Conservatives say stupid shit

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.

Hey, your eye color does or does not allow special group privilege, therefore you should have animosity, nay, you must have anger for those other fucks with the wrong color eyes because those fucks do not have your group's eye color.

That is quite possibly the most obtuse reading possible of what I posted. CONGRATULATION! A winner is you!

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.

Whatever happened to polite Gnome?

Anyway, thanks for this history lesson. I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Whatever happened to polite Gnome?

Anyway, thanks for this history lesson. I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.

lol no retard, Adam caused that, because of how he dreamed up separating people into groups

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Chuck, the actions denote the determination.

That is partially correct (at least if you separate it from the post which you responded)!

I can't help but wonder whether contemplation of the intent-motive distinction might be of service here. Nah, prolly not.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That is partially correct (at least if you separate it from the post which you responded)!

I can't help but wonder whether contemplation of the intent-motive distinction might be of service here. Nah, prolly not.

NO FAIR! NO HELPING!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

So it's OK for the state to punish someone for the content of his or her thoughts when that person's actions denote a determination to take such action? The state could punish homophobe for killing a homosexual since his actions in killing a homosexual denotes a determination to kill a homosexual? Is that what you're saying?

No Chuck.

The action determines if there is malice. Thought is not relevant, the action is.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.

lol don't be silly. It was the presence of uppity coloreds that led to those lynchings.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

No Chuck.

The action determines if there is malice.

Sometimes malice can be imputed by particular acts and factual circumstances, it's true. This is still the law imputing a mental state to the actor. But not always. Proving malice aforethought requires the prosecution to present evidence that tends to establish the actor's state of mind.

Thought is not relevant, the action is.

Whoa! Where did that come from? With the exception of felony murder, murder is not a strict liability crime. There is a mens rea (which means - get ready for it - guilty mind) element to it.

Should the law be allowed to punish people for having a guilty mind?

Matlock is helping you out here.

[livius drusus]

Uh oh... Looks like J needs to watch Legally Blonde again to brush up on his skills. This is what happens when you skip a month, JEROME. You forget mens rea.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Uh oh... Looks like J needs to watch Legally Blonde again to brush up on his skills. This is what happens when you skip a month, JEROME. You forget mens rea.

[livius drusus]

Orly wishes she has Elle's keen legal mind. And actual blonde hair. And probably Bruiser too, because that dog is awesome.

[LadyShea]

Jesus H Christ, I don't care if she's a woman and I should support her, pink satin does not belong on a middle aged woman, just sayin'.

[Kael]

habeas corpus!

[LadyShea]

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

According to CFI this is prolly actionable (see below). Counselors?

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Also lol Country Clubs

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

That's pretty awesome. I bet Dawkins is deeply disappointed that Judge Smails said he can't play golf at Bushwood.

According to CFI this is prolly actionable (see below). Counselors?

Also lol Country Clubs

Prolly not. Wyndgate may or may not fall within the scope of Title II. Even if it does, it would have to be shown that its action here was prohibited. Unless by "individuals such as Dawkins" meant Brits or white people. (I'm guessing the place might have a few token white members.) I know nothing about civil rights law, but on its face the statute does not address discrimination or exclusion on the basis of ideology or philosophy. So Dawkins would want to argue that atheism is a religion or something, which doesn't sound like him.

[LadyShea]

Doesn't "religion" usually imply all worldviews that have a stance on deity?

[Clutch Munny]

IANAE, but it seems to me that "...on ground of... religion" is, on its face, broader than "on grounds of the excluded party's religion".

[ChuckF]

Probably not in this case. The 1972 amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act give us a rather unhelpful definition of "religion": "[t]he term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief . . ." Statutes are assumed to be internally consistent, so courts have probably looked to that definition to be applied in Title II, which is silent on the definition of "religion." I would say that where observance, practice, and belief are absent, there is no religion.

Lexis search underway.

[Clutch Munny]

It's more the breadth of "on ground of X", as opposed to "on ground of excluded party's positive participation in X" that I was smurfing.

I dunno. Do you think that a systematic prejudice against stateless persons (born on the high seas, say) ought to run afoul of the national origin clause? A clause prohibiting discrimination on ground of gender ought to prohibit discrimination against persons of ambiguous gender, it seems to me. But this may just highlight the fact that IANAE.

