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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    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.
    The only reason those cases happened in the UK and Denmark was because of a state religion. We do not have a state religion, so I don't see why anything like them would happen here. In Roper v. Simmons, Kennedy was arguing that execution of a child counts as cruel and unusual and was using a national and international consensus as part of his proof, so it was a case of arguing for an interpretation. He was not arguing that other country's laws are applicable to US court cases.

    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.
    In the judge's ruling he says they applied for tax exemption in 1989 through a program that requires property to be "open for public use on an equal basis". At a public hearing, they said they would follow this part of the program. They've renewed this exemption through to today. Why are you speaking as if you knew the case well if you didn't even read the judge's ruling and want to contradict these basic facts?

    I worry about the government interfering with religion, dare I say, more than you do. As an atheist, I am ripe for discrimination. I need to care about separation of church and state in order to not be marginalized. I just don't see any reason to think the government would settle on going against free exercise. Could it be that you want to see reasons?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    They aren't businesses though. Are you aware of any US law under which a church would qualify as a public accommodation? I wouldn't qualify not allowing businesses to discriminate against protected classes harm. Harm would be if businesses decided not to let a minority enter their establishment, like with segregation.

    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    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).
    If your argument is that any law can be passed so we should still worry about it, you would need to show why this law in particular has a higher likelihood and we should therefore be particularly worried about it.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    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.
    How do you know Robert Oscar Lopez isn't a bigot?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

      They aren't businesses though. Are you aware of any US law under which a church would qualify as a public accommodation? I wouldn't qualify not allowing businesses to discriminate against protected classes harm. Harm would be if businesses decided not to let a minority enter their establishment, like with segregation.
      Well first this is what is generally wrong with anti-discrimination laws. Second, in the two recent cases with bakers they never prevented gays from coming into their shop and buying anything that they had on the shelf. They just didn't want to be a part of a gay marriage by making their cake. And why would the government go after the churches, look what they are doing with the Affordable Care Act. And again, the gay couples in question could have just found another bakery - but no, they have to bring it to the law.
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Well first this is what is generally wrong with anti-discrimination laws.
        What are you referring to?

        Second, in the two recent cases with bakers they never prevented gays from coming into their shop and buying anything that they had on the shelf. They just didn't want to be a part of a gay marriage by making their cake. And why would the government go after the churches, look what they are doing with the Affordable Care Act. And again, the gay couples in question could have just found another bakery - but no, they have to bring it to the law.
        I think you're splitting hairs when it comes to the degree to which the gay couple was discriminated against. What are you referring to when you talk about the ACA? Do you think people should ignore discrimination? How is that different from permission?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          How do you know Robert Oscar Lopez isn't a bigot?
          That's right because he obviously hates himself. Did you actually READ the article PM or am I right and others are guilty until proven innocent?
          "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


          • #35
            Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
            That's right because he obviously hates himself. Did you actually READ the article PM or am I right and others are guilty until proven innocent?
            You didn't answer my question. I'd prefer we all be straight shooters here.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
              If your argument is that any law can be passed so we should still worry about it, you would need to show why this law in particular has a higher likelihood and we should therefore be particularly worried about it.
              ...
              First, that wasn't the argument and second, no, I don't. laws are usually changed after multiple submissions - it's therefore best to address onerous bills in their infancy rather than once they've gained momentum.
              "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


              • #37
                Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                You didn't answer my question. I'd prefer we all be straight shooters here.
                Sorry PM, but answering a question in a way you do not like doesn't make the answer magically disappear into a puff of smoke. Do you have any evidence he is a bigot or is he guilty till proven innocent? Also, why would he hate gays? Did you even READ the article in question or did you just ask this silly question because you are stalling?
                "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


                • #38
                  Lets test this court ruling

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  How long before they try and force churches to officiate Gay Marriages?

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5438726.html

                  I have a idea to test this court ruling. Lets find a sign shop owned and operated by homosexuals/lesbians and ask them to print up a bunch of anti-homosexual marriage posters to be put up all over town and see if they comply. And if they do not, we can watch the legal fireworks fly

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    First, that wasn't the argument and second, no, I don't. laws are usually changed after multiple submissions - it's therefore best to address onerous bills in their infancy rather than once they've gained momentum.
                    You were saying that one can't determine if a law will pass and be found Constitutional by the courts based on precedence and current laws. If that is the case then any unConstituional law can be passed and I don't see why anyone's focus should be on an arbitrarily chosen hypothetical law. I have not seen any indication that a law or judicial opinion forcing churches to marry gay people is being considered, is at all possible of surviving judicial scrutiny, or has legal or judicial precedence. What bill in its infancy would result in forcing churches to marry gay people?

