Quote:
|
The First Amendment, backed up by the Supreme Court, the folks who decided these cases, as the Constitution established them to do.
|
Wrong. I asked where it said "If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed."
1st Amendment says nothing about that. The Supreme Court HAS indeed said that the GOVERNMENT cannot show favoritism (Souter in '94, I believe) - but WITHIN the framework of the government's purview. A public referrendum (which is the case I originally presented) has nothing to do with the government and any favoritism thereof. As such, the point of government favoritism is irrelevent.
Quote:
|
The Constitution protects the minority from the majority. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.
|
Umm, of course. What's your point?
The Bill of Rights does indeed protect the minority from the majority - IN SPECIFIC WAYS. In no way does the Bill of Rights even remotely suggest that the display of any religious imagery whatsoever is an infringment upon anyone's rights. As such, this point is also irrelevent.
Quote:
|
If the majority votes that owning people as slaves is legal, does that make it any more right to do so?
|
Erm, no. Why? Because that is something that is actually in the Constitution. Try the 14th Amendment for starters.
I do find it quite odd that you'd find a parallel between the public voting to display religious symbology and slavery, however.
Yet, one is Constitutionally prevented. The other is not. Just because the rights of the minority are protected doesn't mean they have whatever rights they want.