just as stupid as it is good to have the trans rights 'protected'. And *this* scheme is what the ordinance promoted. You may find that a fine and dandy place to be -- I don't.

Getting back to my more liberal friends, are they just as 'uninformed' as Lance when they have an issue with not being able to impede hairy biker dude from ambling into the women's room with their daughters?

To be blunt, this scheme is the result of the sub-rosa attempt to do this. Since it had to be couched in terms of generalities to supposedly not be seen, the resulting scheme that is supported is *just as broad*.

No offense, but a more honest, tighter language attempt should have been made. But the people that promulgated the ordinance are as equally guilty of distortion in trying to hide this as Lance is in trying to combat it.

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? Can you cite anything to support that?

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past' for that time. I am sorry if you overlook them, dont know of them, or ignore them. But if you are going to unequivocally and uncategorically state that "a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there" you should have to address these issues much in the same manner that SCOTUS has without pooh-poohing them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, and even ignoring the issues of private property and rights of assembly, please do tell the source where unequivocally and without reservation

Quote:"a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there"

is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Care to elaborate a bit more? I’m not quite sure I follow what you’re saying exactly.

When I think of the Civil Rights Act of 64, where one could not discriminate in public accommodations, I see the idea my comment playing out - that someone’s right to be in a public accommodation trumps someone else’s, I guess perceived, right to bar entry.

I’ll admit that I did not stress test my initial comment against every single possible outcome in the world, and that I’m sure there are situations that do not hold true (see private property rights). But do you just disagree with your interpretation that I was trying to expand that to all situations possible? Or do you disagree with that comment in any shape? Remember that this was in response to Owl#’s discussion on who should be burdened by discomfort in bathroom use, a transgender person or a non-transgender person.

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, please do tell where unequivocally

Quote:"a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there"

is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Quote: When I think of the Civil Rights Act of 64, where one could not discriminate in public accommodations, I see the idea my comment playing out - that someone’s right to be in a public accommodation trumps someone else’s, I guess perceived, right to bar entry.

And, when you think about it some, there are a host of exceptions to that issue.

And, think about private clubs -- I have a fundamental right to assemble with whomever I choose, and I may exclude others. There are no laws forcing the KKK to accept blacks (who are at the apex of suspect classes given the subject matter and for whom the Civil War Amendments were written for.)

The problem is also, you are blindly promoting those of whom who are specifically not into a suspect class (a term of art) into a suspect class with your rule.

The rules are very different for suspect classes as opposed to quasi-suspect classes and non-suspect classes. With all due respect, you are mixing and matching every single issue applied to a suspect class to every single delineation out there.

Even Obergfell (the single sex marriage case) did not promote LGBT into a suspect class; and they had every opportunity to base that decision on doing that. They passed.

Hate to tell you that all anti-discrimination laws arent viewed under the one-size fits all paradigm I suspect that you think it does. And, to be blunt, they shouldnt be for very good reasons.

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law.

Umm, this is a legal matter, so that's kind of what you have to talk about.

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  in the most basic explanation possible, at some point, a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there.

Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, please do tell where unequivocally

Quote:"a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there"

is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

(06-11-2018 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law.

Umm, this is a legal matter, so that's kind of what you have to talk about.

Got it - so no layman’s interpretation or descriptions. Just studious debate.