                    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    Sorry PM, but answering a question in a way you do not like doesn't make the answer magically disappear into a puff of smoke. Do you have any evidence he is a bigot or is he guilty till proven innocent? Also, why would he hate gays? Did you even READ the article in question or did you just ask this silly question because you are stalling?
                    You really think people can't show bigotry against a group to which they belong? That makes no sense. Have you read the GLAAD page that says he's a bigot? If not, you have a biased opinion. You are taking someone's side by their word alone. Why do you want people who denigrate gays to be correct?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                      You really think people can't show bigotry against a group to which they belong? That makes no sense. Have you read the GLAAD page that says he's a bigot? If not, you have a biased opinion. You are taking someone's side by their word alone. Why do you want people who denigrate gays to be correct?
                      So what evidence do you have that he is or is your argument that he is because you said so and it is up to him to provide piles of evidence that he isn't? Guilty till proven innocent is the way your mentality works? Funny, I tend to believe the burden of proof rest upon the accuser first and foremost to provide the evidence, so where is it?
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                        You were saying that one can't determine if a law will pass and be found Constitutional by the courts based on precedence and current laws. If that is the case then any unConstituional law can be passed and I don't see why anyone's focus should be on an arbitrarily chosen hypothetical law. I have not seen any indication that a law or judicial opinion forcing churches to marry gay people is being considered, is at all possible of surviving judicial scrutiny, or has legal or judicial precedence. What bill in its infancy would result in forcing churches to marry gay people?
                        ...
                        I said nothing of the sort - I said precedence does not dictate to legislation unless the matter is constitutional and even that can be overridden legislatively by amendment. It's nonsensical to object that 'there's no precedent' when you're talking about a changing field of law - which was your objection.
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          So what evidence do you have that he is or is your argument that he is because you said so and it is up to him to provide piles of evidence that he isn't? Guilty till proven innocent is the way your mentality works? Funny, I tend to believe the burden of proof rest upon the accuser first and foremost to provide the evidence, so where is it?
                          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                          Have you read the GLAAD page that says he's a bigot?
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          I said nothing of the sort - I said precedence does not dictate to legislation unless the matter is constitutional and even that can be overridden legislatively by amendment. It's nonsensical to object that 'there's no precedent' when you're talking about a changing field of law - which was your objection.
                          If we are discussing an interpretation of the law where judges claim that churches not officiating gay weddings constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, then precedent is important. If we are discussing a new law that violates the Constitution, then precedent is important. If your fear is that judges are going to radically alter how religious freedom and the equal protection clause have interacted ever since the country's founding, then either you don't know much about the members of the Supreme Court or you might as well consider all unConstitional rulings equally possible, since there is no evidence that this new interpretation is imminent. If we are discussing an amendment to the Constitution, then we can rest assured, because that's not going to happen any time soon.

                          I've evidently had trouble understanding your position, so if you feel I'm still in error or speaking to a straw man, then I ask that we return to my original statement that you responded to and you provide evidence that the concern that churches will be forced to officiate a wedding they disagree with is reasonable.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            If we are discussing an interpretation of the law where judges claim that churches not officiating gay weddings constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, then precedent is important. If we are discussing a new law that violates the Constitution, then precedent is important. If your fear is that judges are going to radically alter how religious freedom and the equal protection clause have interacted ever since the country's founding, then either you don't know much about the members of the Supreme Court or you might as well consider all unConstitional rulings equally possible, since there is no evidence that this new interpretation is imminent. If we are discussing an amendment to the Constitution, then we can rest assured, because that's not going to happen any time soon.

                            I've evidently had trouble understanding your position, so if you feel I'm still in error or speaking to a straw man, then I ask that we return to my original statement that you responded to and you provide evidence that the concern that churches will be forced to officiate a wedding they disagree with is reasonable.
                            Why did you pull Lil's comments? They had little to do with mine (other than being on the same topic, nothing really).
                            "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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Why did you pull Lil's comments? They had little to do with mine (other than being on the same topic, nothing really).
                              I quoted myself as my response to her.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                                What are you referring to?
                                Generally I don't think the government has any Constitutional right to tell a business who they have to serve or hire. Or a Home owner who they have to rent to etc... This is antithetical to the founding principle of freedom of association.


                                I think you're splitting hairs when it comes to the degree to which the gay couple was discriminated against. What are you referring to when you talk about the ACA? Do you think people should ignore discrimination? How is that different from permission?
                                First, as far as the ACA, just look at the case with the Little Sisters of the Poor, or what is going on with the Catholic Church / Catholic Institutions and providing birth control. And no I'm not splitting hairs, that gay couple was not denied a wedding cake, they easily found a different baker. Like I said, they we mean - they just wanted to hurt this guy.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                174 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                411 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