SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (154424)12/20/2004 12:52:30 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
First of all, he was ruling on Washington law. I don't have the time or the inclination to dig for what in the Washington constitution, if anything, leads him to conclude that being gay makes one part of a "suspect class." Sounds like a "suspect ruling", though. Let me know when someone higher than a county superior court judge affirms his ruling.

Second, taking the broadest definition of discrimination, as you have, one could make a case of discrimination out of most any law or regulation in that many of them distinguish in some way between individuals. Discrimination by your definition, then, is not necessarily something in need of redress.

Finally, cut the "if you were informed about con law" condescension. One does not have to be an arrogant a$$ to be considered "informed" enough to have a conversation on this subject. But since you are unlikely to change and for the benefit of those who are asking that this subject leave this thread, I'll refrain from any further effort to hold a conversation with you on it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News