- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
a person does not have a right to a license to drive.....he may have a privilege of government, by equality under the law.
however equality under does not guarantee a person such a privilege, if that person does not conform to certain regulation's for receiving the privilege..
My first Wife and I lived next door to 5 guys that wanted to be women and prostituted themselves in hopes of finding the sugar daddy who would make it so.
Don't tell me about abnormal.
True, but... just because you can enact a rule/law does not automatically make said rule/law reasonable and rational, and people do have the right to complain about it and seek to change it.
I've had enough of your insults.
a person does not have a right to a license to drive.....he may have a privilege of government, by equality under the law.
however equality under does not guarantee a person such a privilege, if that person does not conform to certain regulation's for receiving the privilege..
My first Wife and I lived next door to 5 guys that wanted to be women and prostituted themselves in hopes of finding the sugar daddy who would make it so.
Don't tell me about abnormal.
Equality guarantees a person must be treated equally to everyone else up to the point where the state can show that a specific restriction furthers (in this case) an important state interest. This is why a DMV cannot have different testing rules for different "types" of people based on sex, religion, race, nationality, or any other protected (or really in general) classification. 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
I will agree ,however if the person, and I am not saying this person... were to do things which change their looks to a good degree, I believe the state could revoke the privilege,
My argument was made on logic while yours was based on feelings and emotion.Don't blame the messenger. It's your fault for making terrible arguments. Not mine.
The best thing about this thread is how much you've been judging this kid and other people like him and then you have a quote from Jesus in your signature. I think he said something about judging others. I would ask you but I doubt you've read beyond your one quote...
My argument was made on logic while yours was based on feelings and emotion.
Shove your insinuations.
No, your argument is based on bias. Unless women/girls are required to remove their makeup as well, which can be used to hide some of their features, then a boy wearing makeup or dressing like a girl is not a legitimate disguise. Notice they didn't make him change his hairstyle, which is very feminine or change his clothing or accessories, which too were very feminine, proving that it was gender discrimination based on the clerk's feelings alone about a boy wearing makeup that led to him being asked to remove it, not the belief that he was trying to "disguise" himself as a girl.
Regardless, it's their call and driving is a privilege.
...which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one questions that it is their call. The question here is... Should they make that call?Regardless, it's their call and driving is a privilege.
What gender would that be?No, it simply is not "their call", not totally. They have to show that it was because he was trying to "disguise" himself rather than just because he is a guy wearing makeup and dressed like a woman. He has a right to wear the clothes and accessories that they allow women to wear for their ID photo, otherwise it is gender discrimination.
...which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one questions that it is their call. The question here is... Should they make that call?
What gender would that be?
This might be a good case from a blood draw and DNA recording. If he wants to play this "guess' my gender" BS, other means of identification should be necessary.
The government cannot treat the genders differently without showing an important state interest involved. Since it is not illegal for a man to ever wear makeup, then it cannot be said that any "male" that wears makeup or even dresses or acts like a woman is disguising himself just because others want to hold onto gender stereotypes. Gender stereotyping in no way furthers an important state interest.
That state interest would be....security and integrity of the system. It's not difficult.
That state interest would be....security and integrity of the system. It's not difficult.
Not good enough since there is no laws that prevent a man from wearing makeup or dressing like a woman so it clearly is not a disguise just for a guy to wear makeup. That is an excuse.
It trumps his silly fetish.
No, actually it doesn't. You can't prove that he was trying to "disguise" his real appearance just because he was wearing makeup. You are making an assumption based solely on your personal bias against guys wearing makeup or dressing like a woman.
You mean my personal experience with guys dressing up as women. Now who's assuming?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?