Do you believe that radicals seek true equality when they demand discrimination

1. 58

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   Do you believe that radicals seek true equality when they demand discrimination against others?
   
   With all the hype about fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination the government should be more than adequate to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly and equally.  However, in recent court findings concerning the affordable health act, defense of marriage act, and others the government has distinctly discriminated against a portion of the citizenry.  With these actions government sided in matters that are best left to the true governing body of the nation - the citizens.  Political corruption is in USA society where politicians hide their past to conceal the truth from the citizen.

   replyreport
2. 0

   sheilamyersposted 11 years ago

   I think it's a vicious cycle. Any time you try to level the playing field for one group, you unintentionally tilt it toward the group you're trying to help. Now it's the other side that's sees itself as being discriminated against and they start yelling about their rights, etc. So now you have to do something for them and the scale goes to their side. It's a perpetual motion teeter-totter. Unless there are real crimes (murder, assault, etc) being committed against a particular group, I say let people do their own thing.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believe you are correct. The gov should get out of the social definition business. They are not qualified to determine the defining moments for an individual. Private parties require private solutions.

      replyreport
3. 36

   ChristinSposted 11 years ago

   The Defense of Marriage act was discrimination and so was overturned - it was a move in the right direction against discrimination and not "radical".  Everything that goes against what you personally believe or think is not "radical". Overturning DOMA was all about ensuring all citizens are treated fairly and equally.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So the best way to be fair is to redefine a social position is abnormal. Maybe we should eliminate the discrimination by eliminating gov control of the definition. Those who want fairness already had it under prior laws.

      replyreport
   2. 36

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, yes it is. We overturned slavery and gave women the right to vote in similar fashion - perhaps that was "radical" also in some people's eyes, but in reality it was progress and moving into a modern century.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow-really! An amendment is now equal to a supreme court ruling.I guess you changed the gov model for the republic with this concept. Socialism at its finest.

      replyreport
4. 75

   jlparkposted 11 years ago

   Do I believe that radicals seek true equality when they demand discrimination against others???
   
   Well, that depends on who you are defining as "radicals."
   
   You see, you have your Radical Religious people, your Radical non-religious, your Radical Chauvinists, your Radical Feminists, your Radical Right Wing, and your Radical Left Wing. 
   
   Each is 'Radical" to the opposite.
   
   Tab - you speak of discrimination against a proportion of the citizenry of America in these rulings.  Yet you do no elaborate as to where you are being discriminated against, where YOUR rights are being denied or taken away by the benefitting of these rights to others.
   
   I do not know a lot about the affordable health act, but the name sounds like it's not going to leave anyone out. We have public health care in New Zealand, meaning EVERYONE can afford hospital care as it's free (tax payer funded) - are we disadvantaging anyone by affording them healthcare? Whilst the US is about Health Insurance covering it - it becomes about the 'haves' and the 'have nots' - if its made affordable for everyone, then yay, everyone can be healthy! Yes?
   
   The DOMA I know more about.
   The rights afforded to those in same-sex marriages are rights that are afforded to ANYONE in a marriage - 1138+ rights and benefits.
   NO ONE is being denied any benefits by these benefits being afforded to another. You still have the same marriage rights and benefits that you had prior to the ruling on DOMA - but now gay couples can have them too. It does not take away from your rights.
   
   So, please tell me - how are you discriminated against by the ruling over DOMA? Is it that your view of marriage is a religious one? You can still have that, and be thankful you married in a church (I assume) because it will be recognised by that Church as a 'holy marriage'. From what I know, DOMA does not force religious institutions such as churches to acknowledge the civil marriage of a gay couple as a marriage in their church - unless of course they are employing said gay person and person wants to put their same sex married partner on their benefits.....then that becomes a matter for the employment courts should they deny it.
   
   Do I think that people who are fighting for equality are demanding discrimination against others? No.
   Do I think that they are radicals? No.
   Do I think the rulings going the other way would have made America better? Heck no.
   
   But you don't have to agree, it doesn't make either of us "Radicals"

   replyreport
   1. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the name affordable care act does not mean that it will be affordable - only that under government supply they will attempt to provide it. they cannot provide security to the citizens even though they spend trillions on it.  affordable is a myth.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Fair enough - like I said I know more on DOMA, and live in a country with free hospital health care and subsidised family practice care so don't really get the USAs version.
      How about my other request - how is DOMAs repeal discrimination against u?

      replyreport
   3. 58

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the Supreme Court ruled DOMA was discrimination. Due to this ruling, I am unable to refuse service to immoral individuals. Therefore, this ruling discriminates against me because it requires me to do something that is against my beliefs.

      replyreport
   4. 75

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Can you explain further? As Section 3 is the only piece repealed the moment. What service do you provide that means you need to acknowledge gay marriage when interpreting an act of congress? Otherwise, depending on state, you r still allowed to deny.

      replyreport