LogFAQs > #928574229

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicSupreme Court is FIERCELY DIVIDED whether EMPLOYERS can FIRE GAY PEOPLE!!!
aDirtyShisno
10/09/19 11:48:47 PM
#41:


adjl posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...
That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.


It should automatically apply, because it's very obviously logically identical to other protected classes. It hasn't been allowed to apply automatically, however, because Christian fundies are a tenacious bunch with far too much influence in American politics.

Your argument about whether or not something should be legal really shouldn't hinge on whether or not it's already legal. That's a thoroughly tautological approach.

Its not that it shouldnt be legal because its not already legal, remember that laws work in the opposite. They make things expressly illegal and then everything else is legal. This means you are attempting to declare that something that is legal now is actually not legal. Not by actively changing the laws to incorporate the item in question, but rather by just pointing at something it was not covered by before and saying that it should be covered by that too and so it will be.

Laws just dont work like that. The judiciary never was meant to create or change laws, only to enforce the laws as they are written by the legislature. If you want ironclad protection for something get them to make a law, not any of this it is, it isnt back and forth thats created by the judicial process.
---
Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens.
...and he was never heard from again.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1