Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Betterave]

Yep, I have, and it’s not obvious. It’s not obvious that no woman basketball player can play on par with NBA players, or that the best woman basketball player in the world can’t play on par with the worst NBA player. What’s obvious is that your claim is obviously false.

LOL! Rossum, Oresteian? Any comment on this one?

But I don’t. It’s obvious that your claim is obviously false, ridiculous and idiotic. Sorry if you have trouble seeing the obvious.

LOL!

It’s not irrelevant at all. You’re the one who pushed the analogy, and if your analogy is flawed (as it obviously is), then you have not successfully advanced whatever “conceptual” point you were trying to make.

LOL! Thanks for begging the question again! I point out to you that the analogy was not flawed in the way that you allege and that the flaw you allege would have been irrelevant anyway to the conceptual point being made… and this is what you come back with? You’re obviously either simply incapable or not even trying to see the conceptual point that I have made.

It’s not a false dichotomy. If I intend to exclude skunks from my house,then the exclusion of such creatures isn’t “incidental,” but intentional. If I “incidentally” crash my friend’s computer, I do so not because I “intended” to crash his computer, but because it was an accident. Sorry, but this distinction is just obvious.

LOL! Right, your exclusion of skunks would be intentional, just like I said. Your display of reasoning skills here is atrocious. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is?

With the above explanation above, you should be able to see that it’s obviously not a non-sequitur.

Based on your past performance, with the explanation above, you should manage to completely miss the boat again despite the obviousness of the points I have made.

Yes, he would be. The fact that he has a reason to discriminate against Mexicans doesn’t mean he isn’t discriminating against Mexicans on the basis of their being Mexican.

Rossum, Oresteian? Are you guys bright enough to see this one?

But you clearly haven’t clearly explained what you mean by “trivial” and “merely statistically.”

No, I clearly have.

Not very strange at all, or illogical.

…I suppose it might seem that way, provided you know nothing about logic.

 

[Betterave]

The above argument I made is valid.

1). For many marriages, the fundamental purpose in those marriages is not procreation.
2). Hence, for many marriages, the fundamental purposes in those marriages is something other than procreation.
3) Hence, some marriages have a fundamental purpose other than procreation.
4) Hence, not all marriages have the fundamental purpose of procreation.

You completely ignored the point I made.

Please stop making the mistake of thinking you’ve corrected me. Again, it is your contention that under “current law,” it is a *legal requirement *that partnerships must not be fundamentally alien to procreation before they can be recognized as marriages. Hence, in order to show that this is a requirement under “current law,” you need to have some understanding as to what the “current law” is. Hence, you need to cite relevant legal authority (e.g. statute, precedent) for your proposition – otherwise, your claim that “this is a requirement under current law” is NOTHING more than a baseless, unsupported and unfounded assertion. Sorry, hate to break out the “obvious” to you, but you saying “x is a requirement under current” law doesn’t make it so.

LOL! Please stop making the mistake of thinking I haven’t corrected you. You only think this because you seem not to understand the conceptual structure of the arguments advanced against you. I hate to break out the “obvious” to you, but saying “x is a requirement under current” law is a statement of fact, which can be disputed, but which need not be based on citation of legal authority in order to be true.

But you haven’t (obviously). Claiming something is “self-evident” is not the same thing as giving an “explanation.” If you have, then you should have no problem quoting what you’ve previously written that addresses my question: “Please explain how a heterosexual partnership involving two 90-year old individuals, where one had a complete hysterectomy and the other is sterile, is not as fundamentally alien to procreation as a homosexual partnership.”

Claiming something is “self-evident” is not the same thing as giving an “explanation.” - True

To see my explanations, just click on the buttons that will take back through the course of our conversation in this thread. It’s a fairly foolproof method.

These “additional considerations” don’t address my example. In my example, let’s suppose the 90-year old couple had never procreated before. In fact, let’s suppose that the 90-year old couple had a life-long moral objection against procreation. Is there partnership still not as fundamentally alien to procreation has homosexual partnerships?

My statement nowhere suggested that they HAD procreated before or that they did not have life-long moral objections against procreation. This was intentional, so my answer to your question is yes. Their union still instantiates the sexual complementarity required for procreation, while no same-sex partnership does.

But you haven’t, so it isn’t begging the question at all.

Au contraire!

Explain the relevant sense of “fundamentally alien.”

