Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More Liberal Fascism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Precedent ISN'T law - it's an established way to interpret law. Many test cases are brought in hopes of establishing a precedent even if they don't result in a particular outcome (although they usually are one in the same they aren't always). Having no precedent is not a valid argument against a movement to establish one.
    Yeah...every precedent was unprecedented at one time or another, right?
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #17
      A small win against the thought police:

      http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/J...ach-on-Campus/


      A student at Thomas Nelson Community College recently claimed victory after winning a freedom of speech fight against his college. Christian Parks sued the college system after campus police ordered him to stop preaching in a school courtyard. The Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based Christian legal ministry who represented Parks, argued his free speech rights were violated.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        Yeah...every precedent was unprecedented at one time or another, right?
        Pretty much.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #19
          They even turn on their own. This hypersensitivity is ludicrous.

          http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...obic-slur.html

          CHICAGO - LGBTQ students at the University of Chicago are circulating a petition objecting to slurs gay rights activist Dan Savage used during a exchange at the school's Institute of Politics event last week. They said they were made to "feel uncomfortable" by a "transphobic slur" used during Savage's presentation.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            Is it that play fast and loose with the word or is it that you don't like who they use it against?
            It's little more than name calling that is about bring silence upon your opposition and attempting to ensure that nobody would listen to a word they say because they are 'bigots' and therefore can't be trusted. The goal of many of them is to use the force of law to make others agree with them or else. Does that sound very much like what the US you want to exist? One that uses the force of law to make others agree with them?
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • #21
              More Liberal Fascism?

              This is one of the most impressive articles I have ever read, written by a gay college professor:
              Life on GLAAD's Blacklist

              By Robert Oscar Lopez

              Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me. Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.

              Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and foolish. We knew this. But some conservatives who should know better are truly pathetic. A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say that Phil Robertson should have been suspended. Pusillanimous obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.

              A bunch of people on the left (see here and here) called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did. Yet a bunch of people on the right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about homosexuality.

              In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.

              Read the rest of the article here.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                This is one of the most impressive articles I have ever read, written by a gay college professor:
                Life on GLAAD's Blacklist

                By Robert Oscar Lopez

                Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me. Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.

                Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and foolish. We knew this. But some conservatives who should know better are truly pathetic. A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say that Phil Robertson should have been suspended. Pusillanimous obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.

                A bunch of people on the left (see here and here) called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did. Yet a bunch of people on the right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about homosexuality.

                In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.

                Read the rest of the article here.
                Chilling, reading his whole article it is no hyperbole to suggest that Joe McCarthy would have been proud of GLAAD's tactics. They are truly evil.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Chilling, reading his whole article it is no hyperbole to suggest that Joe McCarthy would have been proud of GLAAD's tactics. They are truly evil.
                  Don't smear the good name of Joe McCarthy by association with these deviants, since his accusations were basically correct.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                    Don't smear the good name of Joe McCarthy by association with these deviants, since his accusations were basically correct.

                    His tactics were questionable, there certainly were commies running around everywhere.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Using the same anti discrimination laws, and people behind them, that would punish a simple baker for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Take the case in my OP, there were plenty of other bakeries in the same area who would have made the cake - why not just go to one of them? No, these spiteful people want anyone who disagrees with them to pay, to be hurt. It is that mindset that will not live with churches that refuse service to them.
                      The legal precedence there, justified or not, is the allowance for business regulation and the equal protection clause. I don't see how either of those apply to churches.

                      Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                      As to your first question, I don't really have a good answer other than to reiterate what seer said.

                      Taking the example of the wedding cake: you argued (if I remember correctly) that the baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay couple. In what way would that argument not apply to a church officiating a wedding?

                      As to your second question, I'm surprised that people seem to think such a thing is so unthinkable. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all to me.
                      A church isn't a business. I don't know of anyone who wants to force churches to perform gay weddings. I wouldn't want to force a church to perform an atheist wedding.

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Legal precedence does not seem to be very important in today's United States.
                      That's true, but then all possible bad laws should be of equal potential of passing.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Who needs legal precedent when you can simply create one through activist courts? You don't think this is happening elsewhere?

