Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
You may have heard of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment?
Wow. People should really take a civics class. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not part of the quality protection clause. It is from the Declaration of Independence.
PP: I wasn’t saying the EPC was part of the Declaration. I posted that reference to the EPC as a rebuttal to the idea that these policies do not violate civil rights. I wasn’t the one who posted about the Declaration bc obviously that’s not going to be the basis for a cause of action, but the EPC certainly could be.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
You may have heard of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment?
Wow. People should really take a civics class. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not part of the quality protection clause. It is from the Declaration of Independence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
You may have heard of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment?
Wow. People should really take a civics class. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not part of the quality protection clause. It is from the Declaration of Independence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
You may have heard of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
You may have heard of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Anonymous wrote:The new policies do not infringe in anyone’s civil rights.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things
While I'm not a fan of baseless litigation, I think it's warranted as necessary to protect a marginalized group's civil rights. I don't regard doing the right thing as a waste of money.
Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things
The parallels to the anti-mask executive order are striking.
And remind me how the challenges to that went…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things
The parallels to the anti-mask executive order are striking.
And remind me how the challenges to that went…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things
The parallels to the anti-mask executive order are striking.
Anonymous wrote:It will bring litigation, waste APS money and I’m opposed to those things