• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is clear to me. It was an addition of rights and I’m fine with that.

    • Anticorp
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was the emancipation proclamation also an addition of rights since black people were up until then, slaves? Do black people have additional rights in your mind by having the same freedom as other races, since they didn’t have equal rights to begin with?

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure you get what the emancipation. Proclamation was.

        Since it only freed the slaves in the south. It very much was an additional right since the northern slaves were still slaves. The two groups were not equal under the law.

        • Bremmy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yikes your thinking is so childish. Group A gets 10$ every week while group B always gets 5$. By your logic, once group B gets 10$ they now have “additional rights” by getting 5 “extra” dollars

          This is your response to everything. “Well, they were slaves before but now that they’re free that basically means they now have additional rights”

          No my dude lol. This isn’t complicated

    • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an addition if rights THAT OTHER PEOPLE ALREADY HAD THIS GIVING LGBT PEOPLE THESE SAME RIGHTS MADE THEM EQUAL

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree.

        Where in the constitution does it mention marriage? It doesn’t. It was an overreaching court that made some weird claim it’s a 14th amendment right.

        The 10th amendment clearly states rights not defined in the constitution are the rights of the states.

        As such the states or congress should have voted on the issue. It’s why roe was overturned as well. Congress should have created a law for abortion.

        Your lack of understanding of the law isn’t an issue of my viewpoints. I support our constitution and I don’t support the level system making laws.

        Congress need to do their job.

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you so poorly educated that you think the constitution is the only source of rights?

          I don’t think you have an understanding of the law at all based on the ignorance you display here

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not a personal attack. It’s an actual question as if you think the only source of rights is in the constitution then you are very poorly educated.

              To be clear part of your confusion seems to be what words like “extra”, “equal” and “additional” mean so suggestions that you aren’t well informed are not coming from nowhere.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am not confused; the current court agrees with me. I get you are arguing from ignorance, but leave me out of your confusion. Thomas would like to review all the cases, and he thinks they are flawed. I agree. Most of these need to be overturned.

                Stomping your foot and throwing insults is your way of trying to communicate, but it’s tiresome to adults. Go pout somewhere else.

                I understand the law well and agree with the decisions’ fundamental issues. Now I don’t disagree with the outcomes but we don’t decide the outcome and then try to justify it. You let the facts lead you to the outcome.

                https://nypost.com/2022/06/24/court-should-reconsider-gay-marriage-birth-control-clarence-thomas/

                • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are confused what they mean because your argument makes no sense if you understand the common definition for those words.

                  The rest of your post is immaterial to the argument here because you factually have displayed no understanding of commonly used terms.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No my argument is solid. Thanks for your opinion though. As I cited the courts will be reviewing the cases which further shows you have are incorrect.

                    You’ll stomp your foot when the rulings are overturned but you’ll lack the ability to understand why. It’s the same thing when roe was overturned. People like you didn’t understand even when the court clearly explained it.

                    While I support gay marriage and abortion, the courts are not the ones to decide that. You’ll stomp your foot and throw a hissy fit but it’s the way our country should run. Congress needs to step up and do their job