2 ms·
> ... protect minority interests "As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY. So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people
by jmyeet 4y ago
> ... protect minority interests
"As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY.
So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery.
Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them.
> If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say?
Yes. if you even have to ask...
- mlyle 4y ago??? I have to imagine you've misread the thread and think that I'm saying states should be able to unilaterally restrict minority interests. I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument. > > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? > Yes. if you even have to ask... That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
- tekknik 4y agoSo your argument is we remove states borders?