This gets rather tiresome. Why don’t you click back through the thread to see my explanation of the relevant sense, then tell me what it is and I’ll tell you if you’ve got it right.

“Most reasonable” according to whom? When will you support your claim with something more than “it’s self-evident, it’s obvious?”

According to lots of people, obviously. If you have concrete reasons with which you’d like to challenge this claim, please share them.

Moreover, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Why does it follow that if the “most reasonable construal of the purpose of the secular institution of marriage” is procreation, then it is therefore a legal requirement that marriages must include both a male and a female partner? This doesn’t follow at all.

Since procreation naturally requires a male and a female partner, it follows that marriages must include both a male and a female partner.

You still haven’t cited any relevant legal authority for the proposition that partnerships must not be fundamentally alien to procreation before they can be marriages. You are still asserting (without argument) that marriage is fundamentally about procreation. You are still confusing (yep again) procreation with child-rearing.

I’ve dealt with the “legal authority” bit already (again) as well as the “assertion-without-argument” bit. But you again make the again unexplained claim that I am confusing procreation with child-rearing. Why?

 

[larkin31]

All premises of deductive arguments are conclusions from inductive inference. Inductive inferences are not subject to demonstration in the strict sense. I have claimed that the well-established traditional restriction of marriage to heterosexual unions should reasonably be said to be grounded in the fact that the secular institution of marriage as such has no other justifying raison d’etre than to honor the value of procreation to society. If you want to challenge this claim, please go ahead and do so with some concrete reasons.

I object on the concrete reason that it is false. Marriage clearly has OTHER justifying reasons than simple biology (enumerated many times on this and other threads and in the CCC), and failure to reproduce has not been grounds for denying marriage licenses by the state in any hetero cases. So, since the state has expressed no interest in denying marriage to infertile hetero couples, one cannot logically infer that infertility (or sterility) per say is a necessary condition for marriage.

Have you been reading any of the last 50 posts I and others have made already addressing this premise of yours?

 

[Betterave]

I object on the concrete reason that it is false. Marriage clearly has OTHER justifying reasons than simple biology (enumerated many times on this and other threads and in the CCC), and failure to reproduce has not been grounds for denying marriage licenses by the state in any hetero cases. So, since the state has expressed no interest in denying marriage to infertile hetero couples, one cannot logically infer that infertility (or sterility) per say is a necessary condition for marriage.

Have you been reading any of the last 50 posts I and others have made already addressing this premise of yours?

What you label as “this premise” is not a premise at all. A premise must be a complete statement. The complete premise is the following: the well-established traditional restriction of marriage to heterosexual unions should reasonably be said to be grounded in the fact that the secular institution of marriage as such has no other justifying raison d’etre than to honor the value of procreation to society. You can pick out the following as a complete statement and criticize it if you want: the secular institution of marriage as such has no other justifying raison d’etre than to honor the value of procreation to society; but please don’t forget that it is necessarily connected, as to its evidential basis, to the complete statement of which it is a part.

Now please note: nowhere did I claim that the justifying reason for “marriage” is simply “simple biology”; no one has suggested any OTHER reason justifying the well-established traditional restriction of marriage to heterosexual unions, whether in this thread or in the CCC (so far as I’m aware, and I have read every post in this thread - please correct me if I’m wrong - I’d actually be interested to see how you mean to apply the CCC to this debate); I have addressed your last argument many times already, both when you have made it and when secular_freedom has made it - I have explicitly affirmed that the state is justified in not expressing an interest in denying marriage to infertile hetero couples, and reasons for this have been given, and I expressly denied that one can logically infer that “-]infertility (or sterility)/-] fertility per say is a necessary condition for [assessing the licitness of a *particular prospective] marriage.”

p.s. I forgot to mention you along with Rossum and Oresteian in my previous reply to secular_freedom. I invite your comment also.

 

[larkin31]

…I have explicitly affirmed that the state is justified in not expressing an interest in denying marriage to infertile hetero couples, and reasons for this have been given,

I do not recall ever seeing this from you or anyone else. Which thread was that in? Do you care to repeat it here?

and I expressly denied that one can logically infer that "-]infertility (or sterility)/-] fertility per say is a necessary condition for [assessing the licitness of a *particular

prospective] marriage." Excellent. Then you should remove it from your argument against gay marriage.