                      Source: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#axzz33mM9ZRzB


                      DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html



                      The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.
                      Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".
                      "I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."
                      Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      And in the good ol' US of A, the inroads are being laid:

                      Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/


                      Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

                      A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      With the UK and Denmark, their government has ties to specific churches (the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, respectively). We do not have such a relationship. In the New Jersey case, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association said that their venue was open to public use on an equal basis in order to get property tax exemption. So they lied to the government.

                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Precedent ISN'T law - it's an established way to interpret law. Many test cases are brought in hopes of establishing a precedent even if they don't result in a particular outcome (although they usually are one in the same they aren't always). Having no precedent is not a valid argument against a movement to establish one.
                      It seems strange that people would be worried about laws being passed and standing up to judicial scrutiny that are in complete opposition to legal precedence and current understanding of the law.

                      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      It's little more than name calling that is about bring silence upon your opposition and attempting to ensure that nobody would listen to a word they say because they are 'bigots' and therefore can't be trusted. The goal of many of them is to use the force of law to make others agree with them or else. Does that sound very much like what the US you want to exist? One that uses the force of law to make others agree with them?
                      How do you know this is the case instead of people calling out actual bigots? I want a US where the law is used to improve the human condition.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                        With the UK and Denmark, their government has ties to specific churches (the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, respectively). We do not have such a relationship.
                        Since when has that stopped judges from citing European legal decisions?

                        Source: speech given by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor



                        “I suspect that with time we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues,” Justice O’Connor said. “Doing so may not only enrich our own country’s decisions; it will create that all-important good impression. When U.S. courts are seen to be cognizant of other judicial systems, our ability to act as a rule-of-law model for other nations will be enhanced.”

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        In Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and the Criminal Justice Act from the United Kingdom. In Lawrence v. Texas, he cited three decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

                        So, please don't be so naive as to think that it isn't already being applied here. All it takes is one case to make it to the SCOTUS, and they can apply their prior precedent of using foreign laws and decisions.

                        In the New Jersey case, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association said that their venue was open to public use on an equal basis in order to get property tax exemption. So they lied to the government.
                        No they did not. The general public has never been granted unfettered right to use the pavilion in any way it chooses, including reserve it for an exclusive use such as a wedding or a civil union ceremony. All events scheduled at the pavilion were required to be open to the public. Now, they don't allow it to be used at all by non-members. And the other 99% of the property was re-granted their long standing tax exempt status. The point remains that precedent is being set that will continue the disturbing trend of forcing religious organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs in order to maintain their right to conduct business as a 501c.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                          The legal precedence there, justified or not, is the allowance for business regulation and the equal protection clause. I don't see how either of those apply to churches.
                          Except Churches are in large part public institutions. Legally like Bill said, the change could happen tomorrow. The bigger point is the mind set of the left like in the case with the baker. These people are mean, and will try and harm anyone who doesn't agree with them.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            ...

                            It seems strange that people would be worried about laws being passed and standing up to judicial scrutiny that are in complete opposition to legal precedence and current understanding of the law.

                            ...

                            Are you kidding? Legislatures overturn precedence all the danged time - so long as the matter doesn't require Constitutional amendment (or even if it does if you're talking about Alabama ) a legislature (state or Congress) can simply pass a new law that addresses the matter of precedent - and they do. Precedent does NOT dictate to legislatures - heck, even Constitutional matters can be overturned (via amendment) if the legislature in question has the will to do so (or, in the Federal case, the will to start the process).
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                              How do you know this is the case instead of people calling out actual bigots? I want a US where the law is used to improve the human condition.
                              Because I've watched it for myself and I pay close attention to what goes on. The article that John Reece linked to is an excellent example of the bullying tactics of those who dare to disagree with the movement in any way, shape, or form and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Gay/Liberal Fascism

                                I just read an interview with Dr. Ben Carson, the world renowned pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, who said that it was a group of gay activists that intimidated the university administration into not following through on a promise to arrange a meeting between Carson and a student group to seek a resolution of a threat to disrupt the graduation ceremony at which Carson had already been invited to speak.

                                Carson therefore withdrew, so the students at his own university were deprived of hearing the inspiring message he no doubt would have delivered.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X