| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hate? Nah.
I hate people who piss on toilet seats, but that's about it for hatred from me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you sure that you're not holding some resentment for teachers that want to pay you in cash, or maybe some union losers that play the system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nail_Ponder wrote: | Hate? Nah.
I hate people who piss on toilet seats, but that's about it for hatred from me. |
How 'bout just answering a simple question or two?
Are you opposed to gay marriage?
If so, why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here is another reason Chris Rock may not want to use his "black box" in court... driving while black you may not live to tell about it.
another obviously right wing white officer in the south just got caught lying about shooting in the back a black man with no weapon......
again it was a traffic pull over and the officer lied that the dead man was tasering him the officer so he claimed it was self defense. you know how it is even with eye witnesses the policeman would have walked. but this video showed the officer was a lying sack of right wing hero material. He could have raised bank for his hate cause if not for one slight detail....
you would think after the recent ones like ferguson that he would not have been so blatent with his right wing execution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/09/meet-the-man-whose-video-led-to-murder-charge-against-south-carolina-cop/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1
| Quote: | Like on any other day, 23-year-old Feidin Santana, a Dominican immigrant to South Carolina, was walking to work on Saturday afternoon, talking on his cellphone. As he glanced over a chain-link fence that separated him from a scrubby patch of ground at the side of the road, something caught his attention. What he saw and heard — and what he did about it despite a deep-seated fear of the consequences — would soon shock the conscience of North Charleston and the nation.
And it would change him, perhaps forever. “My life … changed in a matter of seconds,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday.
Santana shot the video on Saturday that shows a white police officer firing his pistol at a fleeing, unarmed black man, Walter Scott. So powerful and troubling were the frames captured by Santana that North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers would later describe himself as “sickened” by what he had seen. The officer, Michael Slager, 33, was charged with murder. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Will someone explain to me how they think these bills are not discriminatory? Having successfully prevented abortion for an unwanted child, is the answer to leave the child in foster care?
| Quote: | TALLAHASSEE, Florida — The Florida House on Thursday approved $690 million in tax cuts and a bill allowing residents fleeing hurricanes to carry guns without a permit, but the bill attracting the most controversy allows private adoption agencies to reject gay couples if they have a religious or moral objection.
The vote for that measure (HB 7111) was 75-38, with most Democrats opposing the bill, calling it state-sponsored discrimination.
Representative David Richardson (D-Miami Beach), likened the measure to the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans in the 1960s, citing the sit-ins at the lunch counters of Greensboro, N.C., in 1960. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow, even with the video we have the right wing doing fund raisers for this cold blooded killer... shoot a unarmed black by a officer and you get money....
got to hand it to his attorney that quit after the video came out... he did the right thing in my book.
Who’s paying for Michael Slager’s heavy-hitting defense lawyer?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whos-paying-michael-slagers-heavy-hitting-defense-lawyer-0?cid=eml_mda_20150410
| Quote: | Michael Slager, the fired North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer accused of killing an unarmed black man after a traffic stop, looks likely to get a robust defense. But just who’s paying for it appears to be a closely guarded secret.
On Wednesday, Andy Savage, a prominent and high-powered Charleston defense lawyer, announced he’s representing Slager, who was charged with murder after video emerged showing him shooting Walter Scott eight times as Scott fled. Slager’s previous attorney, David Aylor, quit after the video became public. |
| Quote: | | A supporter of Darren Wilson, the one-time Ferguson, Missouri police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, reportedly raised over $500,000 online for Wilson’s defense. But Wilson became something of a cause celebre for conservatives, and there was no video of his encounter with Brown. A grand jury investigated the case and refused to indict Wilson for the killing. By contrast, even many conservatives have denounced Slager for firing into Scott’s back. |
Next over this incident I have to say I believe Rand Paul, who was scheduled before this and did end up in SC, his silence about this issue in light of how major it is shows he has no morals or character. Here he had the chance to chime in how aweful that video showed as an example but his silence tells us he does not care about america, he cares about haters and racists more than america.
| Quote: | Rand Paul avoids commenting on South Carolina shooting
As police dashcam video of the fatal shooting in South Carolina is released, Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul – speaking in South Carolina – decides not to weigh in on the incident. |
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/rand-paul-avoids-commenting-on-south-carolina-shooting-425924163890?cid=eml_mda_20150410
Doesn't this silence prove how the right wing caters to the racists and wants them in their party. Lets see if any right wingers or right wing media denounce and slam him for not speaking up about this shooting of an unarmed man being shot in the back over a traffic stop.
my gosh the media went wild loving that idiot law breaker in Nevada, for showing his guns against federal officers. . Note one of his followers went on and cold blooded killed two Nevada police officers in cold blood and there was no raising money for those dead officers families that I heard of. Yep half a million for killing a unarmed black teenager. But one of their own haters gone wild on police officers and no money for their families.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2296
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nail_Ponder wrote: | | No polygamy, and potentially deny someone their religious freedom? |
Action based on religious scruples is the subject of the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise clause operates theoretically as both a sword and shield, but usually is not actively raised unless as a defense to alleged government action against a person. In other words, First Amendment right exists as a supposition. One need not waive the Bill of Rights in order to preach on the sidewalk or lead a prayer. At least until the police try to stop you.
