🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:

    But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal
    with person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol
    to someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might
    be illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but
    not with a 27 year old.  Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol
    law, or age of consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or
    you can or can't have sex.

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

    Laws relating to alcohol are not relating to RIGHTS.  And these are
    also describing a condition (being a child) that EVERYONE passes.
    Being/not being a minority such as a black is not something one
    grows into or out of.  As to rights, one does not gain full rights
    of citizenship till they become 21 (18 in some states).  And this
    covers all people, not just a specified group.

So, what you are saying then, is that laws which do not apply to rights
may discriminate against some groups, and that conditions which
everyone shares may be used to separate people into groups, right? That
it is ok to have liquor laws because drinking liquor is not a right,
and it is also ok for them to be based on age because age is something
everyone grows out of (and into)?

Also, it might help for you to define "rights" as you see them. Do you
mean "Bill of Rights" or ..?

I just want to make sure I understand before I offer my next
situation.

    *YOU* want lines drawn setting up special classes.  I want them
    removed.

    Big difference.

If that's what you want and that's what I want, I agree. I think,
however, that what we want is actually quite a bit closer together
in form, and just substantially different in substance.

Rick