 

[pismopal]

Well, then all you have to offer in reply is dogma-in-disguise? Have we finally cut to the chase on this matter? Really, what you are stating, then, is that your God defines marriage as between man and woman and that the state will never be justified with ANY reason ever to change it to include men marrying men and women marrying women? Have I summed up your most basic position on this?

I have not disguised anything by what I said and if I had I would clear things up because I don’t need to disguise anything. Marriage is a union of one MAN and one WOMAN. As I said every man and every woman has a right to marry according to that definition so there it is. I would not have a problem with the state performing civil unions as long as they don’t call it marriage or pretend that it is a marriage. The state can do what it wants anyway apparently…by the way a well known homosexual man agrees with the position I have just expressed…his name is Elton John.

 

[larkin31]

I have not disguised anything by what I said and if I had I would clear things up because I don’t need to disguise anything. Marriage is a union of one MAN and one WOMAN. As I said every man and every woman has a right to marry according to that definition so there it is. I would not have a problem with the state performing civil unions as long as they don’t call it marriage or pretend that it is a marriage.

What does “pretend it is a marriage” mean? Do you mean to outlaw “pretending” somehow?

The state can do what it wants anyway apparently…by the way a well known homosexual man agrees with the position I have just expressed…his name is Elton John.

These folks are asking NOTHING of any church. ALL they want is equal civil recognition. If the state calls it marriage, they want “marriage.” If the state calls it “civil union” for heteros, then gays want “civil union.”

Churches can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want and marry whomever they want. As before.

 

[pismopal]

What does “pretend it is a marriage” mean? Do you mean to outlaw “pretending” somehow?

These folks are asking NOTHING of any church. ALL they want is equal civil recognition. If the state calls it marriage, they want “marriage.” If the state calls it “civil union” for heteros, then gays want “civil union.”

Churches can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want and marry whomever they want. As before.

You are trying to be cute…it isn’t working out. Marriage has had the same definition throughout the ages and it hasn’t included homosexual unions. You can call a 4 wheel vehicle a motorcycle if you want but the definition of a motorcycle is 3 or fewer wheels. A person who cannot ride a motorcycle may want to call their automobile a motorcycle…but that doesn’t change the fact that they are operating an automobile…get it now?

 

[JackQ]

I’ll take your last point first. Your claim that I’ve begged the question by assuming that homosexuals are being denied equal protection is false – no where in my argument for this conclusion have I assumed it. If you look at the structure of my argument (see op), you’ll notice that it is logically valid, and thus the only way to resist the conclusion is to reject one of its premises. Nothing you wrote does that.

Second, I don’t know why Lawrence is relevant here; as you noted, the majority struck down the statute on due process grounds, but in this thread, I’m only concerned with equal protection. One can challenge a statute solely on equal protection grounds, solely on due process grounds, or both. You seem to be under the impression that I need to show how Prop 8 first violates due process before I can show how it violates equal protection, but this is simply mistaken.

Third, the burden falls on prop 8 proponents to show that, at the very least, there is a rational basis for the restriction. Why? Because I’ve already shown how prop 8 does discriminate (in the neutral sense) on the basis of sexual orientation and sex (see other thread). Hence we are left with the question: is the discrimination justified or not? If there is no rational basis for the discrimination, then it follows that prop 8 violates equal protection. In other words,one cannot hold that prop 8 doesn’t violate equal protection even though the discrimination can’t survive rational basis scrutiny. The following are mutually exclusive:

1. Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and sex but doesn’t violate equal protection.
2. Prop 8 can’t survive rational basis scrutiny.
3. and 2) are not compatible. The only way that 1) can be true is if the discrimination does, at the very least, survive rational basis scrutiny.

Fourth, O’ Conner’s comments on same-sex marriage are 1) ambiguous, and 2) mere dicta. They’re ambiguous because her whole statement depends on what does it mean to “protect traditional marriage.” If traditional marriage will not be threatened in the relevant sense, then laws restricting same-sex marriage cannot survive rational basis (per Conner’s view).

My apologies for the tardy reply.

Actually, I don’t follow your logic at all. You say that gays and lesbians are being discriminated against because they aren’t permitted to marry their partners. The term “partner” in this context is ambiguous. What is that? A partner is obviously not a spouse, because the people that we’re talking about aren’t married. Is a partner someone who is the object of a person’s romantic attachment? If that is so, then gay or lesbian people are, by operation of Proposition 8, not permitted to marry persons whom they want to marry, since nowadays people almost always want to marry people for whom they have romantic feelings. In a word, Proposition 8 prohibits some people from marrying those they want to marry. But I am at a loss as to how you get from that to discrimination in the equal protection sense, since there are all sorts of laws that prohibit some people from doing what they want to do and equal protection isn’t implicated at all. The mere fact that a law prohibits a certain behavior doesn’t give rise to an equal protection claim.

