Jump to content
1AC

What we need is an upgrade to the definition of protected class.

Recommended Posts

What we need is an upgrade to the definition of protected class and bias crimes when it comes to individual civil rights. Presently the protected Federal class is:

Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information.

It is my contention that we need to add, political affiliation. This would protect individuals who experience violence or attempted violence directed at those because of their political affiliation, when that political affiliation is evident to the public, ie, verbally identifying political affiliation, displaying political signs, wearing of politically orientated clothing or registering people to vote for a political party, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Giujo said:

What we need is an upgrade to the definition of protected class and bias crimes when it comes to an individual civil rights. Presently the protected Federal class is:

Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information.

It is my contention that we need to add, political affiliation. This would protect individuals who experience violence or attempted violence directed at those because of their political affiliation, when that political affiliation is evident to the public, ie, verbally identifying political affiliation, displaying political signs, wearing of politically orientated clothing or registering people to vote for a political party, etc.

 

I SECOND THAT MOTION !!!!                      🍸

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Or remove all them entirely because they all represent unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law.

Based on.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Giujo said:

Based on.....?

The whole notion of protected classes runs contrary to the notion all are equal under the law. It drives everyone to find and notate any membership of a historically disadvantaged victim class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

The whole notion of protected classes runs contrary to the notion all are equal under the law. It drives everyone to find and notate any membership of a historically disadvantaged victim class.

The Protected Class was established under the guise of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Please cite how it violates that clause and therefore is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Giujo said:

The Protected Class was established under the guise of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Please cite how it violates that clause and therefore is unconstitutional.

It doesn't provide equal protection, it provides unequal treatment for those not belonging to one of these groups. It also violates the notion of freedom of association. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

It doesn't provide equal protection, it provides unequal treatment for those not belonging to one of these groups. It also violates the notion of freedom of association. 

You are incorrect in your assumption. By establishing an ADDITIONAL specific crime for a protected class it does not negate someone outside the protected class from being protected by the Constitution. Everyone's civil rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, you are incorrectly asserting freedom of association in this argument.

 

Further...

Although there are fewer hate crimes directed against Caucasians than against other groups, they do occur and are prosecuted. In fact, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes legislation against First Amendment attack, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), involved a white victim. Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Or remove all them entirely because they all represent unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law.

 

BINGO!!!
 

When you get a GOVERNMENT that DIVIDES US BY ANY CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN "WE THE PEOPLE", you get a POLITICAL CLASS that plays their divisive POLITICS!!

 

And ANYONE stupid enough to vote for ANYONE playing "class" politics, needs to be SENT TO SIBERIA!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MidnightMax said:

 

BINGO!!!
 

When you get a GOVERNMENT that DIVIDES US BY ANY CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN "WE THE PEOPLE", you get a POLITICAL CLASS that plays their divisive POLITICS!!

 

And ANYONE stupid enough to vote for ANYONE playing "class" politics, needs to be SENT TO SIBERIA!!!

 

 

I'm sorry I can't agree with that it really doesn't make any sense in that we're not discussing a political class we're discussing the protection of an individual's civil rights. There is nothing unconstitutional in enumerating a classes of people for protection under the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States in that it does not detract from those individuals who are not specifically enumerated in that the constitution protects We The People. If you were to use the argument you are postulating as valid that would have negated the insertion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Giujo said:

You are incorrect in your assumption. By establishing an ADDITIONAL specific crime for a protected class it does not negate someone outside the protected class from being protected by the Constitution. Everyone's civil rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, you are incorrectly asserting freedom of association in this argument.

 

YOU are incorrect in thinking that "protected class" is something good!!!

 

WE do not get our RIGHTS from GOVERNMENT, THE CONSTITUTION or anything OTHER than the CREATOR!!!

 

GOVERNMENT is not here to "divide rights" among us, but IF YOU READ CAREFULLY, which you apparently haven't, our government is TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS, NOT DEFINE THEM!!!

 

MORE reading tells you that our Constitution is one of "negative rights" which MEANS, WE AUTOMATICALLY HAVE THEM AND GOVERNMENT IS DENIED THE ABILITY TO TAKE THEM!!!

 

A "protected class" ONLY GIVES THEM A FALSE SENSE OF "exclusiveness" in rights. AND it sets the stage for someone to bring LEGAL ACTION for "discrimination", and the results are based on SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not facts!!!!

 

So you see, IF you want PROTECTED RIGHTS, then take a few of these MORONS who write these "protected class" laws and TOSS THEM TO THE CURB AND NEVER LET THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN CONGRESS EVER AGAIN!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Giujo said:

You are incorrect in your assumption. By establishing an ADDITIONAL specific crime for a protected class it does not negate someone outside the protected class from being protected by the Constitution. Everyone's civil rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, you are incorrectly asserting freedom of association in this argument.

