• GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    28 minutes ago

    Call me radical if you want but, I don’t think Subject A of our cause should be rights for a minority of our citizenry.

    Those rights should be unspoken truths we uphold regardless.

    The common man will walk by TRANS RIGHTS 4000 times before they walk by UNION STRIKE.

    The left needs to go back to focusing on workers, unions, labor, taxes, fairness and sense. Trans rights are important, and topical, but I feel the sjw yelling pushes a lot of people away from what our side of politics is actually about.

    There isn’t a single person I work with that wouldn’t toss a flier with ‘trans rights’ written on it in the trash the second it was handed to them.

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If you don’t stand for the rights of others, there’ll be nobody left to stand for your’s - so get standing!

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They’ll “leave it up to the states” I’m sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.

    I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      “Leaving it up to the states” is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotus….

      • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.

        A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.

        Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.

          So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.

          So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.

          • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              53 minutes ago

              Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            52 minutes ago

            Maybe Canada was more proactive than the USA but it’s still a result of the type of legal system they use, that wouldn’t happen with Civil law.

            There’s still plenty of things in Canada that are left to precedence, we don’t pass laws every time something comes up.

  • Grogon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Gotta gotta gotta go, true sounds, of a revolution,…

    Was in my pyjama and haven’t heard Agnost Front the last 20 years so thanks for reminding me of this song.

  • ManixT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Unless that group is Pro-Palestine, then literally every other group can look out for themselves because logic be damned.