Holder to State AGs - "Don't Defend "Discriminatory" Laws"

[Ben]

Quotes for "discriminatory" are mine. He's mostly referring to gay marriage bans. However you feel about that subject though, this seems like something that could be precedent in either good or bad ways. For instance, what if a state AG decided bans on fully automatic weapons were discriminatory to law abiding citizens? I wonder how fast Holder would jump into that? How about EEO laws that were discriminatory against white men? Who defines "discriminatory"? (rhetorical - I know the answer here).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/holder-gives-nod-to-state-ags-to-drop-defense-gay-marriage-bans-amid-court/

[TommyGunn]

If Holder doesn't like these laws he ought to deal with them through the legal system in the appropriate way.
He's steering us down the road to being a Banana Republic as it is.

"Crime is contagious ... if the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law."   ~~ Justice Louis O. Brandeis.

[dm1333]

Maybe I am reading it wrong but "you don't have to defend it if you don't like it"  seems to sum up the article.  Am I wrong?  Sort of smack's of the administrations policy of doing whatever it wants without regard for what the law says. 

Not that I have any issues with gay marriage.  This just makes me think it is more "I'm the President, I'll do whatever I want to get around those nasty obstructionist repubs".

[fifth_column]

Maybe I am reading it wrong but "you don't have to defend it if you don't like it"  seems to sum up the article.  Am I wrong?  Sort of smack's of the administrations policy of doing whatever it wants without regard for what the law says. 

Not that I have any issues with gay marriage.  This just makes me think it is more "I'm the President, I'll do whatever I want to get around those nasty obstructionist repubs laws, and oh yeah, the constitution".

FTFY

[Tallpine]

Last I heard the state AG was elected by and responsible to the citizens of the state, not the feds 

[Ben]

Maybe I am reading it wrong but "you don't have to defend it if you don't like it"  seems to sum up the article. 

That's pretty much how I read it, which makes it as capricious as Obama and his Executive Orders. I think it will come back to bite them in the ass though.

[Balog]

It is illegal to refuse service to someone for a non-approved reason. It is not illegal to force religious people to either violate their conscience or effectively bar them from either owning or working at large swaths of jobs. Gotcha. That whole free exercise of religion thing is so passe. It's funny that the folks who very much want what people do sexually to be a matter of public policy and concern are so adamant about religion being something you can only do behind closed doors.

[Perd Hapley]

I really think we need to divorce the gay wedding cake controversies from religion. I reserve the right to object to homosexuality anything I want to, with or without any religious motive.

It's about personal property and freedom of association; not just religion.

Edit: And I almost forgot, it's also about your right not to be forced labor.

[dm1333]

capricious

That is very descriptive.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I really think we need to divorce the gay wedding cake controversies from religion. I reserve the right to object to homosexuality anything I want to, with or without any religious motive.

It's about personal property and freedom of association; not just religion.

Edit: And I almost forgot, it's also about your right not to be forced labor.

Yup.

[brimic]

If holder gets to pick and choose which laws don't need to be followed, it stands to reason that the rest of us get to pick and choose as well.

[Balog]

But that's a fairly large libertarian step, and it has little to no popular support. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree about freedom of association and all that. But let's focus on what we can actually achieve to preserve the freedom that is currently being taken away, and lets work on that laudable goal after we stop the bleeding.

[brimic]

But that's a fairly large libertarian step, and it has little to no popular support. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree about freedom of association and all that. But let's focus on what we can actually achieve to preserve the freedom that is currently being taken away, and lets work on that laudable goal after we stop the bleeding.

There is nothing libertarian about it, its purely banana republic where the executive branch gets to determine what the law of the land is. This is not a gift from holder to libertarians, its a slap in the face to everyone who believes in the seperation of powers.

[Balog]

There is nothing libertarian about it, its purely banana republic where the executive branch gets to determine what the law of the land is. This is not a gift from holder to libertarians, its a slap in the face to everyone who believes in the seperation of powers.

I was addressing fistful's argument about ending all discrimination laws, not what you said. Sorry for the confusion.

[Gowen]

We have the best state's AGs that George Soros could buy.  Who better to enforce or not enforce laws passed by the people.

[Scout26]

Ha!!  I only wish ours was owned by Soros.  We have the daughter of our Speaker of the Illinois House as our AG. 

[brimic]

I was addressing fistful's argument about ending all discrimination laws, not what you said. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah. Gotcha.

[Perd Hapley]

But that's a fairly large libertarian step, and it has little to no popular support. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree about freedom of association and all that. But let's focus on what we can actually achieve to preserve the freedom that is currently being taken away, and lets work on that laudable goal after we stop the bleeding.

I wasn't saying we should turn this into a fight to end all of the discrimination laws right now. I'm saying that they/we seem to have chosen to make this a fight for the rights of just conservative, religious business-owners, vs the public that they serve. It should be fought on broader grounds. That is, freedom of conscience for all. Make more use of questions like, "What if someone wants a hundred Sanctity of Marriage t-shirts?" Or, "what if someone demands catering for their border enforcement banquet?" No extreme examples, either, just things that lots of people disagree over.

[Tallpine]

I see it as a 10th Amendment issue.

The US AG is not in the chain of command of the state AGs