[maxerickson]

I'm curious how you are reading particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny.

It seems to be a plain description of how the supreme court rules on things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based...

Or maybe you think it is some sort of misdirection to bring it up in the context of this thread?

[imanaccount247]

This part: "Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal"

[dragonwriter]

You clipped that in the middle and left a statement that doesn't make any sense. "...as illegal" can't be true, false, or even meaningful without the comparison that comes after. And with that comparison -- the comparison to forms of discrimination (such as racial) that are permitted only when the standard of strict scrutiny are meet, it's a simple statement of the fact of well-established constitutional case law. And is one of the motivations for the ERA, whose advocates argue that it is necessary to subject sex discrimination to the same degree of scrutiny.

Next time read a whole sentence before accusing someone of lying.

[maxerickson]

I was asking you understood the part I quoted, not what part you took issue with.

[imanaccount247]

And I am telling you that is not the part I said is a lie.