- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
This is an exercise of history and logic and it's not my fault you lied on one front and failed on the other.
Apparently you'll never be a lawyer, judge, or politician. But you should take some law classes.
He wasn't always an anarchist and he always maintained a compromise to protect human rights. I'm not sure how that disputes his logic though. If you care to take on the quote, do so, but don't attack him as a person as if that somehow matters to his words.
Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com
back up links:
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times
vetoed just like i thought and said it would be
equality wins again
again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.
The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.
THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.
No that is what you read into it. I almost never say ALWAYS, because the reality is that those choices require context. The only somewhat inflexible position I hold is that humans should always be kind to one another. (definition of kind being somewhat subjective)
Okay, so let me draw back for a minute to create a broader context. I try to establish what is fair based on what I could live with.
If I were a devout Christian (which admittedly I't not) and I wanted to have the freedom to practice my faith without limitations it would require that everyone around me either be of the same faith or submit to my interpretation of the religious doctrine I have chosen. Well, I would not want to have to submit to the doctrine of any other faith so maybe some limitations are necessary.
I would then most likely chose to draw that back to being able to state my interpretations of my religious doctrines freely rather than force everyone to live by and exhibit devotion to the same.
So an idea that is more universally applicable and maintains a basis of equality, regardless of who has more power would be, you are free to think, state openly and believe as you chose but not practice acts of exclusion based on those beliefs.
I was in Chapter for my fraternity when i got an update on my phone from AP.
This is an exercise of history and logic and it's not my fault you lied on one front and failed on the other.
I'm not attacking him as a person, I'm challenging your attacks and his position. You spoke of being illogical, well, an anarchistic society with protections for any rights is about as contradictory and illogical as it gets.
I was in Chapter for my fraternity when i got an update on my phone from AP. I literally just smiled and nodded. Two great equal rights news came today; Texas and Arizona. The bigots are finally losing.
How do you justify your bigotry toward those who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman and find marriage in their religious beliefs to be a sacrament? How do you justify trumping their rights for others by not allowing them to practice their beliefs in regard to their business/their livelihood ? How do you justify that now in this country a person who practices their religious beliefs in word and deed are now in fear of being punished by their government?I was in Chapter for my fraternity when i got an update on my phone from AP. I literally just smiled and nodded. Two great equal rights news came today; Texas and Arizona. The bigots are finally losing.
I have to admit, I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I think businesses should have the right to refuse on any basis, on the other hand, if we allow people to refuse service because of religion, where does it stop?
Actually my Fraternity the whole discriminatory thing got removed in the 40's.Oh the irony here is rich. You belong to a elitist and discriminatory organization like a fraternity
Ok, so do you believe religious leaders should be required to perform same sex weddings even if they oppose them on religious grounds?
How do you justify your bigotry toward those who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman and find marriage in their religious beliefs to be a sacrament? How do you justify trumping their rights for others by not allowing them to practice their beliefs in regard to their business/their livelihood ? How do you justify that now in this country a person who practices their religious beliefs in word and deed are now in fear of being punished by their government?
No, you think that because the state has powers that peoples rights are somehow trumped by those powers. Nope, that is not how it works. My rights come first and then their powers come into play. Not the other way around. Once you get that down you might be able to defend your case for the law. Until then, good luck to you.
I'm not attacking him as a person, I'm challenging your attacks and his position. You spoke of being illogical, well, an anarchistic society with protections for any rights is about as contradictory and illogical as it gets.
I believe your post speaks to what Sen. Hatch was saying, in being torn between State's rights and discrimination.
The link is earlier.
As is my thing right now, I find the X, Risky and Danarhea posting styles on this issue to be a fascinating watch .
Please do not call them civil rights. The term civil rights refers to natural justice, not some idiotic concept that people have the right to use property that is not their own, get provided service and labor against peoples wills, and force people into association with them. It's unfounded nonsense and has nothing to do with civil rights.
You have rights, the same rights that we all have--your conscience does not...IMO...
Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs but this does not give us the right to use any religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them
Stop giving me legal drivel that violates property rights. A business is the property of the owner and like any other property owner they have a right to their property.
This is not what you think it is. I'm arguing human rights, you're arguing unjust laws designed to give government power over private property. You're argument must assume violation of property rights is just and for that very reason you lose.
Sometimes I'll seem completely bi-polar on the issue NIMBY. I don't oppose SSM but I also support religious liberty. I think you have to recognize that sometimes two people's Constitutional rights will collide and one will have to be given more weight and deference. It seems to me right now that religious freedom is the one that will always lose out and I cannot help but to find that concerning.
When you have a business that is open to the public, then you are obliged to serve the public...
1.) If this is your answer then you truly do not understand basic 1st Amendment Rights.
2.) Protecting all persons religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms.
3.)All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.
4.) They should not have to compromise their beliefs just because they are part of the marketplace.
5.) But that is what you are advocating.
Government already has power over private property that is open to the public --- a license to operate, inspections, mandatory insurance, etc. etc...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?