Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Do you see how the two phrases you compared are not even remotely the same as the two I used?
"Equal protection of the law" is not even close to "equal treatment".
"prohibit discrimination" is not the same as "prohibit discriminatory treatment". Although that ones at least somewhat close.
When you're a Supreme Court Justice, and you're talking about THE LAW, yes, it's exactly the same thing.
No, it's not. In fact the more schooled you are in law, the more important minor syntactical differences are. You can bet a Supreme Court Justice is very very aware of the difference between those statements and will usually work very hard to use exactly the right language in order to ensure that people like you *don't* run around behind them misinterpreting what they say.
Sadly, since most of the rest of the population doesn't understand, you do it anyway.
Quote:
If equal protection of the law is required, then discrimination in law is prohibited.
Where the hell do you get this? Equal protection of the law means that the laws apply equally to everyone. So if someone steals my property, the punishment is the same for the thief as it would be if he stole equal valued property from you. My life is worth as much as yours. In any area in which the law is "protecting" us, we are to be granted equal protection.
That is *not* the same as saying that the law cannot discriminate, and certainly not that the law must eliminate all private instances of discrimination. Otherwise handicapped parking spaces would be unconstitutional, women only housing would be unconstitutional, affirmative action would be unconstitutional, requiring anyone to qualify for anything would be unconstitutional, unemployment would be unconstitutional, etc.
Virtually the entire contents of federal law would be unconstitutional. We discriminate all the time. How many women were drafted into military service during Viet Nam? Isn't that discrimination? Every public building has separate bathroom facilities for men and women. Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that "separate but equal"? OMG!!! The world isn't as freaking stupidly simplistic as you've been taught. It really isn't about waving a magic word around and using it as a battering ram to attack anything and anyone you don't like.
"Discrimination" doesn't really mean what you think it does. Neither does equal protection of the law. Your problem is you don't actually understand either of the terms being used, but continue to argue a position out of utter ignorance anyway. The only thing sadder is the sheer number of people who, for no reason other than that it fits with some semantic rhetoric they've been taught to agree with, will insist that you are right.
Quote:
God, you really are trying to mince a semantic argument. I had forgotten how low you're willing to sink.
You're the one making insane word and phrase associations, why is it wrong to point out that you're getting it wrong?