Teen Activist Justin Barr Takes Down Antigay Leader

Aug 1, 2013 Full story: www.queerty.com 26

Michigan resident Justin Barr is not your average high school junior. He represents a new generation of LGBT activists who are just starting to make their voices heard.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#1 Aug 1, 2013
FTA:

"Thus, if the report from a city resident is accurate, you are being asked to adopt a discriminatory solution to a non-existent problem.”

Mr. Glenn must be thinking of what Republicans have done with voting rights.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#2 Aug 1, 2013
RalphB wrote:
FTA:
"Thus, if the report from a city resident is accurate, you are being asked to adopt a discriminatory solution to a non-existent problem.”
Mr. Glenn must be thinking of what Republicans have done with voting rights.
There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote". So says SCOTUS.
tiqueboy

Saint Joseph, MI

#3 Aug 1, 2013
So Mr. Glenn, if this does not exist now ( we know that it exists EVERYWHERE) just not reported, it is to prevent it in the future. Mr. Glenn must want us to wait until someone is harmed before taking action. To my thinking, that is definitely too late.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4 Aug 1, 2013
It's interesting that the "city resident" who opposes the law needs to hide behind the AFA instead of speaking up to city council himself. I suppose, in the echo chamber of the AFA, NOM, FRC, CWA, etc., this merely proves that homosexuals have intimidated "normal" people into silence.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#5 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote". So says SCOTUS.
That's strange, since they named the law The Voting Rights Act Of 1965.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#6 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote". So says SCOTUS.
Yeah, that is true that the SCOTUS said, The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote....."

But you always forget to state the last part of that sentence, which is, "for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

Doesn't sound quite the same now, does it?
Remus

Athens, Greece

#7 Aug 1, 2013
Somebody needs to beat the crap out of this queer kid.
SLIF

Georgetown, Canada

#8 Aug 1, 2013
Is that all you (straight) Greeks do,is beat children?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#9 Aug 1, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's strange, since they named the law The Voting Rights Act Of 1965.
That's a federal law, part of which has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by SCOTUS, thus basically making the entire law unenforceable.

There is NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" (which should be obvious).

Don't believe me ? Then:

1. Point it out in the U.S. Constitution (you can't, because it's not there).

2. email the ACLU, or other reputable organization, and ask them.

3. If it WERE in the U.S. Constitution, then why would a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC congressman recently sponsor a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to put it in there ???(email him and ask him)

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#10 Aug 1, 2013
4. If there WERE a U.S. Constitutional "right to vote", then why would DEMOCRATIC Governor Perdue suggest "suspending voting for a few years" ???

(Why, how DEMOCRATIC of her !:))

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#11 Aug 1, 2013
btw, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), SCOTUS struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, as unconstitutional.

SCOYUS said that although the formula was rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer responsive to current conditions. SCOTUS did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.

That being the case, I do not think that Congress will be in any rush to amend the law in any way to pass constitutional muster. So the law is effectively dead for the foreseeable future.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#12 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
btw, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), SCOTUS struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, as unconstitutional.
SCOYUS said that although the formula was rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer responsive to current conditions. SCOTUS did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
That being the case, I do not think that Congress will be in any rush to amend the law in any way to pass constitutional muster. So the law is effectively dead for the foreseeable future.
Ya know what? You keep posting lies and half/truths to the point where it is no use even trying to have a rational discussion with you. Just like your $3 lie about birth certificates, and no right to vote. You know in your heart you are full of bullshit, so why belabor the same stuff over and over. I won't even bother. I'll just tell you when I think you're wrong and let it go at that. You aren't worth the trouble it takes to even try, just like the homophobic bigots.
WestCoaster