The reason why Lawrence is relevant here is that equal protection was rejected by the court as a basis for reaching its ruling. I’m certainly not saying that you have to show a due process violation in order to raise an equal protection claim, but in order to make an equal protection claim you have to show that there is discrimination against a particular group. The claimants in Lawrence made that argument, and the court rejected it. That, however, was the way that Justice O’Connor wanted to attack the problem (of course what she wrote was dicta, it was a concurring opinion), and Justice Scalia, in dissent, pointed out that it would be difficult for a prohibition against gay marriages to survive an equal protection attack if the court had adopted Justice O’Connor’s approach. Of course, the court didn’t adopt Justice O’Connor’s approach. Now the opponents of Proposition 8 would like to import Justice O’Connor’s reasoning into the dispute. But, as you pointed out, her reasoning is dicta.

But what if equal protection does apply here? Can Proposition 8 survive the rational basis test? Well there is certainly a lot of extant social science that supports the opponents of Proposition 8, and none that I know of (or that was presented in the District Court case) that supports the proponents. That, however, doesn’t end the matter. It is permissible for communities to legislate community standards of morality even where the First Amendment is implicated. The standard that is applied, I’m sure you know, is the Miller test. Contemporary community standards loom large under the Miller test to permit the prohibition of obsenity that would otherwise be protected speech. I cannot conceive of why contemporary community standards could not be relevant to a rational basis test, or why maintaining such standards could not provide such a rational basis. Thus it appears that Justice O’Connor’s proposed basis for constitutionally upholding a prohibition of gay marriage isn’t so ambiguous after all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What does “pretend it is a marriage” mean? Do you mean to outlaw “pretending” somehow?

These folks are asking NOTHING of any church. ALL they want is equal civil recognition. If the state calls it marriage, they want “marriage.” If the state calls it “civil union” for heteros, then gays want “civil union.”

Proving, as many of us have said for many years, that the movement by gays, for gays to marry, is not about legal recognition but social recognition or popular acceptance. Except that the state is not in the business of social acceptance. The State does not care, nor should it care, about who loves whom (whether gays love each other, or whether anyone who is not gay loves gays, accepts gays, calls their unions privately the same terms used for heterosexual unions) – again, we’re talking about consenting adults: that’s what the state doesn’t care about. Gays have been asked, straight up, if civil unions for gays equalled in rights and access exactly what married couples have, would that be enough?. They say No. So this is definitely not about civil “rights.” It’s about (forced) civil, official (and thus societal) recognition – recognition which actually violates the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution when a religion says in its beliefs that it cannot accept that as being in the same category as marriage.

 

[rossum]

Marriage has had the same definition throughout the ages

False. Read 1 Kings 11:3 “And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines” You can also usefully check on the number of wives that Abraham, Jacob and David had. Islam allows up to four wives. The Mormons used to allow more, but it is now only the fundamentalist Mormons who allow many wives.

Marriage has had, and continues to have, many different definitions. Even within America, different states have different definitions of what is a legal marriage.

You do your own case no good by making such obviously incorrect statements.

rossum

 

[larkin31]

You are trying to be cute…it isn’t working out. Marriage has had the same definition throughout the ages and it hasn’t included homosexual unions. You can call a 4 wheel vehicle a motorcycle if you want but the definition of a motorcycle is 3 or fewer wheels. A person who cannot ride a motorcycle may want to call their automobile a motorcycle…but that doesn’t change the fact that they are operating an automobile…get it now?

This is just refusal to change religious dogma. Many definitions in law have changed over time, including legal marriage. I fully understand your position. It is simply wrong when it comes to both the Judeo-Christian marriage history in the Bible AND wrong in terms of human law.

 

[larkin31]

Proving, as many of us have said for many years, that the movement by gays, for gays to marry, is not about legal recognition but social recognition or popular acceptance. Except that the state is not in the business of social acceptance. The State does not care, nor should it care, about who loves whom (whether gays love each other, or whether anyone who is not gay loves gays, accepts gays, calls their unions privately the same terms used for heterosexual unions) – again, we’re talking about consenting adults: that’s what the state doesn’t care about. Gays have been asked, straight up, if civil unions for gays equalled in rights and access exactly what married couples have, would that be enough?. They say No.

