re: #69 mattand

This is kind of the shit that Christie is pushing here in NJ: let voters decide whether a minority (and an unpopular one with many of them) gets to have the same rights as everyone else.

Because some citizens are more equal than others.

What’s the supposed reasoning behind that? “Gee, if voters don’t think this small minority group should have protections, that clearly indicates that there really is no need to protect that group”? Conversely, if a majority thinks a group should have protections, is that somehow supposed to indicate a broad need to protect them? I guess we should get used to discrimination against straight white Christians becoming the only thing covered by civil rights laws.