Los Angeles, CA

#13 Aug 1, 2013
SLIF wrote:
Is that all you (straight) Greeks do,is beat children?
You know the story of the Greek teenager who refused to go off to college. He couldn't leave his little brother's behind.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
btw, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), SCOTUS struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, as unconstitutional.
SCOYUS said that although the formula was rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer responsive to current conditions. SCOTUS did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
That being the case, I do not think that Congress will be in any rush to amend the law in any way to pass constitutional muster. So the law is effectively dead for the foreseeable future.
Congress may not have to act. The Obama administration--after too many years of trying too hard to work with Congress--is finally discovering the powers of the Presidency. Starting with Texas, his Justice Department is re-invoking the VRA one state at a time. When Holder succeeds in Texas, he'll continue with North Carolina and Florida. By that time, most of the other states will see the writing on the wall and behave themselves again.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#15 Aug 1, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress may not have to act. The Obama administration--after too many years of trying too hard to work with Congress--is finally discovering the powers of the Presidency. Starting with Texas, his Justice Department is re-invoking the VRA one state at a time. When Holder succeeds in Texas, he'll continue with North Carolina and Florida. By that time, most of the other states will see the writing on the wall and behave themselves again.
Holder can't enforce a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote". So says SCOTUS. If there were, then WHY would LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) be sponsoring a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to say there is a right to vote.

Why don't you email them and ask them ?

As usual, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#16 Aug 1, 2013
I love the line they always use. "You can't produce a single instance of discrimination". That's true because with gays and lesbians it's LEGAL to discriminate in these States.

There are no statistics because without the law protecting us just as it does most anyone else, we are not COUNTED!

And of course there's the lies about how the BSA and Assoc. Catholic Charities free speech and religious freedoms will somehow be jeopardised.

Mr. Glenn wants special rights for his bigotry. That's why "religious exemptions" are being pushed every time this issue comes up.

Non Discrimination laws endure everyone plays by the same rules. That is all we are asking for. Equal treatment.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#17 Aug 1, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know what? You keep posting lies and half/truths to the point where it is no use even trying to have a rational discussion with you. Just like your $3 lie about birth certificates, and no right to vote. You know in your heart you are full of bullshit, so why belabor the same stuff over and over. I won't even bother. I'll just tell you when I think you're wrong and let it go at that. You aren't worth the trouble it takes to even try, just like the homophobic bigots.
I think it's time we give "europs", "fafoxy" "Daniel P" the same treatment we gave DisHonest MAbeL

IGNORE IT!

Let him play with the other trolls while we adults with a rational brain continue on.

This story is about DISCRIMINATION that is legal. Not Fa Foxy and his half backed claims!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#18 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
Holder can't enforce a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
The Voting Rights Act hasn't been struck down in its entirety, only section 4 naming the states stuck in it. There's something else they can use to mandate pre-clearance, Section 3 allows asking a federal court to find a jurisdiction’s current discriminatory behavior requires it to get pre-clearance under Section 5 for a time — called “bail-in.” Guess what Holder's using?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#19 Aug 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Voting Rights Act hasn't been struck down in its entirety, only section 4 naming the states stuck in it. There's something else they can use to mandate pre-clearance, Section 3 allows asking a federal court to find a jurisdiction’s current discriminatory behavior requires it to get pre-clearance under Section 5 for a time — called “bail-in.” Guess what Holder's using?
I don't think the courts will allow him to do it.

And IF there were a U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" (which there isn't), then why would LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI) & Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), be sponsoring a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to put it in there ???(email them and ask them).

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Aug 1, 2013
Why not? If the DoJ can prove that current discriminatory practices and actions warrant federal interference, it has none of the problems they had with section 4 being a permanent trap for the states named.

The Court might have a conservative bent, but they aren't really that big of a fan of states rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gowen Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MI Who do you support for Secretary of State in Mi... (Oct '10) Sep 22 JAH 170
MI Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in M... (Oct '10) Sep 22 gamy 97
MI Who do you support for Attorney General in Mich... (Oct '10) Sep 21 Eldorado 129
Oprah gives free tickets to Mercy High seniors ... Sep 15 Brian Adam 7
Dodge drops Viper price to $84,995 Sep 8 Steve 1
Ethanol-ready Chryslers to get yellow fuel caps (Jun '06) Sep 5 Union jockey 3
MI Michigan Felon Politician Ban Amendment, Propos... (Oct '10) Sep 2 just the tip 303
Gowen Dating
Find my Match

Gowen Jobs

Gowen People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Gowen News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Gowen

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]