- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
i totally agree that people don't have to treat everyone equally. That would be chaos.
Having said that, the devil is in the details of the interpretation of when a persons natural rights have been violated and exactly what actions constitute a danger to the health and safety of the public.
but this below does not have anything to do with person [A] how he treats person
Equal protection
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights
uhm you just repeated in long form what i already said?
weird, can you point out in my post where I referred to how person a "treats" person b? what are you misunderstanding?
I have no clue what you are trying to say and what posting in the long form what I already said changes anything. That is the equal protection clause (snip) and its does what i said it does?
you seem to have simply repeated it, what do think you stated differently?
please explain thank you
I don't want to put any words in your mouth at all.
all I am saying is one citizen does not have to treat another equally....governments do they are required to by constitutional law.
again how does that point change anything I said, what is your motivation for saying it when it has zero impact to my statement?
were just adding an additional meaningless 2 cents that could of been added anywhere?
Im just curious to why you think applies? this was my statement (which was exactly what the 14th does)
"it doesnt matter what i or others think it it only what it actually is and thats equal treatment/protection by/of law and rights
civil rights and discrimination laws are a perfect example. it doesnt make person A and B equal it simply means the laws that protect them and their rights are equal."
saying people dont have to treat eachother equally has no barring on my statement, do you agree with that fact?
since I said I don't want to put any words in your mouth, then I didn't say you said anything.
I made the point, that the law [the OP] deals with governments and not people.
ok so your addition was meaningless to my statement, the 14th and has no impact, thanks got it
no... it had meaning....
no to anything i actually said or the 14th it didnt lol
if you disagree simply tell me how it CHANGES or IMPACTS my statement or the 14
well it doesnt matter what i or others think it it only what it actually is and thats equal treatment/protection by/of law and rights
civil rights and discrimination laws are a perfect example. it doesnt make person A and B equal it simply means the laws that protect them and their rights are equal.
1.)the bold is what I found to be vague.
2.)the 14th I posted, does not deal in person A and person B in any form together, but deals in ......government and the person.
1.) nothing vague about it, i very specially said their rights.
2.) yes you pointed that out the first time and I also noticed it the first time, neither does my statement, hence why it has no impact. thanks again for proving your addition has not impact to the 14th or my statement
maybe in your next post you can tell me how it changes or impacts what i said or the 14th,unless of course you see the fact now that it doesnt
well I stated your post end was vague......meaning I really did not understand its meaning....
my post was meant to state the..... interaction of government and a person only....under equality of the law.
so I did not counter your post in any way,..... it simply had no clear meaning to me.
I know what you're doing here, but you're stepping ahead of your own question. You asked about "equality under the law". The law is written and enforced by government, not people as individuals, so at this point you have rendered your own question moot. But, yes, I get that some people believe it applies to people as individuals as well.so if I have you correct, it is government that is supposed to treat everyone equal, not the people.
Equal protection
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights
Equal protection | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Here's a scenario I've often wondered about.
Scenario #1: Mary gets a speeding ticket from a camera enforcement system. Mary was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Mary is fined $100 and get no points on her driving record.
Scenario #2: Jane gets a speeding ticket from a live cop. Jane was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Jane is fined $100 AND gets 2 points on her driving record.
Both women are white, so there's no gender and/or race issues here. Both tickets occur in the same jurisdiction. No school zones or construction zones or anything other to worry about. There is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the two, except that one was issued via camera enforcement, and the other was issued vie a live cop. As I understand it, the only reason Mary gets no points is because the camera cannot testify against her, so it is categorized as a civil infraction instead.
Here's the question: Can Jane legitimately argue to the court for her punishment to be reduced to equal Mary's... $100 fine with no points... based on "equal treatment under the law"?
I don't see why not. Same crime. Should be same penalties, I would think.
I know what you're doing here, but you're stepping ahead of your own question. You asked about "equality under the law". The law is written and enforced by government, not people as individuals, so at this point you have rendered your own question moot. But, yes, I get that some people believe it applies to people as individuals as well.
Now, having said that, laws can be written requiring that people as individuals treat other people as individuals equal, but that's not technically the same thing. The concept of "equality under the law" regards how laws are applied, not necessarily what the laws are.
I only disagree [to the bold].depending on how the money is collected, if it is by force, then its not legal, if collected thru a voluntary tax say consumption, then I am fine with it.
as far as a business has long as it does not violate rights of the people or the public health and safety I have no problem with it.
To me, equality under the law means that the law is applied equally to every individual.
That said, equality under the law loses much of it's meaning if the law itself is not just.
As an example, take two laws:
A law stating that a person who is defined as "black" may not own land in a given area.
A law stating that an adult is not allowed to have sex with a minor.
Now, obviously, the first is racist and unjust, while the second is reasonable and just (IMO of course).
However if you stretch the meaning of "equal under the law", it could be argued that a pedophile is discriminated against because he/she is not allowed to freely express his/her sexual desires, unlike hetrosexual, homosexual, and bisexual persons.
This of course disregards the point of the law, which is to prevent abuse of minors. Which makes it just.
BUT by whom?
well i agree however i belive it has been taken to the extrem, where some believe becuase they did not recive the same treatment or product, that another peson recevied....they some how have had their rights violated.
By the courts.
Well we should not allow people to be treated unjustly. On the other hand you can't expect to get an "A" on a test SIMPLY because someone else got an "A."
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?