[ChuckF]

So yeah! The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said: "Title II's prohibition of religious discrimination is consistent with this modern recognition that stereotyping on the basis of religious belief or the lack of belief in God is unwarranted." Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, 742 F. Supp. 1413, 1434 (N.D.Ill. 1990). The Seventh Circuit affirmed on a different basis and declined to reach the constitutional question. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of Am., 993 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1012, 114 S. Ct. 602, 126 L. Ed. 2d 567 (1993). The dissent in the CoA opinion noted that the majority left that particular question unanswered:

The majority's interpretation of Title II would leave the Boy Scouts and other like organizations free to discriminate not just against atheists--or those whose beliefs arguably conflict with the group's most central philosophy--but against anyone at all on sheer whim. Under the majority's analysis, a group such as Rotary International or the Jaycees or Little League is, absent a more comprehensive state statute, perfectly free to exclude blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. Rather than unduly narrow the reach of Title II, I would hold that the statute does prevent discrimination by membership organizations. This does not necessarily mean that the Boy Scouts could be forced to admit atheists, however, because the First Amendment protects organizations from having to accept those who do not share its most elementary beliefs. Id. (Cummings, J., dissenting)

Long story short, outside of the Northern District of Illinois, nobody knows. Hooray!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

It's more the breadth of "on ground of X", as opposed to "on ground of excluded party's positive participation in X" that I was smurfing.

I dunno. Do you think that a systematic prejudice against stateless persons (born on the high seas, say) ought to run afoul of the national origin clause? A clause prohibiting discrimination on ground of gender ought to prohibit discrimination against persons of ambiguous gender, it seems to me. But this may just highlight the fact that IANAE.

Yeah this highlights the fact that YANAE because you sound like a thinking person. This does not require thought, it requires a judicial construction of the phrase "on the ground of" for purposes of the Civil Rights Act. Which I guess I will go look up now, thanks. Also somewhere the DOJ should have published summat in the Code of Federal Regulations about this. This is probably like day 2 of Civil Rights law, and I am completely out of my depth here, but what the fuck, it would be p. expensive for you guys to sue me or whatever.

[ChuckF]

I ain't finding shit. So why don't I make up some shit instead. If I'm reading you correctly, you would broaden "on the ground [of] . . . religion" effectively to include "on the ground [of] . . . religious viewpoint." Normatively this makes sense, and it seems to be consistent with Congressional intent in the 1964 act, and the District court's opinion in Welsh.

The problem with that normatively-appropriate reading, and the problem that it would inevitably encounter, is that Title VII's statutory definition of "religion" gave Congress a second bite at the apple. In order to define this term, Congress said that it "includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief." (This was probably written this way to avoid establishment clause issues.)

If I were representing Bushwood, I would say "Hey, Scalito. Congress had a fucking chance to include lack of religious observance, lack of religious practice, and lack of religious belief in its definition of 'religion.' So not only is non-belief inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term 'religion,' it is also inconsistent with Congress's definition. We don't even have to get to this 'on the ground of' business." And heads would nod vigorously from the bench.

Then you would say "Wait! The Congressional definition isn't exhaustive! It only says what it does include, not what it exclusively includes!" Brows are furrowed.

Then I would say "That's true, but LOL this joker would have the Court read non-religion into the statutory definition of religion! What wouldn't be included in the new judge-made definition of religion! Way to defeat Congressional intent!" More vigorous head nodding.

Then you would say "Hold it, asshole! That's not what I'm asking, I'm just saying that the definition of religion could be reasonably read to include religious viewpoint, and this statute would proscribe discrimination on that basis, which is entirely consistent with Congressional intent." Uh oh, that sounds reasonable. Throat-clearing from the bench.

Then I would say "NO U. Congress could have said that and it didn't! If you've got a problem with that, take it up with your Congressman and leave the Court alone!" Then I would wink at Justice Roberts and my red light would come on.

[Kael]

I thought of that Boy Scouts of America case when I read this, actually. I just don't know anything about looking up or citing actual cases...

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Kael

I thought of that Boy Scouts of America case when I read this, actually. I just don't know anything about looking up or citing actual cases...

That's what they teach you in law school before you can be invested by a letter patent from the Monarch with the title "Esquire".

[Clutch Munny]

Thanks, Chuck. Before I sue you, let me say that, while you are surely right and would surely win with Scally and the Chief, here is the bit where I would (inter alia) make many reductios that leaned heavily on the qualifier "shoooooorly".

Originally Posted by ChuckF

If I were representing Bushwood, I would say "Hey, Scalito. Congress had a fucking chance to include lack of religious observance, lack of religious practice, and lack of religious belief in its definition of 'religion.' So not only is non-belief inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term 'religion,' it is also inconsistent with Congress's definition. We don't even have to get to this 'on the ground of' business."

Okay, I wrote up a reply to this, then realized how rhetorically persuasive, rationally consistent, and legally disastrous it was. Dang.