Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

[catastrophe]

Mixed race partnerships?

[Spracne]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

[Justwin]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

[Justwin]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

[Spracne]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

Well, you've just admitted it would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which addresses discrimination, so ...

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

Well, you've just admitted it would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which addresses discrimination, so ...

Ipso facto, as they say

[catastrophe]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

[Justwin]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

I do not think such a law would further an important government interest. However, I don't think it's the kind of thing a court should find  the law invalid on discrimination grounds; perhaps on freedom of association grounds.

Well, you've just admitted it would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which addresses discrimination, so ...

I think it's more of a 1st Amendment thing than an Equal Protection thing.

[Justwin]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

[catastrophe]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

I’m actually curious what your definition is, cause you appear to be stuck in the “separate but equal” zone where there’s no discrimination so long as some form of bathroom/water fountain is available to each race.

[Spracne]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

"I am not bound by the law when discussing the law."

[yoga-like_abana]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

less government, great call sprac

[Spracne]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

less government, great call sprac

This is literally the "intermediate scrutiny" test applied by courts to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Note that the verb "to discriminate" has two meanings. It can mean "to differentiate" or "to subjugate". But in Constitutional jurisprudence, the law is clear that it means "to differentiate," also known as anti-classificationism. Classifications based on sex, as in this hypothetical, receive "intermediate scrutiny," which is a type of heightened scrutiny. I merely typed out the Constitutional question/test that would be applied to such a hypothetical law. It's not my fault you don't know dick about crap.

[yoga-like_abana]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

less government, great call sprac

This is literally the "intermediate scrutiny" test applied by courts to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Note that the verb "to discriminate" has two meanings. It can mean "to differentiate" or "to subjugate". But in Constitutional jurisprudence, the law is clear that it means "to differentiate," also known as anti-classificationism. Classifications based on sex, as in this hypothetical, receive "intermediate scrutiny," which is a type of heightened scrutiny. I merely typed out the Constitutional question/test that would be applied to such a hypothetical law. It's not my fault you don't know dick about crap.

Great reply chat gpt

[Spracne]

No, that was just off the top of my head. But I'm flattered.

[DaBigTrain]

I’m not sure YLA understands the quality of AI it’s responding too. SpracsAI is quite advanced.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

It really just goes to show that no matter what your level of scholarship on a topic, literally anyone can just show up on a message board and post whatever they want

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Like if I wanted to, right now I could just go pop into the cooking thread and tell AST he doesn’t know jack crap about cooking. What a time to be alive!

[OB_Won]

Like if I wanted to, right now I could just go pop into the cooking thread and tell AST he doesn’t know jack crap about cooking. What a time to be alive!

No better example of that than covid-19.

[MakeItRain]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

less government, great call sprac

This is literally the "intermediate scrutiny" test applied by courts to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Note that the verb "to discriminate" has two meanings. It can mean "to differentiate" or "to subjugate". But in Constitutional jurisprudence, the law is clear that it means "to differentiate," also known as anti-classificationism. Classifications based on sex, as in this hypothetical, receive "intermediate scrutiny," which is a type of heightened scrutiny. I merely typed out the Constitutional question/test that would be applied to such a hypothetical law. It's not my fault you don't know dick about crap.

Zero chance he understood that

[catastrophe]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

I’m actually curious what your definition is, cause you appear to be stuck in the “separate but equal” zone where there’s no discrimination so long as some form of bathroom/water fountain is available to each race.

To advance the ball here, my definition of discrimination (for purposes of this discussion) is any limit placed on someone’s full enjoyment of a right or privilege based on an immutable characteristic.

So for example in the case of mixed race businesses, I find it laughable that someone who does not strike me as a complete idiot comes in here with a straight face saying it would not be discriminatory to prohibit a black (or female) person from going into business with Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or any number of other billionaires in the US who are overwhelmingly white males.

[Justwin]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

I’m actually curious what your definition is, cause you appear to be stuck in the “separate but equal” zone where there’s no discrimination so long as some form of bathroom/water fountain is available to each race.

To advance the ball here, my definition of discrimination (for purposes of this discussion) is any limit placed on someone’s full enjoyment of a right or privilege based on an immutable characteristic.

So for example in the case of mixed race businesses, I find it laughable that someone who does not strike me as a complete idiot comes in here with a straight face saying it would not be discriminatory to prohibit a black (or female) person from going into business with Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or any number of other billionaires in the US who are overwhelmingly white males.

It would also prevent a white person from going into business with Robert F. Smith, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan. The last 14 words of your post are immaterial to me.

My definition of discrimination is if somebody else is allowed to do the behavior specified in the policy. If there was a law that said white people may not go into business with other races, that would be discriminatory.

Like I mentioned earlier, if I was a Supreme Court justice, I may very well find a law prohibiting mixed race business partnerships unconstitutional, but I would do so on First Amendment grounds rather than discrimination or Equal Protection Clause grounds.

[Spracne]

That makes absolutely no sense. But whatever.

[catastrophe]

Mixed race partnerships?

I knew this would be the next question. I would not call this discrimination. I also would not call a law prohibiting business partnerships between close family members discriminatory.

Well I appreciate you keeping with a logically consistent point and also confirming you have no idea what discrimination means lmao.

What do you think discrimination means?

It's quite possible that I just have a much narrower definition than you do. I'm also not limited by what courts may have previously ruled in forming my personal opinions.

I’m actually curious what your definition is, cause you appear to be stuck in the “separate but equal” zone where there’s no discrimination so long as some form of bathroom/water fountain is available to each race.

To advance the ball here, my definition of discrimination (for purposes of this discussion) is any limit placed on someone’s full enjoyment of a right or privilege based on an immutable characteristic.

So for example in the case of mixed race businesses, I find it laughable that someone who does not strike me as a complete idiot comes in here with a straight face saying it would not be discriminatory to prohibit a black (or female) person from going into business with Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or any number of other billionaires in the US who are overwhelmingly white males.

It would also prevent a white person from going into business with Robert F. Smith, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan. The last 14 words of your post are immaterial to me.

My definition of discrimination is if somebody else is allowed to do the behavior specified in the policy. If there was a law that said white people may not go into business with other races, that would be discriminatory.

Like I mentioned earlier, if I was a Supreme Court justice, I may very well find a law prohibiting mixed race business partnerships unconstitutional, but I would do so on First Amendment grounds rather than discrimination or Equal Protection Clause grounds.

So fair to say you think Brown v. Board of Education was incorrectly decided?

Not sure I actually need the clarification but if that’s your position I think we’ve established we’re too far apart to have a real debate here. We can set aside whether you think folks like Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey would have even a fraction of their current business power if they had been prevented from going into business with white people.

[yoga-like_abana]

I do not think a law banning same-sex business partnerships is discriminatory.

Do you think such a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest?

less government, great call sprac

This is literally the "intermediate scrutiny" test applied by courts to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Note that the verb "to discriminate" has two meanings. It can mean "to differentiate" or "to subjugate". But in Constitutional jurisprudence, the law is clear that it means "to differentiate," also known as anti-classificationism. Classifications based on sex, as in this hypothetical, receive "intermediate scrutiny," which is a type of heightened scrutiny. I merely typed out the Constitutional question/test that would be applied to such a hypothetical law. It's not my fault you don't know dick about crap.

Zero chance he understood that

That sounds hypothetical