Some say yes, some no. The case in question was brought forward by two couples, 4 total gays. That is all that matters here.

So this is definitely not about civil “rights.” It’s about (forced) civil, official (and thus societal) recognition – recognition which actually violates the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution when a religion says in its beliefs that it cannot accept that as being in the same category as marriage.

You do not understand the purpose and scope of the 1st Amendment. This is so far off the mark that I can’t even begin to think how to educate you on what the 1st Amendment protects. It sure does not protect Catholics from having to live in a country that has gay marriage in one (or more) of its states.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You do not understand the purpose and scope of the 1st Amendment. This is so far off the mark that I can’t even begin to think how to educate you on what the 1st Amendment protects. It sure does not protect Catholics from having to live in a country that has gay marriage in one (or more) of its states.

Whoa. Not even close. I am well educated in the technical legalities of First Amendment application. I can’t even begin to educate you on the application of the 1st Amendment, according to the history of judicial rulings. This issue, and more importantly – the ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker which absolutely specified how he would personally like to limit First Amendment privileges – unquestionably overlap into into religious freedom. I have read the full ruling, and it’s clear. He even specifies whether Prop 8 proponents should have been allowed to construct the campaign that they did. He stated that they should not have been allowed to use the particular words they used. Just amazing. That is absolutely an attack on the First Amendment, and obviously you have not read the ruling or do not understand how his specific statements uniquely limit that amendment. Whether the next advocates for Prop 8 decide to take up that aspect of the issue is another matter; they may or may not; hopefully they will.

Your various recent posts say it; gays themselves say it – on and off the campaign they’re running on CAF and elsewhere: this is about the control of language, not the control of rights. Gays want the Courts to enforce and restrict language for the entire country, religious and non-religious spheres both. If gays can’t remove language, they want to create a new dictionary with new definitions, and they want those dictionaries “published” with the court’s approval, so that competing dictionaries can have no legitimacy in the public square.

 

[larkin31]

… I have read the full ruling, and it’s clear. He even specifies whether Prop 8 proponents should have been allowed to construct the campaign that they did. He stated that they should not have been allowed to use the particular words they used. Just amazing. That is absolutely an attack on the First Amendment, and obviously you have not read the ruling or do not understand how his specific statements uniquely limit that amendment.

Please quote for us here what you are referring to. I would not mind having it pointed out for me if I missed this. Here is the link to the ruling:

glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf

Your various recent posts say it; gays themselves say it – on and off the campaign they’re running on CAF and elsewhere: this is about the control of language, not the control of rights. Gays want the Courts to enforce and restrict language for the entire country, religious and non-religious spheres both. If gays can’t remove language, they want to create a new dictionary with new definitions, and they want those dictionaries “published” with the court’s approval, so that competing dictionaries can have no legitimacy in the public square.

1. Where did I say this?
2. Anyone can publish a dictionary. Even you can. What are you talking/complaining about?

 

[pismopal]

False. Read 1 Kings 11:3 “And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines” You can also usefully check on the number of wives that Abraham, Jacob and David had. Islam allows up to four wives. The Mormons used to allow more, but it is now only the fundamentalist Mormons who allow many wives.

Marriage has had, and continues to have, many different definitions. Even within America, different states have different definitions of what is a legal marriage.

You do your own case no good by making such obviously incorrect statements.

rossum

I am not an attorney…something else to thank God for…as far as multiple wives go…they would be women…correct? You have not injured my assertion whatsoever…sorry. You can try again…no limits here. I will give you some direction…find a mainstream culture that sanctioned homosexual “marriage”. Homosexuality doesn’t count…stand up marriage only please.

 

[larkin31]

I am not an attorney…something else to thank God for…as far as multiple wives go…they would be women…correct? You have not injured my assertion whatsoever…sorry. You can try again…no limits here. I will give you some direction…find a mainstream culture that sanctioned homosexual “marriage”. Homosexuality doesn’t count…stand up marriage only please.

Massachusetts

 

[Oresteian]

My claim is that the justifying reason for the secular institution of marriage is the actual value to society of procreation.

Please tell us about the Ancient Roman institution of ‘same sex marriage’ and how it was justified.