 

Further...

Although there are fewer hate crimes directed against Caucasians than against other groups, they do occur and are prosecuted. In fact, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes legislation against First Amendment attack, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), involved a white victim. Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people.

I just find the notion of protected classes repellent. If one doesn't like veterans they should be free to discriminate. Not a fan of the black man? No one should force association. Want all the members of your gay bar to be homosexual men, let freedom ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

I'm sorry I can't agree with that it really doesn't make any sense in that we're not discussing a political class we're discussing the protection of an individual's civil rights. There is nothing unconstitutional in enumerating a classes of people for protection under the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States in that it does not detract from those individuals who are not specifically enumerated in that the constitution protects We The People. If you were to use the argument you are postulating as valid that would have negated the insertion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

 

THE WAY YOU PROTECT RIGHTS IS NOT TO PASS LAWS THAT DEFINE THEM!!!!!
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MidnightMax said:

 

YOU are incorrect in thinking that "protected class" is something good!!!

 

WE do not get our RIGHTS from GOVERNMENT, THE CONSTITUTION or anything OTHER than the CREATOR!!!

 

GOVERNMENT is not here to "divide rights" among us, but IF YOU READ CAREFULLY, which you apparently haven't, our government is TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS, NOT DEFINE THEM!!!

 

MORE reading tells you that our Constitution is one of "negative rights" which MEANS, WE AUTOMATICALLY HAVE THEM AND GOVERNMENT IS DENIED THE ABILITY TO TAKE THEM!!!

 

A "protected class" ONLY GIVES THEM A FALSE SENSE OF "exclusiveness" in rights. AND it sets the stage for someone to bring LEGAL ACTION for "discrimination", and the results are based on SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not facts!!!!

 

So you see, IF you want PROTECTED RIGHTS, then take a few of these MORONS who write these "protected class" laws and TOSS THEM TO THE CURB AND NEVER LET THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN CONGRESS EVER AGAIN!!!

 

 

I never claimed that the Constitution grants rights my claim is that the Constitution protects those rights you speak of by enumerating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MidnightMax said:

 

THE WAY YOU PROTECT RIGHTS IS NOT TO PASS LAWS THAT DEFINE THEM!!!!!
 

 

Then that means you are against the establishment of the Bill of Rights and those amendments to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

I just find the notion of protected classes repellent. If one doesn't like veterans they should be free to discriminate. Not a fan of the black man? No one should force association. Want all the members of your gay bar to be homosexual men, let freedom ring.

And on a personal note as a veteran I disgree that you have the right to discriminate against me just because you want to. It's thinking like that which requires a specific enumeration of a protected class in efforts to protect that individuals civil rights under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution...Sorry to say you just made my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeoConvict said:

Or remove all them entirely because they all represent unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law.

This one here.

 

Stop treating people as groups or tribes and start treating people as individuals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Giujo said:

What we need is an upgrade to the definition of protected class and bias crimes when it comes to individual civil rights. Presently the protected Federal class is:

Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information.

It is my contention that we need to add, political affiliation. This would protect individuals who experience violence or attempted violence directed at those because of their political affiliation, when that political affiliation is evident to the public, ie, verbally identifying political affiliation, displaying political signs, wearing of politically orientated clothing or registering people to vote for a political party, etc.

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Giujo said:

Then that means you are against the establishment of the Bill of Rights and those amendments to them.

They are basic liberties. We need to stop talking about "rights" and start talking about liberty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redoctober said:

They are basic liberties. We need to stop talking about "rights" and start talking about liberty. 

Liberty is rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

This one here.

 

Stop treating people as groups or tribes and start treating people as individuals. 

The Constitution does just that. And if a law is established that is injurious to the Constitution the Court will find it so upon challenge... That's how we do it in this republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

They are basic liberties. We need to stop talking about "rights" and start talking about liberty. 

And for the sake of extending the argument would you care to elaborate on your definitions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

And on a personal note as a veteran I disgree that you have the right to discriminate against me just because you want to. It's thinking like that which requires a specific enumeration of a protected class in efforts to protect that individuals civil rights under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution...Sorry to say you just made my point.

Sorry to say you believe your service to country gives you special rights and protections. You are an American citizen with rights given to you by your Creator and uniquely recognized by the US Constitution. Protected classes had their place when discriminatory laws were commonplace which is no longer the case. It's time we moved away from this highly unproductive and freedom killing notion. All people are equal, all US citizens should enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

This one here.

 

Stop treating people as groups or tribes and start treating people as individuals. 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dontlooknow said:

Liberty is rights. 

You are incorrect... Before you start making declarative sentences you need to know what you're talkin about... It's obvious you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...