No. In the example I cite, they are discriminating against my wife and I as a couple because of an activity we do as a couple.
The courts DO NOT CARE that you are a couple for that question. It is IRRELEVANT. If acting against ONE of you in that manner is discriminatory, that cannot and DOES NOT change because you're a couple. Jeeze, how many times do I have to say this: individual rights do not and cannot disappear because you are part of a group. Individual rights is what the constitution is all about.
And access to the water utility is not a right, it's a privilege.
Wrong. It is property. YOUR property, which you have lawfully acquired through contract with utility companies. Man, are you getting the constitutional issues spectacularly wrong.
One that can most commonly be taken away when one does not pay ones bill.
Because of a violation of contract terms with the water company. For the same reason, property can be seized to pay debts, but it cannot be seized because the police don't like you.
Do you understand the parallel and absurdity of it now?
I understand the absurdity, all right. Too bad you don't understand the constitution.
In my analogy, the city withholds the privilage of the water utility based on something my wife and I do as a couple, perhaps in the privacy of our own home, namely dancing.
Wrong: the city infringes upon a contract you had with the utility company, violating your property rights. It is a property question, NOT a privilege question.
Compare to your assertion that the state can withhold the privilage of marriage based on something a couple does as couple in the privacy of their own home.
Uh, no. The legal issue has NOTHING to do with what the couple in question actually does, but what the couple is. That's a damned important distinction, and you missed it. It's like you're getting more and more confused as time goes on.
You're saying that discrimination against a group does not mean discrimination against the individuals in that group, correct?
Not exactly. It's really discriminating against a group
ing. Absent the particular marriage, there is no difference in treatment of the individuals involved.
When, throughout history, has a group been discriminated against that was not also discrimination against the individuals of that group?
Groupings of siblings are also discriminated against: they can't marry either. But the individual siblings involved do not have any less rights than single children, for example.
And what exactly is the basis for homosexuals to be discriminated against?
But legally speaking, they aren't. There is NEVER a test of sexuality involved. I keep saying that, and you keep ignoring it. And you wonder why I say you don't get the argument?
It cannot be procreation, as you have claimed.
Wrong, as I've already stated. You put forward an argument as to why procreation is likely not the ONLY interest involved, but nothing you say here indicates that it is not an interest.
You've claimed that it is a matter of privacy that prevents the government from investigating heterosexuals' ability to have children, but why is ability to conceive not a matter of privacy for homosexuals?
Nonsensical question. It doesn't matter if a same-sex couple is fertile or not: they cannot create children on their own under ANY possible conditions. That creates a difference, which the state is aware of without any invasion of privacy. And note again: you refer to sexuality, but that's never the test, sex is.
In all cases, you have presented a double standard.
Uh, no. Time and time again, you have demonstrated that you neither understand the argument I'm making, nor even basic constitutional law.
Given two couples with the exact same capabilities and talents, you would let one get married if they were a heterosexual couple and not let the other if they were homosexual. The only difference is the couple's sexual orientation.
Once again, sexuality is NOT the test here: sex is. And you're completely wrong that they have the exact same capabilities: the same-sex couple can NEVER conceive a child on their own. That is a DIFFERENCE, regardless of whether or not there are ways around it.