Nowhere in the laws does it say anything about the intention of procreation being a requisite or justification for marriage. If that were the case then we would be equally justified in prohibiting geriatrics, the sterile, and the barren from getting married along with people who do not intend to have children. What reasons do we have for allowing these marriages, if as you assert, the justifying reason is for procreation?

You have it all backwards. It does not follow that homosexual marriage need any further justifications that heterosexual couples do not need just on the basis of their homosexuality. All that is required are that the parties involved want to enter into contract to create or strengthen ties of kinship for romantic, economic, or political reasons. As far as the government is and the secular recognition of this contract, both exist to serve the needs of the people not the other way around. We do not in a fascist state (theoretically)

Your claim: ‘biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.’ That claim is false and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. Your comment about my religious dogma is groundless and stupid. It is clear evidence of your own anti-religious bigotry. Did it ever occur to you that you might be a bigot? In general I think it’s interesting to note that those who habitually accuse others of bigotry or dogmatism never stop to consider whether they themselves are bigoted or dogmatic.

I gave specific examples of Biblical patriarchs who were in fact polygamists. The biblical basis that “one man, one woman” is the only legitimate can be discarded as a result. The only mention of limits that I am aware of to the number of spouses in the Bible are in the case of a bishop or deacon in 1 Timothy 3:2 where Paul is giving his opinion on qualities men in that office should have.

My comment about your position being based on dogma is not baseless at all. It simply comes from the observation that the basis upon which you support your conclusion is almost entirely rooted in Christian teaching which prior to Christianity was unheard of.

The notion that I am bigoted against your religion is laughable. Nothing that I have said can actually be construed to be a remark against your religion or any one else’s.In fact I have purposefully made an effort to keep the conversation out of the religious realm despite the obvious fact that people’s religious beliefs inform their opinions on social and moral issues (which I am quite fine with). Pointing out that a political position is based solely on religious upbringing and ahistorical is only pointing out the obvious.

Lastly, I think you are just projecting. As a progressive I simply do not think that way regarding religion. I say live and let live.

This charge of discrimination has not been simply denied, no matter how much some of you deny this! Very clear reasons have repeatedly been given explaining why Prop 8 is not a case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Go ahead and take a shot at responding to my post 250. secular_freedom’s attempt was ridiculous.

We are clearly stating that Prop 8 is discriminatory, that was never the issue. What we are trying to discover is the rational basis for doing so. Allowing homosexuals to marriage will have ZERO impact on the straight marriage population. The people who desire and are able to have children will indeed have kids whether they are married or not. Indeed, uncountable unplanned pregnancies will occur for a variety of reasons. No one is forcing a religious group to perform such marriages (although in secular matters everyone must recognize such marriages as evidenced by their marriage certificate) So why should we bar them from partaking in a secular institution?

I think I will hold off on answering #250. It’s an utterly ridiculous poorly formed, and misapplied analogy and a wholly disingenuous view of the intended function of Prop 8.

Right, you’re talking about personal reasons for getting married, and what you say is true. I’m talking about the secular justification for the institution of marriage as such, which is logically prior to an analysis of personal reasons for entering into that institution.

See 1st and second paragraphs above.

 

[Oresteian]

Yes, he would be. The fact that he has a reason to discriminate against Mexicans doesn’t mean he isn’t discriminating against Mexicans on the basis of their being Mexican.

Rossum, Oresteian? Are you guys bright enough to see this one?

I’ll bite:

In this example the store owner is discriminating against Spanish speaking people because of the deleterious effects it will have on atmosphere of his business because of his daughter’s psychological condition. If a person speaks Spanish, then that would limit their forms of communication to languages other than Spanish. For someone whose only language is Spanish, communication would be…difficult to say the least.

Setting the side the wisdom in banning persons who speak Spanish (Puerto Ricans Dominicans, Peruvians, and MEXICANS ) the owner of said store does have a reason to ban those groups (one of which is Mexicans) that is purely incidental and not based on that groups “Mexican-ness”.

Since procreation naturally requires a male and a female partner, it follows that marriages must include both a male and a female partner.

Non-sequitur. some hidden premises, and definitely some undistributed middles there.

The rest of your comments I will dismissed based on their degree of asininity. If there is something worthwhile perhaps I may respond again.

 

[pismopal]

Massachusetts

Whoops…another violation…I said mainstream culture…and I am only half kidding.