What makes them a minority? Do redheads get to be a minority and get funding for their causes?
25% vote to propose state constitution change?
- Thread starter Carol
- Start date
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 2 years, and the "whole institution of marriage" was not brought down. That should tell us something.
Personally, I don't care which two consenting adults decide to enter into a committed legal or spiritual relationship, and I don't understand why anyone else should care either. If it were up to me, I'd COMPLETELY separate the legal domestic partnership from the spiritual marriage, and leave one to the state and the other to religion or The Creator. Choose one, the other, both or neither.
Even better: how about everyone gets Social Security and health insurance, so you wouldn't need to marry someone to get legal protections.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #23
Hair color in and of itself is not protected under the civil rights act. However, hair color is tightly associated with other attributes that are, such as race and national origin.
From my understandings of employment law issues, there have been circumstances where discrimination for or against something associated with race or national origin have resulted in a court decision against the discriminating decision-maker, based on violation of civil rights statutes.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I thought I explained that. They are a minority because they are less than 50% of the population as a whole. Basic arithmatic involved here.
Redheads, (Natural Redheads) as I understand it, are also a minority. Approximately 4 % of the population.
EDIT - Hey, you know what, maybe we can solve the current budget deficit. We pass a tax on Redheads. Tax all natural redheads 10,000.00 per year. It won't make a big dent in the budget, but it is better that they pay taxes than I (a true brunette) pay taxes - END EDIT.
Who is proposing funding for any cause? What is being discussed is equal right and recognition under the law. This has been granted in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The proposed State Constitutional Convention is about revoking those rights.
Incidently, today, the Constitutional Convention has left on recess, and will probably not reconvene before the term expires on January 2, 2007. The Convention recessed without reaching agreement on the referrendum question. This means, that without drastic measure, the referrendum will not be on the ballot next November. The law allowing same sex couples to marry in Massachusetts will remain.
The watch is running ... come on you other 49 states. Step up. Sometime in the future, you'll all be looking back wondering why you withheld these rights from this part of the population. Just like looking back at Segregation, Sufferage and Slavery. Come on in ... the waters fine.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
The vote is in.
It was a vote to abstain, that passed 109 - 87.
The Constitutional Convention will reconvene on January 2nd, 2007, the day before Gov. Mitt Romney leaves office.
My state senator voted for the recess, my state rep voted against the recess.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._recess_the_constitutional_convention/?page=1
It was a vote to abstain, that passed 109 - 87.
The Constitutional Convention will reconvene on January 2nd, 2007, the day before Gov. Mitt Romney leaves office.
My state senator voted for the recess, my state rep voted against the recess.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._recess_the_constitutional_convention/?page=1
Behavior is not race based or a national origin issue. Its is a behavior. And I for one think a Mc Donalds should have a say over Drag Queens in the drive through.
Sean
In the minority is different than a legal Minority no matter how many math problems you put up to prove your point.
Sean
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
And is it your position that the state has no obligation to protect the rights of those "in the minority"?
I think a business should be restricted from firing a person based on race, creed, or color; however, it gets a little sticky when behavior is in question and a business is trying to present itself in a certain way to the public. Its going to take some compromise but I can see problems with this in the future.
Sean
Sean
Similar threads