Free exercise law has evolved quite a bit over the last 200 years, but for the last 150 years (starting, oddly enough, on the subject of polygamy) has remained constant with respect to at least one thing: if the government wishes to punish you for your religious actions the law in question must have an elevated basis for doing so. When a law of general applicability is concerned, the degree of that elevated basis and what exactly qualifies as religiously motivated action or compulsion based on religious belief represents the bulk of free exercise litigation over the past century.
From 1963 until 1990, a law of general applicability such as one a law banning all travel on Sunday morning regardless of purpose or destination, would be strictly scrutinized, forcing the government to prove that the state held a compelling interest in the purpose of the law and that the law represented the least restrictive means possible to achieve that purpose. In the 1990 opinion of Employment Division vs. Smith, the strict scrutiny test was abandoned except in the case where an unintentionally discriminatory law also touched on an additional freedom, such as the parental right to direct a child's education or the freedom of speech (so-called hybrid cases.) It's worth mentioning the federal RFRA since many states are now misrepresenting the federal RFRA law as the verbatim model for states. The federal RFRA was passed with wide bipartisan support in response to the Smith travesty. RFRA codified the strict scrutiny standard but was ultimately overturned in part by the Supreme Court as a violation of separation of powers. The state RFRAs gaining notoriety, like the one recently passed in Indiana, all fail to include a requirement that the state show a [i]compelling/i] interest the law is designed to protect.
Polygamy laws are very old and common to every state. Those seeking to link anti-polygamy laws to a violation of the Free Exercise Clause can only do so under Smith and its progeny. A law of general applicability is used by the state to ban or punish behavior. For example, criminalizing polygamous relationships applies to everyone in the state and is not limited to Mormons. The polygamist may wish to use the Free Exercise Clause as a defense against the law's enforcement against him by government to prove the free exercise clause did not apply. However in most cases applying the federal constitutional law as the minimum protection since Smith, the government need merely show that the sole right alleged to have been violated was that of free exercise and not a hybrid case and, therefore, the law merely must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
One may feel that the First Amendment should protect polygamy, but it does not absent an additional right violated by a law challenged. It's therefore wrong to name polygamy as an inevitable result of banning gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage, for example, does not bring us one step closer to polygamy or any other item on some laundry list of horribles simply because the federal constitution cannot by used by polygamists, necrophiliacs etc. as a defense to laws outlawing the practice. Irony of all ironies, we can thank Antonin Scalia for destroying the free exercise clause.
_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2296
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | uwindsurf wrote: | Commerce should be non-discriminatory and entirely neutral to gender, race, national origin and sexual identification. If Christian bakers don't want to engage in non-discriminatory commerce with the general population, they should restrict their commercial activity to Church bake sales where they are free to exercise their discrimination to whatever extent they feel is demanded by their religion.
As a side note, I wonder how many Christians business owners who want the right to discriminate against the LGBT population have the same discriminatory zeal when it comes to customers who have committed adultery or been divorced? Both are considered to be sins under the Bible. |
That doesn't matter, because now the government will be forcing people at the barrel of the gun to do what they say is fair, with regard to wedding cakes. I'm sure there are some gay bakers who would draw the line at obscenity and Christian bakers who would not. Of course now we know that according to the Supreme Court obscenity is a pretty loose concept.
The premise of Christianity is that we all sin. Forcing this down our throats takes away our freedom of discretion not freedom to be gay or commit adultery . |
"Forcing this down our throats takes away our freedom of discretion not freedom to be gay or commit adultery."
You did not say anything new or even responsive.
Again, the Free Exercise Clause cannot be used to invalidate a law of general applicability without another Constitutional right also implicated. A law banning businesses from refusing to serve or sell to a group of people based on the owner's or employee's religious beliefs about that group does not in any way prevent the business owner or employee from acting out his religious scruples or believing a certain thing. Stating that the government is forcing "this" [doing business with particular groups of people] down our throats does not elevate it to a question of religious freedom because even a law that bans discrimination based on the preferred gender of another's partner is a law of general applicability.
Of course, those making such a claim would have a valid point if a law targeted a particular religion. For example, a law that criminalized only Jewish delis from serving food on Sunday would not be a law of general applicability and, therefore, would facially violate the Free Exercise Clause. A law banning the sale of food by anyone on Sunday would not for the same reason laws banning discrimination by race ("forcing" people to serve a group -even if one's religion dictates against it) do not.
The argument that a baker's right to Free Exercise is violated because she must serve all customers or none (for the most part in the present context) is just as absurd as an ultra-Orthodox refusing to allow women to shop at his hardware store than claiming he's only exercising the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. One is not permitted to open a business to the public, if part of the business model is refusing to engage in business with a class or group of people protected by anti discrimination or other laws -even if the motivation for discrimination is religiously compelled.
_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For those not familiar with the history of America and the separation of church and state--Nail pounder and mrgybe--it might be educational to read some of the statements of the founding fathers:
1. “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
2. “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
3. “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
9. “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's look at the actual facts on actual court cases. Case 1, a Washington State florist--who had been happy to take orders from flowers from the plaintiff 20 times--refused for his wedding. Ingersoll v. Alrene's Flowers and State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers. Ingersoll won--and asked for just $7.91 to cover the cost of driving to another florist. The case is from Richland Washington, whnere I was born and Mike Fick now lives.
The second case is in Lakewood, Colorado, and involves Masterpiece Cakeshop. the Colorado Civil Rights Commissino found that the owner, Jack Phillips, had violated Lakewood's non-discrimination law. The case is pending. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8700
Zappa gets it right, 1986: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLDzDklTRU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
